As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[couponfit]

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

Since this is Catholic Answers I think it’s best to answer this question as the Pope would want us to. The words of our church and it’s teachings are not open to our interpretation on what is taught or said.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/popes-pius-xii-paul-vi-john-paul-ii.html

President Obama offered to personally appear in Hiroshima and Nagaski and apologize for the atrocity committed by the United States. Japan refused citing it was not necessary. npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/12/141276162/wikileaks-japan-rebuffed-idea-of-u-s-apology-for-hiroshima The report was released in 2011, the last papal or diocesan condemnation was in 2004. Hiroshima is still envisioned as a symbol of peace and a symbol to end nuclear weapons as stated by our Church.

 

[GKC]

Since this is Catholic Answers I think it’s best to answer this question as the Pope would want us to. The words of our church and it’s teachings are not open to our interpretation on what is taught or said.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/popes-pius-xii-paul-vi-john-paul-ii.html

President Obama offered to personally appear in Hiroshima and Nagaski and apologize for the atrocity committed by the United States. Japan refused citing it was not necessary. npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/12/141276162/wikileaks-japan-rebuffed-idea-of-u-s-apology-for-hiroshima The report was released in 2011, the last papal or diocesan condemnation was in 2004. Hiroshima is still envisioned as a symbol of peace and a symbol to end nuclear weapons as stated by our Church.

No, President Obama did not. As I posted on another of these endless threads (and as even the NPR site says) on the same general topic, and quoting myself:

As posted on MediaMatters

WikiLeaks Cable Shows Yabunaka Was Addressing Speculation From “Anti-Nuclear Groups” Following The President’s “April 5 Prague Speech On Non-Proliferation.” From the September 9, 2009, cable that was published on WikiLeaks website:

[Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji] Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama’s visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people. Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation.

He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public’s expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a “non-starter.” While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit. Yabunaka recommended that the visit in November center mostly in Tokyo, with calls on the Emperor and Prime Minister, as well as some form of public program, such as speeches, an engagement at a university, or a town hall-like meeting with local residents. [WikiLeaks, accessed 10/13/11, emphasis added]

That is, assuming this is accurate, the Japanese official was saying that certain anti-nuclear groups might anticipate Obama apologizing, particularly in light of his speech in 2009 on a world without nuclear weapons. Not that there was any concrete proposal from anyone that this would take place, or that the Japanese were declining such a thing.

It never ends.

GKC

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Since this is Catholic Answers I think it’s best to answer this question as the Pope would want us to. The words of our church and it’s teachings are not open to our interpretation on what is taught or said.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/popes-pius-xii-paul-vi-john-paul-ii.html

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.

Thankyou for your blessing, and your patience.
As a reference, I have read both the Bible, (KJV), and the Quran, ( Arthur J. Arberry’s interpretation - This was the version recommended by a religios book store in Sa’udi Arabia), from cover to cover. Little of the contents of either has stuck between my ears, but I would class the books, splitting the Bible into OT, and NT, in degree of readability, and turgidity, as:
Most turgid, and least readable, OT;
Least turgid, and most readable, NT;
Somewhere in between, The Quran.

What stuck, and was indeed surprising was:

In the New Testament, in the Gospels, Our Lord Blesses the Peace Makers, indeed it seems that this became the early name for his movement, because most of the time he spent was in disarming conflict.
Now the Armaic, or Arabic word for Peace is ‘salaam’, and the prefix implying the doer of a thing or service is ‘mar’, so the Peacemakers would be called something like ‘Marsallam’.

In the Quran, quite surprisingly, the is much made of Our Lord, and the Blessed Virgin, both revered as special people, and Our Lord accepted by the word ‘Messiah’ in the written text. True they do not interpret the word as we do, but then, neither also do the Jews, yet, in that very sense, by accepting that word, which is by definition, the same word as ‘Christ’, they qualify as Christians, though of an extreme heretical variety.

Likewise, We as Christians, and the Jews, though as rejectors of the Christ, are accepted by Islam as fellow travellers, for we carry the same book, as they see it, and we are called by them, ‘The people of the Book’

There is then, with good will, since the beginnings of the greater schism, a point of contact between all three, though surprisingly, the strongest contact does not include the Jews, as they reject the Christ out of hand in their own definition of themselves.

