As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Ghosty]

Japanese civilians were not the only ones whose lives were spared. The monthly death rate in the PTO that summer was 200,000+ a month. The British were scheduled to begin Operation Zipper (Slim/Mountbatten/14th Army), a major push in the southeast Asian land mass, 6 Sep. Which would have been the signal for the Japanese to begin to eliminate the 135,000 POWs in their hands. The end of the war stopped that monthly butcher’s bill of deaths: Allied, Japanese, young, old, military, civilian, citizens of occupied lands.

GKC

Very true.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

Any tweaks you’d make?

Yes. The Japanese also had to believe that we not only would do that (one bomb/one plane) but also could do that, again. The immediate reaction to Hiroshima was first a denial that it was an atomic bomb, which didn’t last long. Two days after the bomb, an Army team reached the city, including Yoshio Nishina, the head of the major Japanese atomic bomb development team. He stated, as their plane circled, that it was obviously an atomic bomb. It took the team 2 days to agree. After which thought was given to how they might counter such a weapon, and protect themselves. The Chief of the Naval General Staff argued that the Americans could not possess more than a few such bombs; Anami, the War Minister believed that there could only be one. And, in any case, that world opinion would prevent them from using more. Which, as Frank (DOWNFALL, pp.270-271) says is evidence of how easily Japanese military leaders could have inoculated themselves against being swayed by a mere demonstration of a single atomic device.They had to be convinced not only that we would do it, but that we could continue to do it, or they would have continued to rely on the idea of ketsu-go defense to achieve better terms. The damage itself was not novel, only the supreme ease that we could now inflict it and keep doing so, turned the tables. Anami, who went quite bi-polar after the 2nd bomb, said “They may have 100 of these things”. We didn’t. But how many, the Japanese had no idea.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

Yes. The Japanese also had to believe that we not only would do that (one bomb/one plane) but also could do that, again. The immediate reaction to Hiroshima was first a denial that it was an atomic bomb, which didn’t last long. Two days after the bomb, an Army team reached the city, including Yoshio Nishina, the head of the major Japanese atomic bomb development team. He stated, as their plane circled, that it was obviously an atomic bomb. It took the team 2 days to agree. After which thought was given to how they might counter such a weapon, and protect themselves. The Chief of the Naval General Staff argued that the Americans could not possess more than a few such bombs; Anami, the War Minister believed that there could only be one. And, in any case, that world opinion would prevent them from using more. Which, as Frank (DOWNFALL, pp.270-271) says is evidence of how easily Japanese military leaders could have inoculated themselves against being swayed by a mere demonstration of a single atomic device.They had to be convinced not only that we would do it, but that we could continue to do it, or they would have continued to rely on the idea of ketsu-go defense to achieve better terms. The damage itself was not novel, only the supreme ease that we could now inflict it and keep doing so, turned the tables. Anami, who went quite bi-polar after the 2nd bomb, said “They may have 100 of these things”. We didn’t. But how many, the Japanese had no idea.

GKC

Thank you for adding this. You’ve posted this information already in this thread, but it’s not something I would ever have thought to add to my post. I did say that they had to believe that the U.S. could use nukes again, but I didn’t explain how that connected to the bombing of Nagasaki and the eventual surrender of Imperial Japan. If I may take this fact and use it to emphasize my point (and twist the knife):

One city wasn’t enough, and that’s why there was a list of targets made by the Targeting Committee. One targeted attack on an urban population wouldn’t shock the enemy, we must do it twice. Perhaps we will have to do it more than twice, as many times as it takes. We will keep destroying both combatants and non-combatants alike until out enemy submits. This is an enemy that cuts the heads off of women and children, and we will make them fear us through shock at our power and willingness to use that power against man, woman, and child.

They lowered the bar, we will show them how much lower it can go.

That is the moral danger in this kind of warfare, and it’s precisely the war I don’t want our people (the U.S.) to lose.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

Thank you for adding this. You’ve posted this information already in this thread, but it’s not something I would ever have thought to add to my post. I did say that they had to believe that the U.S. could use nukes again, but I didn’t explain how that connected to the bombing of Nagasaki and the eventual surrender of Imperial Japan. If I may take this fact and use it to emphasize my point (and twist the knife):

One city wasn’t enough, and that’s why there was a list of targets made by the Targeting Committee. One targeted attack on an urban population wouldn’t shock the enemy, we must do it twice. Perhaps we will have to do it more than twice, as many times as it takes. We will keep destroying both combatants and non-combatants alike until out enemy submits. This is an enemy that cuts the heads off of women and children, and we will make them fear us through shock at our power and willingness to use that power against man, woman, and child.

They lowered the bar, we will show them how much lower it can go.

That is the moral danger in this kind of warfare, and it’s precisely the war I don’t want our people (the U.S.) to lose.

Peace and God bless!

