As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Voco_proTatiano]

All four submarines involved escaped. Hartenstein’s actions were most commendable, as was Donitz’ reaction, in originally supporting him, in possible violation of his’ own 1939 order on not taking survivors on board U boats. Raeder countermanded Donitz’ support of Hartenstein’s ongoing actions, and Hartenstein had to cover up what he was actually doing, in attempting to include non-Italian POWs in the rescue.

U156 was sunk 6 months later on its next patrol. What consequences did Hartenstein face, other than being the cause of the “Laconia Order”? He did receive the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, announced 5 days after the sinking.

It was Nimitz’ testimony at Nuremberg that the US had followed a roughly similar policy that blunted that particular point against Donitz, but he was convicted and sentenced anyway.

The Red Cross flags displayed are regularly mentioned in accounts of the incident, but I doubt the white flag.

GKC

True, the White flags were my interpretation, but the guns were covered, which is a similar indication of non offenseiveness.

 

[oldbrit2009]

Fine. You have now established the principle that, under certain circumstances (just war, evil-enemy nation, etc.), it is morally acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose – as, for example, the unborn children in those cities – which were deliberately targeted by the allies. You just ask that we also do nice things (spare the emperor’s palace, etc.).

I’m asking two things:

(1) Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose in order to achieve a greater good (after all, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that we can never do evil to achieve a greater good); and
(2) Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re right, explain what other circumstances allow us to kill innocent people. Can we abort babies that will probably die anyway? Can we nuke entire Islamic countries to reduce terrorism? Can we spread aerosolized uranium through enemy countries to reduce (or end) their birth rates?

Godfollower,
Your self-righteous posturing is shown up for what it is with your question, “Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose”. Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima.
A lot of judging has taken place in this discussion. To judge the actions, made in the heat of battle, decades later is not only unfair, it is immoral.
I’m sure the unborn and little children were killed in the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That wasn’t the intention of the attacks. The deaths of innocent human beings is an ineviable consequence of other human beings evil actions.
In the situation of all out war that existed in WW2, it is inevitable that innocent lives will be lost. The responsibilty for such deaths lay squarely with the agressors. Britain and America didn’t want war with Japan and Germany, they didn’t start the war. Germany and Japan embarked on wars motivated by a lust for power. To launch such evil on the world has consequences.
Some opinions expressed on here shows how ignorant many are of history. Some have said it was just to send a warning to Russia. I agree that the message it would send to Russia wasn’t lost on Truman and Churchill, because Russia was beginning to assert its evil designs in Europe and in the Far East region.
The over riding reason for the use of the weapons was to shorten the war. Can you imagine what it would have taken to mount a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. How long did it take to prepare for D Day, three years and that was for a force a third of the size that would have been requred to invade Japan.
I have always thought that by using nuclear weapons the war with Japan was shortened by at least two years, possibly three, with the resultant saving of hundreds of thousands of lives both of the Allies and Japanese.
The Japanese would have fought like maniacs. Every house, every school, every factory would have been turned into a fortress. They would have fought to the death, each one of them, in the same way that Japanese forces fought to the death when American troops retook the islands Japan had occupied. In one of the battles for an island, out of Japanese force of over 5,000 men they only managed to take 20 prisoners. Imagine what would have happened with a country of 60 million.
You sometimes have to make difficult choices in war time. This is what sets great statesmen apart from the rest of us. Just thank God that Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill were around when they were and saved Western democracy.

 

[GKC]