So, with good will, and education, there is yet hope for peace.

With regard to history, the political entity called Israel is regarded as just another Crusader State, and these states caused much trouble in the past. It is not surprising that trouble in the future is to be expected.

The Original Balfour declaration proposed that the Jews only be given the land which had been called Judea, which would have been more appropriate, as the Northern Kingdom of Samaria, was betrayed to the Syrians by the Judeans.

Jerusalem, even in Our Lord’s time was not a ‘Jewish’ city, but an Open city where foreigners were welcome, as long as they respected the special Holy Places.

These two factors, with good will could form a basis for peace.

I would propose:
1/ Jerusalem, inside the old wall, be declared an Open City, and be administered by a mutually acceptable authority, such as the UN. The Vatican City might be a model.

2/ Only Judea be administered by the Jews, but the Palestinians be granted the Right of Return, provided that they accepted Judean rule, which MUST NOT persecute them.

3/ All other territories now administered by the entity, be returned to Palestinian rule, with the proviso that the settler be allowed to stay, provided that they accepted that Palestinian rule, which MUST NOT persecute them.

I think, if such were achieved, then it would be relatively simple to disarm the whole middle eastern conflict, and as Children of the Peace, that should be our ultimate aim.
The alternative would be a disaster of unimaginable consequences.

Yes, the Crusader kingdoms could be maintained for a period, but the cost became prohibitive. It was not military failure which lost the kingdoms, but ultimately, the cost of supporting them. Without a universally accepted solution, the hated entity will suffer the same fate.

There is yet time.

The Iraniam bomb will not be ready in less than 20 years, but ready it will be.

ps, the decal in my signature is the symbol of Saint Boniface, commemorating his assassination by the Friesians. He held up a copy of the Harmonised gospel to his assassins, which they smote with their swords before killing him. The top inch or so of every page is thus missing from the Codex Sangallensis 56 as a result of this incident.

 

[couponfit]

I am not making that argument, but that is an argument that has been made. As I said in my last post, I do not agree with this logic, nor do I see it, but it is consistent with Catholic teaching. The Catechism clearly uses the word “indiscriminate”, as in not discriminating between military targets, as what is not allowable. If a true military target is what is destroyed, and the good done so was proportionally greater than the the evil that results, then the law of double effect allows it.

In the Iraqi war, each bomb placed is judged according to the size needed to accomplish the military objective, while minimizing casualties. In a just war (I am making no comment on the Iraqi War) this is allowable.

The error I see with the Hiroshima bombing is that I do not believe the target was military. Thus it is not the law of double effect, but an objectively evil deed that was justified by the eventual ends. This, of course, is not allowable.

You are wrong! Catholic teaching as clearly stated by the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops has clearly indicated the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong. I already posted links on that. The Catholic church actually said that Hiroshima was indiscriminate and a violation of canon law specially (explicitly states) . What you wrote is wrong. You don’t get to tell the Pope what whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were violations of Canon law because he said it was (like over a dozen times we have church statements, teachings, and declarations from Popes and Cardinals and Bishops united) on this matter.

 

[Ghosty]

You are wrong! Catholic teaching as clearly stated by the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops has clearly indicated the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong. I already posted links on that. The Catholic church actually said that Hiroshima was indiscriminate and a violation of canon law specially (explicitly states) . What you wrote is wrong. You don’t get to tell the Pope what whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were violations of Canon law because he said it was (like over a dozen times we have church statements, teachings, and declarations from Popes and Cardinals and Bishops united) on this matter.

He said the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Couponfit,

Thank you for the excellent link.

To be candid, I have never stopped being amazed at how the conquering Japanese who butchered their way through China and the South Pacific islands after murdering unprepared US military personnel at Pearl Harbor - and of course, murdering the prisoners on Bataan - are now viewed as victims of the atomic bomb.

I thank God for two things:

1.) I did not have to make a decision like this in 1945 and

2.) I am in no position to make such a decision like that today.

These are less than satisfying answers for me - for they provide no guidance as to the real course that people are to take when those who would destroy us come even closer. In fact, while those in religious leadership appear to be making it clear that the use of nuclear weapons is always a sin against God and man - they honestly appear a bit muted when it come to what is acceptable. War, besides being hell, means the loss of life for non-combatants - along with the usual pre-requisites of deprivation, terror, pain, suffering and then death.

Sometimes these factors follow on quick succession - as in the 1945 bombing of Dresden. While the number of actual casualties will never be known - it was significant. While the actual military significance appears minor, there may have been a message from the British leadership to Stalin - at the cost of thousands of civilian lives and the total destruction of the city. Here it would appear that the deaths of civilians was not an un-intended consequence, but the calculated design. I bring this up because what we have here is the use of conventional weapons (non-atomic bombs) and the outcome is mass civilian death. Here is a link - please go all the way to the bottom for first-hand accounts: spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm It looks like when the aggressive Nazis were being beaten - we now view them as victims of our aggressive acts in beating them back. It would look like that if one is going to start a war - one had better win. That way all aggression can be accounted for and then dismissed as inconsequential. Merely winning against the one who started the war is not good enough - for the loss of innocent lives will always be held against us.

I am confident that the hijackers of the 9-11-01 tragedy would have been delighted to have nuclear weapons on-board those planes. My guess is that someone will finally find a way to get a nuclear device into the US and destroy a city as an act of jihad. Now what?

In reviewing the material and the numerous other considerations. I am satisfied that President Truman did the right thing. May God have mercy on his soul and the souls of all the faithfully departed.

I am confident that the bishops in their opinions were giving an informed and prudent opinion - but, not a matter of faith. The three popes you have referenced were not speaking ‘ex cathedra’. I really can not say any more.

God bless

Since this is Catholic Answers I think it’s best to answer this question as the Pope would want us to. The words of our church and it’s teachings are not open to our interpretation on what is taught or said.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/popes-pius-xii-paul-vi-john-paul-ii.html

President Obama offered to personally appear in Hiroshima and Nagaski and apologize for the atrocity committed by the United States. Japan refused citing it was not necessary. npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/12/141276162/wikileaks-japan-rebuffed-idea-of-u-s-apology-for-hiroshima The report was released in 2011, the last papal or diocesan condemnation was in 2004. Hiroshima is still envisioned as a symbol of peace and a symbol to end nuclear weapons as stated by our Church.

 

[jonbhorton]

You are wrong! Catholic teaching as clearly stated by the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops has clearly indicated the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong. I already posted links on that. The Catholic church actually said that Hiroshima was indiscriminate and a violation of canon law specially (explicitly states) . What you wrote is wrong. You don’t get to tell the Pope what whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were violations of Canon law because he said it was (like over a dozen times we have church statements, teachings, and declarations from Popes and Cardinals and Bishops united) on this matter.

You linked a blog post with phrases that are arguable in their semantics.

The bombing was not indiscriminate. It was very discriminatory. What people need to understand is the nature of war, who started the war, and what steps were taken to quickly end the war and begin the process of global reconciliation.

While the morality of nuclear weapons in general is totally in question, we also have to realize that this pipe-dream, nay, this fantasy, of global total nuclear disarmament is absolutely impossible to do because of the nature of the collapse o the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc nations. If the good guys get rid of nukes, only the bad will have them, and we shall see the world get thrown into a chaos never seen before.

It’s the same argument, at its core, that decries ownership of weapons in totality. That’s fine, if NO ONE would have access, nor seek to harm others once disarmed through other means.

The fact of the matter is, the language is flexible enough and I can recognize how each view could arrive at a conclusion. I also realize that the people speaking may have done so without the full story, nor consideration.

I actually asked the deacon today during Catechism class (today covered morality, ethics, etc) , who is going to be ordained as a priest in FSSP. His only response was Truman was a Mason and H/N were the most “Catholic” cities in Japan. I wished we had some time to really explore the issue, but it was an aside from the actual lesson. Either way, Truman’s Freemasonry is totally irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, though it does lend itself to conspiracy theory. If the Masonic association of Truman is the issue, we all need to renounce our citizenship and move out, because this country is controlled by Masons and was founded by them.

I see the same theme throughout the thread- ignorance or indifference to the reality of war in light of the grasping of moral concepts which must then be applied to a concept which such men can never understand. The only ones who can understand it are those who are willing to recognize the pain of evil foisted upon the world in WW2. The only rightful decision rests on the men who bear the burden of facing evil- the warrior. The warrior will never be understood by the pacifist, of which there are varying degrees. The warrior knows what all warriors know and have known- never seek war, but when sought by another, end them, and quickly.