Godfollower,
Your self-righteous posturing is shown up for what it is with your question, “Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose”. Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima.
A lot of judging has taken place in this discussion. To judge the actions, made in the heat of battle, decades later is not only unfair, it is immoral.
I’m sure the unborn and little children were killed in the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That wasn’t the intention of the attacks. The deaths of innocent human beings is an ineviable consequence of other human beings evil actions.
In the situation of all out war that existed in WW2, it is inevitable that innocent lives will be lost. The responsibilty for such deaths lay squarely with the agressors. Britain and America didn’t want war with Japan and Germany, they didn’t start the war. Germany and Japan embarked on wars motivated by a lust for power. To launch such evil on the world has consequences.
Some opinions expressed on here shows how ignorant many are of history. Some have said it was just to send a warning to Russia. I agree that the message it would send to Russia wasn’t lost on Truman and Churchill, because Russia was beginning to assert its evil designs in Europe and in the Far East region.
The over riding reason for the use of the weapons was to shorten the war. Can you imagine what it would have taken to mount a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. How long did it take to prepare for D Day, three years and that was for a force a third of the size that would have been requred to invade Japan.
I have always thought that by using nuclear weapons the war with Japan was shortened by at least two years, possibly three, with the resultant saving of hundreds of thousands of lives both of the Allies and Japanese.
The Japanese would have fought like maniacs. Every house, every school, every factory would have been turned into a fortress. They would have fought to the death, each one of them, in the same way that Japanese forces fought to the death when American troops retook the islands Japan had occupied. In one of the battles for an island, out of Japanese force of over 5,000 men they only managed to take 20 prisoners. Imagine what would have happened with a country of 60 million.
You sometimes have to make difficult choices in war time. This is what sets great statesmen apart from the rest of us. Just thank God that Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill were around when they were and saved Western democracy.

Historical, this is mostly accurate. The likely time the war might have lasted, had any other means been taken to pursue it, is an open question. But it is not an open question that any other method of ending it (save that of our surrendering to them) would have cost more lives than the two bombs.

Most attempts to attack the use of bombs are characterized by a general lack of historical knowledge, as to what was going on, usually shown in a reductionist answer as to why the bombs were used, and a parochial view as to what was was going on in the entire PTO. As I have posted many times, either Operation Downfall, with the blood bath that would result from the Ketsu-Go plan of defense, or the increased, continued conventional bombing of the Home Islands, aimed primarily, but not exclusively, at transportation systems, to cause massive starvation, would have caused more casualties than the bombs. I’ve given the plans and numbers many times before, with references. It’s like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

Historical, this is mostly accurate. The likely time the war might have lasted, had any other means been taken to pursue it, is an open question. But it is not an open question that any other method of ending it (save that of our surrendering to them) would have cost more lives than the two bombs.

Most attempts to attack the use of bombs are characterized by a general lack of historical knowledge, as to what was going on, usually shown in a reductionist answer as to why the bombs were used, and a parochial view as to what was was going on in the entire PTO. As I have posted many times, either Operation Downfall, with the blood bath that would result from the Ketsu-Go plan of defense, or the increased, continued conventional bombing of the Home Islands, aimed primarily, but not exclusively, at transportation systems, to cause massive starvation, would have caused more casualties than the bombs. I’ve given the plans and numbers many times before, with references. It’s like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.

GKC

Despite just quoting this, which I agree with, I also agree with oldbrit2009.

GKC,

Not even 20 minutes of Google produces the same conclusion when it is actually understood what the reality of the situation was: war.

If someone refuses to understand what war means, they won’t understand the conduct of that war as a means to win.

I’ll respond in my own way later on to Godfollower, since he was addressing my post as well, but GKC and others have already done an outstanding job of presenting the information in the proper light.

If people want war to end, it ain’t ending until Christ’s return. If people would understand that, they’d understand that if you want peace, prepare for war- the kicker is making the suits understand that such a decision must be made with the mindset that it could come down to them fighting in said war once kick off is a memory and it’s down to the 4th quarter.

If we find ourselves forced into a war, we should finish that war as quickly as possible. To do otherwise, in this case not to use the nukes, would have been in direct contrast to the entire moral argument which the Just War theory is built upon.