If you can’t stomach this, fine. Don’t be a warrior. The warrior’s job is augmented and prevented from fruition by proper application of pacifism. When war starts, pick up a gun or drop your protest sign, because war is totally divorced from the reality of peace, and all moral understanding within it is naturally reevaluated. It is the perpetual motion of many individual decisions for a common good. It has a totally different set of rules, when good- 1) Win 2) keep trying for #1 until reached.

The other thing which must be understood about war is: you have the choice to choose a side, and once that side is chosen, you bear all responsibility for that side chosen. If Japanese Catholics chose to support their (wrong) government, they bore the consequence of that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Same with the “Catholic” soldiers in the Nazis, and the “Catholics” who fought for Mussolini. The Japanese chose their side- evil. As such, they experienced the consequence of their action.

Keep living in a fantasy if you want

So, again, Thank God the nukes were dropped.

 

[GKC]

“I actually asked the deacon today during Catechism class (today covered morality, ethics, etc) , who is going to be ordained as a priest in FSSP. His only response was Truman was a Mason and H/N were the most “Catholic” cities in Japan. I wished we had some time to really explore the issue, but it was an aside from the actual lesson. Either way, Truman’s Freemasonry is totally irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, though it does lend itself to conspiracy theory. If the Masonic association of Truman is the issue, we all need to renounce our citizenship and move out, because this country is controlled by Masons and was founded by them”

This line of argument, which I recognize is not yours. is puerile. As noted, Nagasaki was the alternate target. If the clouds and smoke over Kokura had not obscured it, Kokura would have been the city hit, not Nagasaki. Sweeney tried 3 times to drop the bomb on the primary target, to the point that he almost exhausted his fuel.

And I am always fascinated by the implicit assumption that the deaths of the Christians in Nagasaki, say, specifically the RCs killed in the Cathedral of OL of the IC (by an airplane piloted by a RC), somehow counted more highly, as moral affronts, than an equivalent number of non-Christian Japanese so killed. Or, for that matter, the Japanese killed by the bombs were somehow more dead that those who would have been killed in a continuation of the conventional bombing.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

“I actually asked the deacon today during Catechism class (today covered morality, ethics, etc) , who is going to be ordained as a priest in FSSP. His only response was Truman was a Mason and H/N were the most “Catholic” cities in Japan. I wished we had some time to really explore the issue, but it was an aside from the actual lesson. Either way, Truman’s Freemasonry is totally irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, though it does lend itself to conspiracy theory. If the Masonic association of Truman is the issue, we all need to renounce our citizenship and move out, because this country is controlled by Masons and was founded by them”

This line of argument, which I recognize is not yours. is puerile. As noted, Nagasaki was the alternate target. If the clouds and smoke over Kokura had not obscured it, Kokura would have been the city hit, not Nagasaki. Sweeney tried 3 times to drop the bomb on the primary target, to the point that he almost exhausted his fuel.

And I am always fascinated by the implicit assumption that the deaths of the Christians in Nagasaki, say, specifically the RCs killed in the Cathedral of OL of the IC (by an airplane piloted by a RC), somehow counted more highly, as moral affronts, than an equivalent number of non-Christian Japanese so killed. Or, for that matter, the Japanese killed by the bombs were somehow more dead that those who would have been killed in a continuation of the conventional bombing.

GKC

GKC- I did bring up Kokura with the deacon, and was hoping to extend the discussion into that line of thought, as it is really the crux of the argument against the myopic view that the bombs were wrong to be dropped for the ancillary reasons given, and the Masonry/Catholic argument loses significant credibility in light of it. Unfortunately, the issue was an aside and we had a limited amount of time. We actually didn’t even get to complete the class due to time; next week extends into false moral ethics, and I suspect it will be a real joy for the grey matter.

I actually brought it up hoping to challenge myself in a manner I had never heard while in the mindset of discussing ethics and morality. I generally try not to get into the detailed what if discussions when learning in a survey/general manner.

Unfortunately, the arguments “against” on this forum are either devoid of the necessary facts to judge the subjective good, and further seek to retroactively condemn an action based on almost 70 years of introspection on the matter- often without necessary understanding of two things: facts, what war is.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[maryb435]

It was wrong. If we say that it was right because it brought an early end to the war, (and there is really no way to be certain of that) then we are saying that the end justifies the means. If we accept that, then there is no end to the horrors we will tolerate. We will end up saying things like “It was a necessary evil”. When we use the term “necessary evil” we must be very careful to define our terms accurately. Evil is NEVER necessary if what you mean is that someone is required to commit evil. No-one is ever required to sin. God will always provide a way out, even if that way out is martyrdom. The same “end justifies the means” mentality is used in the abortion debate. The Church teaches that we must never do evil, hoping that good will come out of it. Tolerating an evil is a different matter entirely. We must have the humility to admit that we do not have control over everything. That is a very hard lesson for those of us afflicted with “affluenza”. Perhaps the over FIFTY MILLION American babies killed in abortion is a result of the spiritual blindness caused by continually trying to justify our past wrongs. So, dropping the bomb never really did save lives in the long run.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jonbhorton,

Interesting post …

I really only have one comment - and that would be to refrain from asking your Deacon soon to ordained Priest any questions involving WWII. Truman’s religious or social associations are immaterial. The Freemasony groups have no love for the Jews - yet Truman worked to get Israel recognized as a nation. The Freemasony groups (at least in the US) are segregated - yet Truman integrated the military.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman Finally, and more to the point - Truman turned the authority to use the atomic bombs over to the military - they AND NOT TRUMAN picked the primary targets and the secondary ones. After the second bomb was used, Truman took back control of the atomic bomb.

God bless

I actually asked the deacon today during Catechism class (today covered morality, ethics, etc) , who is going to be ordained as a priest in FSSP. His only response was Truman was a Mason and H/N were the most “Catholic” cities in Japan. I wished we had some time to really explore the issue, but it was an aside from the actual lesson. Either way, Truman’s Freemasonry is totally irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, though it does lend itself to conspiracy theory. If the Masonic association of Truman is the issue, we all need to renounce our citizenship and move out, because this country is controlled by Masons and was founded by them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Maryb435,

I respect your opinion that the US did wrong by dropping the atomic bombs.

I do, however, think you have mixed some items that need to be kept distinct.

By the very fact that we, as human beings, have a long history of war - it would seem like we have learned something from it. There really are no end to the horrors of war - for everyone directly involved - and those whose loved ones fight. Now, take a good look at the activities of the Japanese from the mid 1930’s through 1945. All efforts at getting them to back away from aggression failed. There was no desire to show mercy to the civilians of Nanking, China in 1937 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre) and there was no desire to stop fighting before the Battle of Okinawa began in 1945 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa) These armed aggressors were not going to quit - and they had to be stopped.

Concerning an evil outcome we have to look at just what is it we are doing - and what are others doing - and then how are we interacting with one another that produces an end. Consider the principle of double effect: cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56 One may intend to do good - stop the war and the senseless killing but a real evil will result - the killing of other-wise innocent non-combatants. Here is another link: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

I understand that an application of this principle to the dropping of the atomic bomb may not be well accepted. But, consider this: if we look at the act as moving to stop a multi-year war that has cost millions of people their lives - does this put it in context? If we look at the act of dropping bombs on a city in the hope of getting military targets - yet knowing that civilian casualties will result - do we not bomb lest an innocent may die? The closest I have ever been to the mass destruction of Hiroshima was to see pictures of this poor city - and, that is as close as I ever want to get to such an event. I probably do not really appreciate that hundreds of thousands died in the battles immediately leading up the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan - to be honest, I do not know who does. But, judging an event that is 66 years old in the comfort of our living room while trying to second guess the real decision makers - may not be helpful.

Evil is bad - no doubt about it. Few actions in a war are devoid of someone finding some evil to identify. No one thinks that using harsh words on the opposing forces will really do any good - so we are left with instruments of increasing lethality. No easy answers here.