Of course, that is not easily stomached or even understood by people.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Godfollower,
Your self-righteous posturing is shown up for what it is with your question, “Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose”. Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima.
A lot of judging has taken place in this discussion. To judge the actions, made in the heat of battle, decades later is not only unfair, it is immoral.
I’m sure the unborn and little children were killed in the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That wasn’t the intention of the attacks. The deaths of innocent human beings is an ineviable consequence of other human beings evil actions.
In the situation of all out war that existed in WW2, it is inevitable that innocent lives will be lost. The responsibilty for such deaths lay squarely with the agressors. Britain and America didn’t want war with Japan and Germany, they didn’t start the war. Germany and Japan embarked on wars motivated by a lust for power. To launch such evil on the world has consequences.
Some opinions expressed on here shows how ignorant many are of history. Some have said it was just to send a warning to Russia. I agree that the message it would send to Russia wasn’t lost on Truman and Churchill, because Russia was beginning to assert its evil designs in Europe and in the Far East region.
The over riding reason for the use of the weapons was to shorten the war. Can you imagine what it would have taken to mount a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. How long did it take to prepare for D Day, three years and that was for a force a third of the size that would have been requred to invade Japan.
I have always thought that by using nuclear weapons the war with Japan was shortened by at least two years, possibly three, with the resultant saving of hundreds of thousands of lives both of the Allies and Japanese.
The Japanese would have fought like maniacs. Every house, every school, every factory would have been turned into a fortress. They would have fought to the death, each one of them, in the same way that Japanese forces fought to the death when American troops retook the islands Japan had occupied. In one of the battles for an island, out of Japanese force of over 5,000 men they only managed to take 20 prisoners. Imagine what would have happened with a country of 60 million.
You sometimes have to make difficult choices in war time. This is what sets great statesmen apart from the rest of us. Just thank God that Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill were around when they were and saved Western democracy.

As for “collateral damage”; As I understand the Church’s position, it is not just an offense to delibertely cause it, but further, it is an offence to allow it to happen by default.
A little bit like murder and manslaughter.
Both are crimes, but the latter is not the deliberate aim, but the accidental occurrance caused by inadequate avoidance procedure.
At the very least, a leaflet drop could have warned that evacuation might be wise.
Actually, leafletting alone could achieve much.
There was never any need for 2 bombs: one alone was more than adequate for demonstration of ability.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower,
Your self-righteous posturing is shown up for what it is with your question, “Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose”. Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima.
A lot of judging has taken place in this discussion. To judge the actions, made in the heat of battle, decades later is not only unfair, it is immoral.
I’m sure the unborn and little children were killed in the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That wasn’t the intention of the attacks. The deaths of innocent human beings is an ineviable consequence of other human beings evil actions.
In the situation of all out war that existed in WW2, it is inevitable that innocent lives will be lost. The responsibilty for such deaths lay squarely with the agressors. Britain and America didn’t want war with Japan and Germany, they didn’t start the war. Germany and Japan embarked on wars motivated by a lust for power. To launch such evil on the world has consequences.
Some opinions expressed on here shows how ignorant many are of history. Some have said it was just to send a warning to Russia. I agree that the message it would send to Russia wasn’t lost on Truman and Churchill, because Russia was beginning to assert its evil designs in Europe and in the Far East region.
The over riding reason for the use of the weapons was to shorten the war. Can you imagine what it would have taken to mount a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. How long did it take to prepare for D Day, three years and that was for a force a third of the size that would have been requred to invade Japan.
I have always thought that by using nuclear weapons the war with Japan was shortened by at least two years, possibly three, with the resultant saving of hundreds of thousands of lives both of the Allies and Japanese.
The Japanese would have fought like maniacs. Every house, every school, every factory would have been turned into a fortress. They would have fought to the death, each one of them, in the same way that Japanese forces fought to the death when American troops retook the islands Japan had occupied. In one of the battles for an island, out of Japanese force of over 5,000 men they only managed to take 20 prisoners. Imagine what would have happened with a country of 60 million.
You sometimes have to make difficult choices in war time. This is what sets great statesmen apart from the rest of us. Just thank God that Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill were around when they were and saved Western democracy.

Of course you have to make difficult decisions in wartime. That’s part of Catholic theology on just war principles. But just because you have to make difficult decisions doesn’t mean you get to make immoral ones.

Your argument that “Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima” is simply wrong. We specifically attacked urban centers containing civilian inhabitants, knowing that there would be widespread casualties. That means we deliberately killed civilians. And, since some of them were under the age of reason, that means that we deliberately killed innocent civilians.

And the Catholic Church teaches that deliberately killing innocent civilians is a mortal sin.

Suppose an al-Quaeda group takes a bunch of hostages in a bank. Now, if a police sniper aims at one of the terrorists but hits a hostage by mistake, that’s not a sin, because it’s unintended (assuming the sniper wasn’t reckless under the circumstances). Similarly, if the police make an informed decision to storm the bank, knowing that some hostages might die, that’s also not sinful, because the unfortunate civilian deaths are an unintended second effect of the justified decision to storm the bank (I’m assuming justification for the SWAT assault, of course, such as hearing gunfire inside).