God bless

It was wrong. If we say that it was right because it brought an early end to the war, (and there is really no way to be certain of that) then we are saying that the end justifies the means. If we accept that, then there is no end to the horrors we will tolerate. We will end up saying things like “It was a necessary evil”. When we use the term “necessary evil” we must be very careful to define our terms accurately. Evil is NEVER necessary if what you mean is that someone is required to commit evil. No-one is ever required to sin. God will always provide a way out, even if that way out is martyrdom. The same “end justifies the means” mentality is used in the abortion debate. The Church teaches that we must never do evil, hoping that good will come out of it. Tolerating an evil is a different matter entirely. We must have the humility to admit that we do not have control over everything. That is a very hard lesson for those of us afflicted with “affluenza”. Perhaps the over FIFTY MILLION American babies killed in abortion is a result of the spiritual blindness caused by continually trying to justify our past wrongs. So, dropping the bomb never really did save lives in the long run.

 

[GKC]

GKC- I did bring up Kokura with the deacon, and was hoping to extend the discussion into that line of thought, as it is really the crux of the argument against the myopic view that the bombs were wrong to be dropped for the ancillary reasons given, and the Masonry/Catholic argument loses significant credibility in light of it. Unfortunately, the issue was an aside and we had a limited amount of time. We actually didn’t even get to complete the class due to time; next week extends into false moral ethics, and I suspect it will be a real joy for the grey matter.

I actually brought it up hoping to challenge myself in a manner I had never heard while in the mindset of discussing ethics and morality. I generally try not to get into the detailed what if discussions when learning in a survey/general manner.

Unfortunately, the arguments “against” on this forum are either devoid of the necessary facts to judge the subjective good, and further seek to retroactively condemn an action based on almost 70 years of introspection on the matter- often without necessary understanding of two things: facts, what war is.

Thanks for the reply.

You’re very welcome.

The facts I deal with are limited to the historical facts of the events concerned, during WWII. That there are facts, as to the teaching of the RCC, in the CCC, in Gaudium et Spes, elsewhere in the magisterium generally, I do not address, as I have said. But certainly any RC should consider the Church’s teaching, relevant to this matter, and affirm what is required, with the appropriate level of theological certainty. I do not participate in such discussions.

But to deal in Masonic, or anti-Catholic conspiracy theory, with respect to the use of the bombs, puts one on the level of those who believe that a bunch of Jesuits were behind a meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910, which led to the building and sinking of the TITANIC. And thence to WWI. A mindset analogous to that of Jack Chick.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi, Jonbhorton,

Interesting post …

I really only have one comment - and that would be to refrain from asking your Deacon soon to ordained Priest any questions involving WWII. Truman’s religious or social associations are immaterial. The Freemasony groups have no love for the Jews - yet Truman worked to get Israel recognized as a nation. The Freemasony groups (at least in the US) are segregated - yet Truman integrated the military.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman Finally, and more to the point - Truman turned the authority to use the atomic bombs over to the military - they AND NOT TRUMAN picked the primary targets and the secondary ones. After the second bomb was used, Truman took back control of the atomic bomb.

God bless

Truman was certainly the only one who would have directed the use of the 3rd bomb and as of 14 Aug, he was very ambivalent. But it was Marshall who directed that no more bombs be used, until such direction was received. Given that the Japanese had not surrendered as of 4 days after the Nagasaki bomb, Marshall had another use for any bomb production (which would have been around 6-7 additional devices), prior to the planned invasion of Kyushu. It didn’t involve bombing any more cities.

It could have been so much worse.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

Hi, Jonbhorton,

Interesting post …

I really only have one comment - and that would be to refrain from asking your Deacon soon to ordained Priest any questions involving WWII. Truman’s religious or social associations are immaterial. The Freemasony groups have no love for the Jews - yet Truman worked to get Israel recognized as a nation. The Freemasony groups (at least in the US) are segregated - yet Truman integrated the military.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman Finally, and more to the point - Truman turned the authority to use the atomic bombs over to the military - they AND NOT TRUMAN picked the primary targets and the secondary ones. After the second bomb was used, Truman took back control of the atomic bomb.

God bless

Speaking directly to this post, and in general, so if there is any question, feel free to ask. I hope it is obvious.

Given that the class subject was morality and ethics, and this thread is put together on the foundation of that, and this thread has caused me to face some very hard questions of which I think I understand- yes, it was very appropriate to at least address it; however, as I said, it was not the best time for a full length discussion, and I was merely hoping for him to use that in the class (of which there were only myself and another) to help with reconciling the harder questions.