But: Can we launch an RPG into the bank to take out the terrorists, or set the building on fire, or just bulldoze the building, killing everyone, before they get away? No – because we can’t deliberately kill the innocent civilians inside.

And that’s the rough equivalent of dropping a WMD on an occupied city during a just war.

This blase attitude that “Hey, it’s war; war is hell; we get to kill whoever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want, however we want” is simply incompatible with two millennia of Catholic theology.

I agree with you that the aggressors are responsible for the deaths of innocents killed in an unjust war. BUT: does that mean that the defending army can commit rape? Kill prisoners of war? Torture prisoners? Aim missiles at occupied hospitals? Shoot civilians?

Of course not; there are moral rules that govern war. Even total war.

Honestly, it seems strange to me to hear a Catholic arguing that murder is “a difficult but justifiable choice.” That’s Planned Parenthood language, straight out of the Democratic Party platform.

It is most emphatically not Catholic theology.

Yes, you have to make difficult choices in wartime. Boo hoo. Make them. But make sure you choose the moral difficult choice.

 

[oldbrit2009]

As for “collateral damage”; As I understand the Church’s position, it is not just an offense to delibertely cause it, but further, it is an offence to allow it to happen by default.
A little bit like murder and manslaughter.
Both are crimes, but the latter is not the deliberate aim, but the accidental occurrance caused by inadequate avoidance procedure.
At the very least, a leaflet drop could have warned that evacuation might be wise.
Actually, leafletting alone could achieve much.
There was never any need for 2 bombs: one alone was more than adequate for demonstration of ability.

Dave,
Like so many on here, you use that most incisive of human abilities, hindsight.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dave,
Like so many on here, you use that most incisive of human abilities, hindsight.

Yes, and hindsight is much devalued.
It gives us the ability to avoid repeating mistakes.
Careful use of hindsight can improve foresight.

Remember, your ememy’s account of history is probably more important than your own, as it give a warning on how he thinks and feels.
In many cases it can be more truthful, for our beloved politicians are born liars.
The last truthful politician got nailed to a tree 2000 years ago.

 

[oldbrit2009]

Your argument that “Innocent people were not killed on purpose in the attack on Hiroshima” is simply wrong. We specifically attacked urban centers containing civilian inhabitants, knowing that there would be widespread casualties. That means we deliberately killed civilians. And, since some of them were under the age of reason, that means that we deliberately killed innocent civilians.

Godfollower,
Excuse me for daring to correct you but you are most definately wrong to claim that the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima diliberately to kill innocent people. All you demonstate is a total lack of knowledge of the history of the Second World War. I would suggest you read a reliable history, for example, Winston Churchill’s The Second World War.

 

[GKC]

As for “collateral damage”; As I understand the Church’s position, it is not just an offense to delibertely cause it, but further, it is an offence to allow it to happen by default.
A little bit like murder and manslaughter.
Both are crimes, but the latter is not the deliberate aim, but the accidental occurrance caused by inadequate avoidance procedure.
At the very least, a leaflet drop could have warned that evacuation might be wise.
Actually, leafletting alone could achieve much.
There was never any need for 2 bombs: one alone was more than adequate for demonstration of ability.

Leaflets were dropped, over a number of cities (around 30), including the target cities, the week prior to the first bomb, counseling the inhabitants evacuate immediately. Radio messages were broadcast from Saipan with the same warning. After the Hiroshima bomb, more leaflets were dropped, warning that more such weapons would follow.

As to a demonstration, reflect that we did demonstrate the bomb. About 1890 feet above, and 800 off the Aioi Bridge, at the juncture of the Ota and the Motoyasu Rivers. It quite adequately demonstrated what the bomb would do. The Japanese did not surrender. The effect of the 2nd bomb, occurring during the first gozen kaigan on 9 Aug, led to the meeting of the full cabinet, and the 2nd gozen kaigan on 9-10 Aug, at which, in a prearranged move on the part of the Togo faction, over the Animi faction, the Emperor directed the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and surrender.

A number of references can be cited, on warnings, demonstrations, or the effects of the two bombs on the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigo. I limit it to Newman/ TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, chaps 4 & 5, and Smith and McConnell/ THE LAST MISSION, chaps. 5, 6, and 7, passim. And, of course, the indispensable Frank/DOWNFALL.

GKC

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower,
Excuse me for daring to correct you but you are most definately wrong to claim that the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima diliberately to kill innocent people. All you demonstate is a total lack of knowledge of the history of the Second World War. I would suggest you read a reliable history, for example, Winston Churchill’s The Second World War.

Hey, if we were aiming at a purely military target (the Kure Naval Arsenal, perhaps?) and the bomb accidentally went astray into a city containing civilians, then that’s totally different.

But that isn’t what happened. So let’s review:

• When we created the target criteria, we specifically said it had to be large urban areas of at least three miles diameter.
• “Urban areas” means “cities.” It specifically meant “cities” in this context. We chose to drop the bombs on cities.
• Cities contain many civilians. We specifically knew we were targeting cities containing civilians. We chose to obliterate vast areas of inhabited cities with civilians in them.
• Among the civilians were civilians incapable of forming the intent to attack anyone (small children, incompetents, babies, the unborn, etc.). We knew in advance that dropping the bomb over the target areas would result in the direct deaths of innocents.

Ergo, we deliberately chose targets containing innocent civilians.

 

[GKC]

Godfollower,
Excuse me for daring to correct you but you are most definately wrong to claim that the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima diliberately to kill innocent people. All you demonstate is a total lack of knowledge of the history of the Second World War. I would suggest you read a reliable history, for example, Winston Churchill’s The Second World War.

Though both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, the targeting of the cities upon which the A bombs were to be used was calculated to achieve the greatest shock possible to the Japanese, to cause an end to the resistance of the war faction of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (lots of history involved). The anticipated death of the civilians in those cities was a part of that shock effect. They did not target civilians, or the military targets, as an end in itself. They targeted cities, as they had done in the preceding 5 months with the B-29 raids, with a devastating new weapon, the economy of which (1 plane/1 bomb/1 day), was expected to shock the Japanese and break their will, with the intended aim of the end of the war. Which was what transpired.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hey, if we were aiming at a purely military target (the Kure Naval Arsenal, perhaps?) and the bomb accidentally went astray into a city containing civilians, then that’s totally different.

But that isn’t what happened. So let’s review:

• When we created the target criteria, we specifically said it had to be large urban areas of at least three miles diameter.
• “Urban areas” means “cities.” It specifically meant “cities” in this context. We chose to drop the bombs on cities.
• Cities contain many civilians. We specifically knew we were targeting cities containing civilians. We chose to obliterate vast areas of inhabited cities with civilians in them.
• Among the civilians were civilians incapable of forming the intent to attack anyone (small children, incompetents, babies, the unborn, etc.). We knew in advance that dropping the bomb over the target areas would result in the direct deaths of innocents.

Ergo, we deliberately chose targets containing innocent civilians.

Correct.

GKC

 

[Charli]

As many have tried to justify the bomb on Hiroshima, how about trying to justify the second bomb on Nagasaki, or three days of relentless bombing of Dresden on the 14 of April, days before the end of the hostilities in Europe

 

[GKC]

As many have tried to justify the bomb on Hiroshima, how about trying to justify the second bomb on Nagasaki, or three days of relentless bombing of Dresden on the 14 of April, days before the end of the hostilities in Europe

Dresden is another matter. My favorite recommendation on it is Taylor/DRESDEN:TUESDAY FEBRUARY 13, 1945.

As to the second bomb, I just did. With references. Back up there at 6:04.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Godfollower,

The Battle of Okinawa begun Apr 1, 1945 globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm was significant for the following reasons:

1- it showed that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering, even though they did not have the supplies to continue hostilities and

2- it showed that this war would continue with an on-going loss of life (civilian and military) unless something got the attention of the Japanese authorities.

Eleven days after this battle began, President Roosevelt died, and President Truman found out about the atomic bomb being in the final stages of development.

I really have no idea what it is you wish to demonstrate. The loss of innocent civilians is tragic. But, note, the Japanese were encouraging and training these civilians to fight. So, I am not really sure about their over-all ‘innocence’ or ‘civilian’ status should such fighting have taken place. There are no easy or text-book answers here. In my opinion, President brought the war - and the resulting killing - to a quick end. And, for this I think we as a nation owe him and his memory our gratitude. If you want to condemn military operations - begin with the Japanese and German military and their butchery of civilians.