I’m not an idiot, and I can easily figure out the basic morality in things like abortion, etc. Even before submitting myself to the authority of the Church, I understood such things.

The question of the morality of the bomb never really gained much serious thought in my mind before this thread. I just knew what all warriors know- it was the tactically sound decision. From there, I looked at the challenge of the moral question and while I see the point of the “anti” crowd, and even see where the various clerics are coming from, I also recognize they are not warriors, nor did they necessarily have all the facts, nor would they have even understood the tactical nature of war particularly. To understand war is automatically a hindrance in some regard to certain things, though absolutely necessary- sorta why David wasn’t allowed to build the Temple, and the end it allowed as per Solomon. David was a warrior, warriors don’t build peace. They defend peace, or they offend evil and create, in its destruction, the circumstances for peace to exist in all its permutations. The good warrior is one who sets aside his inner child, and mans up when everyone else can’t or wont. Any judgement of him is that the peril of hypocrisy- for he did what no others would: shed the blood of enemies. Not in vengeance, but in defense.

The deacon was the one who countered my very generalized defense of the bombing with the issue of the Catholicity of H/N and Truman’s Masonic affiliations- neither of which figure in to a truly tactical decision. Even Masons don’t do things which are inherently flawed in contextual reason.

Further, I agree with you on the issue of Truman. While he obviously had to give the order, once an order is given, it rests in the hands of the planners and those who execute the plan. Baghdad had a large Christian population, as did all significant targets for the bombing campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don’t think Bush “chose” Baghdad, nor the planners for that reason, though certainly many were Masons or associated with similar groups. It was just tactically sound.

When morality seeks to hamstring tactics at the expense of the defenders of the good, morality has just slit its own throat because the bad guy does not care.

In this regard, there is no end to the seeming evil which is brought on humanity by war.

Whether it’s a trebuchet flinging firebombs into a Castle, or a high-altitude bomber dropping a nuclear bomb- the facts presented by GKC and others, while very hard to stomach and reconcile to ethics and morality, are sound.

The failure to recognize this is to give credence to decidedly immoral and unethical appeals to “peace” when “peace” is synonymous with “extermination”. Samuel understood this, and he killed an enemy king at God’s command because Saul refused to. God commanded this for a tactical reason which was sound in physical war, though largely rejected today (which is why these wars persist despite technology to end them quickly). That a spiritual implication had tactical consideration is not lost on me, and I do not use this example to necessarily promote wanton violence in the form of jihadism like some inbred miscreant who bumps his head on the floor towards mecca.

Again, if you’re not a warrior, you will not understand this.

 

[jonbhorton]

Truman was certainly the only one who would have directed the use of the 3rd bomb and as of 14 Aug, he was very ambivalent. But it was Marshall who directed that no more bombs be used, until such direction was received. Given that the Japanese had not surrendered as of 4 days after the Nagasaki bomb, Marshall had another use for any bomb production (which would have been around 6-7 additional devices), prior to the planned invasion of Kyushu. It didn’t involve bombing any more cities.
**
It could have been so much worse.**

GKC

I’m thinking along the lines of possibly hitting farmland with proper wind consideration for fallout effect, and possibly contaminating water supplies so as to force a situation which undercuts the defense for a land invasion.

Is that where it was heading?

 

[GKC]

I’m thinking along the lines of possibly hitting farmland with proper wind consideration for fallout effect, and possibly contaminating water supplies so as to force a situation which undercuts the defense for a land invasion.

Is that where it was heading?

Marshall was contemplating using all the available bombs in tactical support of the Kyushu invasion, behind the landing zones, against the defenders. So little was known of the effects of the bombs that American troops would have been to expected fight their way through the bombed areas within a day or two of their use. The driving factor was the vastly increased numbers of troops expected to be waiting in opposition, as revealed by code breaking late in July. See Drea’s MACARTHUR’s ULTRA.

The 3rd bomb, the casing for which had been delivered to Tinian, but not the core, was tentatively slated for use on Tokyo, but for a number of reasons it was unlikely to have been so used. It would have been available some time between 15 Aug and the last week of the month.

GKC

 

[jonbhorton]

Marshall was contemplating using all the available bombs in tactical support of the Kyushu invasion, behind the landing zone, against the defenders. **So little was known of the effects of the bombs that American troops would have been to expected fight their way through the bombed areas within a day or two of their use. **The driving factor was the vastly increased numbers of troops expected to be waiting in opposition, as revealed by code breaking late in July. See Drea’s MACARTHUR’s ULTRA.

The 3rd bomb, the casing for which had been delivered to Tinian, but not the core, was tentatively slated for use on Tokyo, but for a number of reasons it was unlikely to have been so used. It would have been available some time between 15 Aug and the last week of the month.

GKC

Yet another pertinent piece of information which sheds light on the fact that the armchair quarterbacking is undue and incorrect. The Americans simply didn’t understand what radiation and its effects meant in the manner we do now. I could go on and on about this, but sheesh, your information is outstanding in understanding the intricacies of the entire issue at hand. It’s not cut and dry by far.

I wish I could sit around with ya one day with duct tape over my mouth, ears open, a notepad/pen, and a tape recorder.

Thanks, again.

 

[GKC]

Yet another pertinent piece of information which sheds light on the fact that the armchair quarterbacking is undue and incorrect. The Americans simply didn’t understand what radiation and its effects meant in the manner we do now. I could go on and on about this, but sheesh, your information is outstanding in understanding the intricacies of the entire issue at hand. It’s not cut and dry by far.

I wish I could sit around with ya one day with duct tape over my mouth, ears open, a notepad/pen, and a tape recorder.

Thanks, again.

You are very kind to say so. And I do talk a lot.

I’m retired AF. At one point I worked with some elderly civilians who had been part of the Manhattan project. That first focused my attention on the end game on the PTO, as part of my lifelong interest in WWII. The main thrust of revisionism had not yet surfaced and my interest was not intense. When the Smithsonian started planning a 50th anniversary exhibit, in 1994, after I had retired, the state of revisionism on the subject, to be expressed in that exhibit, was so blatant and unbalanced that I reacted as I do with all subjects I develop an interest in. I started buying books. Lots of them. Which is what I do for all my hobby areas. In this one, I have about 45+ titles related to the bombs/invasions plans, and maybe 35+ peripherally relevant.

As with all history, as you suggest, things are complex. So here. Reading, in depth, is the only way to, as the saying goes, be deep in history. In a number of areas, I’m well below the surface.

If you want one book to give the big picture, find Frank/DOWNFALL: THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE. It is essential.

I can give recommendations for the revisionists, too, but then I’d add more of the good stuff. And frankly this topic is an exercise in futility, in a venue like this.

GKC

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You are very kind to say so. And I do talk a lot.

I’m retired AF. At one point I worked with some elderly civilians who had been part of the Manhattan project. That first focused my attention on the end game on the PTO, as part of my lifelong interest in WWII. The main thrust of revisionism had not yet surfaced and my interest was not intense. When the Smithsonian started planning a 50th anniversary exhibit, in 1994, after I had retired, the state of revisionism on the subject, to be expressed in that exhibit, was so blatant and unbalanced that I reacted as I do with all subjects I develop an interest in. I started buying books. Lots of them. Which is what I do for all my hobby areas. In this one, I have about 45+ titles related to the bombs/invasions plans, and maybe 35+ peripherally relevant.

As with all history, as you suggest, things are complex. So here. Reading, in depth, is the only way to, as the saying goes, be deep in history. In a number of areas, I’m well below the surface.

If you want one book to give the big picture, find Frank/DOWNFALL: THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE. It is essential.

I can give recommendations for the revisionists, too, but then I’d add more of the good stuff. And frankly this topic is an exercise in futility, in a venue like this.

GKC

I guess the bottom line has to be: It was a war crime, but it was necessary, and possibly the lesser of two evils.
This then throws a new light on the War-Crime trials, which then are by this definition, ‘Victors’ Justice’.
Thus many good German and Japanese officers were murdered under the guise of ‘justice’, and America’s refusal to accept treaties of international law fall into place.
So, America, and G_d help us, UK have hands just as dirty as our enemies, past and present.
War is dirty, and no-one comes out of it clean.
So, an apology is necessary, but a qualified apology.
Forgiveness is required by both parties.
From one party for forcing the other into sin, and from the other for committing the sin.