As a point of reference, today Sec. Penetta announced that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear sites sometime in April - June. I am not entirely sure that announcing the military plans of one nation against another nation is common practice - but it made today’s news. Do you have any moral advice for Israel - or its #1 supporter, the US? How about some moral guidance for Iran, while you are at it. I am interested in how these comments would follow the commands of Christ as you see them.

God bless

How is deliberately killing innocent people an unintended consequence?

From the notes of the Target Committee:

Why was Hiroshima on the list?

Note; not that it’s an important military target. The focus was on choosing cities for maximum psychological damage. This deliberate killing of innocent humans runs counter to every just war theory the Catholic Church has ever taught.

This is not firing a missile at a munitions factory during a just war and regretting that the cleaning crew got killed. This is killing innocent babies to make a political point.

We deliberately chose inhabited cities containing innocent people to die. Now, if you choose to say that you get to perform evil in order to achieve greater good, or those Japanese babies deserved it because of what their parents did, or it’s okay to kill Japanese babies so long as American soldiers stay alive, you’re entitled to that opinion; but that’s inconsistent with Catholic theology.

Call it “war is hell,” or call it “I get to do whatever I want to to defend my country regardless of morality,” or call it “I follow Jesus sometimes but not during war” or what have you. Just don’t call it moral. 'Cause it ain’t.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

There is certainly no shortage of the ‘Monday Morning Quarterback’ mentality. And, if leafletting did not produce the obviously pre-determined evacuation of sufficient civilians - do we try something else, use more leaflets or simply resort to harsh language?

Japan was not surrendering - they refused after the 1st bomb. It is as this point that Russia declares war on Japan - and they still do not surrender. So, yes, there was a second bomb. And, finally, Japan surrendered.

The entire concept of war is an offence - no one is getting away from this fan in a clean state. Possibly if the Vatican actually had a War Department they could give expert advice on how best to engage an enemy that murdered as many people in China as they could bet their bayonetes through or drop as many bombs on unsuspecting US ships as their planes could carry. Italy and the Vatican are free today because of the actions taken by the Allies and their efforts to defeat the Nazis. China and the Pacific countries attacked by the Japanese are free today for the same reason.

I really do wish I could make it all better - but, the US did not start that war. Maybe we should show some gratitude to President Truman for the efforts he made so that we are free and can live in peace.

God bless

As for “collateral damage”; As I understand the Church’s position, it is not just an offense to delibertely cause it, but further, it is an offence to allow it to happen by default.
A little bit like murder and manslaughter.
Both are crimes, but the latter is not the deliberate aim, but the accidental occurrance caused by inadequate avoidance procedure.
At the very least, a leaflet drop could have warned that evacuation might be wise.
Actually, leafletting alone could achieve much.
There was never any need for 2 bombs: one alone was more than adequate for demonstration of ability.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Godfollower,

The Battle of Okinawa begun Apr 1, 1945 globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm was significant for the following reasons:

1- it showed that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering, even though they did not have the supplies to continue hostilities and

2- it showed that this war would continue with an on-going loss of life (civilian and military) unless something got the attention of the Japanese authorities.

Eleven days after this battle began, President Roosevelt died, and President Truman found out about the atomic bomb being in the final stages of development.

I really have no idea what it is you wish to demonstrate. The loss of innocent civilians is tragic. But, note, the Japanese were encouraging and training these civilians to fight. So, I am not really sure about their over-all ‘innocence’ or ‘civilian’ status should such fighting have taken place. There are no easy or text-book answers here. In my opinion, President brought the war - and the resulting killing - to a quick end. And, for this I think we as a nation owe him and his memory our gratitude. If you want to condemn military operations - begin with the Japanese and German military and their butchery of civilians.

As a point of reference, today Sec. Penetta announced that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear sites sometime in April - June. I am not entirely sure that announcing the military plans of one nation against another nation is common practice - but it made today’s news. Do you have any moral advice for Israel - or its #1 supporter, the US? How about some moral guidance for Iran, while you are at it. I am interested in how these comments would follow the commands of Christ as you see them.

God bless

Feifer/TENNOZAN: THE BATTLE OF OKINAWA AND THE ATOMIC BOMB is gut-wrenching, and a clear outline, in miniature, of what the Ketsu-Go defense of the Home Islands would have been, had DOWNFALL been put into operation.

GKC

 

[Godfollower]

Hi, Godfollower,

The Battle of Okinawa begun Apr 1, 1945 globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm was significant for the following reasons:

1- it showed that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering, even though they did not have the supplies to continue hostilities and

2- it showed that this war would continue with an on-going loss of life (civilian and military) unless something got the attention of the Japanese authorities.
I’m not claiming the Japanese government was a pushover. And I’m not arguing that a just combatant can’t take strong measures against an aggressor. I’m only saying that Catholic theology prohibits the deliberate killing of innocent people – even during a just war.
tqualey;8910123:

Eleven days after this battle began, President Roosevelt died, and President Truman found out about the atomic bomb being in the final stages of development.

True. I imagine it was quite a shock to learn of a bomb with such unprecedented power.

I really have no idea what it is you wish to demonstrate.

Merely that the moral law prohibits the deliberate killing of innocent people.

The loss of innocent civilians is tragic.

And, if you planned and caused it, murder.

But, note, the Japanese were encouraging and training these civilians to fight. So, I am not really sure about their over-all ‘innocence’ or ‘civilian’ status should such fighting have taken place.

They weren’t training fetuses to fight. Or comatose patients in the hospitals in the impact zone. Or children too young to hold a weapon. That’s what “innocent” means.

There are no easy or text-book answers here.

No, there aren’t. But there are moral principles that can guide our actions.

In my opinion, President brought the war - and the resulting killing - to a quick end. And, for this I think we as a nation owe him and his memory our gratitude.

Truman was a good president. And I believe that he probably did end the war quickly. Quaere: if we could end the terrorism of Islamic extremists by killing every Muslim in the world (regardless of individual guilt), would that be moral?

If you want to condemn military operations - begin with the Japanese and German military and their butchery of civilians.

Yes, they acted immorally. In fact, their wars of aggression were immoral to begin with. Are you saying that we get to kill all citizens of governments that act immorally?

As a point of reference, today Sec. Penetta announced that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear sites sometime in April - June. I am not entirely sure that announcing the military plans of one nation against another nation is common practice - but it made today’s news. Do you have any moral advice for Israel - or its #1 supporter, the US?

Feel free to start a thread on it. As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I also condemned the Nazi bombing raids. From what I know so far, Israel would appear to be acting in preemptive self-defense, so an attack against the nuclear reactor – as opposed to widespread bombing of the entire country – could well be moral. Today’s advance warning would make that even more true.

How about some moral guidance for Iran, while you are at it.

Yeah: stop supporting terrorism, and stop seeking nuclear weapons.

I am interested in how these comments would follow the commands of Christ as you see them.

The Church is quite clear: aggressive war is immoral.

God bless

And you as well.

 

[jonbhorton]

**Japan was only continuing the US/European policy against China and Korea, and doing it better. That is what stuck in Uncle Sam’s throat. Just Like Saddam Hussain a few decades later.
**

The US led invasion of Iraq was legal as per the UN. The Iraqi government was claiming WMD’s, and some believe shipped them to Syria, though after capture Saddam apparently admitted he had been lying to keep the Iranians at bay. While technically mohammedan, Saddam was more a secularist than anything, as we’re most of the hardcore Ba’ath party. The lack of his actual faith in “allah” belies the fact that he engaged in tribalism for his government. The Iraqi government was, for the most part, willing to do exactly what tribes do- make allies with the enemy of a former ally, because the ally is asking for things they don’t want to do. Namely, to quit engaging in hostilities against its neighbors as well as to quit funding terrorism. Is there a financial slant? Sure, finance is global. However, while I disagree with invasion, and think we should have waged a better covert campaign first, I don’t have all the facts. Neither do you.

**
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was without any doubt a war crime, both as defined later by the Geneva Convention, and by all the traditions of a ‘Just War’.**

You’re retro-illegalizing something? Really?

As for the Just War application, it is incorrect and here is why:

**the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;**