You are welcome. In this thread, and the 3 others on the subject that I’ve been in over the past year, I often repeat my points. It seems to be necessary.

The Japanese had to believe that we both could and would. Neither alone was sufficient.

We had no idea how long, or how many bombs it would take. Norman Ramsey was the chief scientist on Tinian in support of the project. He stated that perhaps 50 bombs might be required, to force the surrender (I suspect this was hyperbole). Each bomb, in destructive effect, was the equivalent of a week of conventional bombing. Which the Japanese had endured for 4 months. Ramsey told his Tinian team it might take six months.

OTOH, Adm. William Purnell, from the Manhattan Project, thought two bombs would do it. He was correct. But no one knew.

Your moral conclusions are your own; mine differ. I am not addressing yours at all; I relate the history.

GKC

 

[StevenFrancis]

I didn’t really care for the answer choices, because life isn’t binary. There are many values and shades to such things. As a hopefully faithful Catholic, I can say that the explosion of a nuclear device over a population of persons is morally wrong. Then, I remembered that the world had gotten so far off track with tyranny and expansionism of evil ideologies, that in the 1940’s it seemed to be a reasonable solution, and the people involved with it, did so out of a feeling of necessity to end a thus far 2 part series of ever escalating horror which may well have taken millions more lives, and placed billions of persons into lives which would have hardly seemed worth living. The world of men made a choice from among the tools at it’s disposal. Did it make the right one? Maybe not. To combat evil with evil is never right. But then love isn’t always pretty, and tied up with a pink bow either. Was it hard love? or was it murder? Were the atrocities of the Nazis and the imperialists hard love? or were they murder, torture and slavery. Was ending those things right? Did God want man to end those things? Did we prevent untold suffering, or did we raise a new kind of horror to live with until Christ returns?

I answered “we had to do it”, which it turns out is the minority view when prevented as a binary choice. It was impulsive. The truth is, I haven’t worked out an answer to this one. Nor has God seen fit to bless me with a simple answer on this one to soothe my own prayerful heart. It’s so horrible, I don’t want to form a personal opinion on it until my properly catechized conscience tells me I may. So these are mysteries of man. Not of God.

Jesus tells us that all will be made known, and brought to light on the last day. I believe Jesus. I will accept truth on that day. In the mean time, I’ll pray that man made a reasonable decision on that fateful day which brought about an end to the second world war. And most of all, I’ll pray that mankind never has to make a decision of that magnitude again, and that Christ will bring us home long before we reach such a horrid boiling point on earth again.

For all those souls who participated in the two great wars, or the American Revolution, or the war between the states. The huge ideological wars which changed the world forever, may God look with favor on their souls, as he instilled the vigor of certain belief in them as they fought with courage for what they loved.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[GKC]

I didn’t really care for the answer choices, because life isn’t binary. There are many values and shades to such things. As a hopefully faithful Catholic, I can say that the explosion of a nuclear device over a population of persons is morally wrong. Then, I remembered that the world had gotten so far off track with tyranny and expansionism of evil ideologies, that in the 1940’s it seemed to be a reasonable solution, and the people involved with it, did so out of a feeling of necessity to end a thus far 2 part series of ever escalating horror which may well have taken millions more lives, and placed billions of persons into lives which would have hardly seemed worth living. The world of men made a choice from among the tools at it’s disposal. Did it make the right one? Maybe not. To combat evil with evil is never right. But then love isn’t always pretty, and tied up with a pink bow either. Was it hard love? or was it murder? Were the atrocities of the Nazis and the imperialists hard love? or were they murder, torture and slavery. Was ending those things right? Did God want man to end those things? Did we prevent untold suffering, or did we raise a new kind of horror to live with until Christ returns?

I answered “we had to do it”, which it turns out is the minority view when prevented as a binary choice. It was impulsive. The truth is, I haven’t worked out an answer to this one. Nor has God seen fit to bless me with a simple answer on this one to soothe my own prayerful heart. It’s so horrible, I don’t want to form a personal opinion on it until my properly catechized conscience tells me I may. So these are mysteries of man. Not of God.

Jesus tells us that all will be made known, and brought to light on the last day. I believe Jesus. I will accept truth on that day. In the mean time, I’ll pray that man made a reasonable decision on that fateful day which brought about an end to the second world war. And most of all, I’ll pray that mankind never has to make a decision of that magnitude again, and that Christ will bring us home long before we reach such a horrid boiling point on earth again.

For all those souls who participated in the two great wars, or the American Revolution, or the war between the states. The huge ideological wars which changed the world forever, may God look with favor on their souls, as he instilled the vigor of certain belief in them as they fought with courage for what they loved.

Blessings,

Steven

I have not yet recommended a book on this topic, that I have been planning to, though I have recommended many, many other titles. And quoted same.

One I haven’t cited is THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION: TRUMAN, THE ATOMIC BOMBS, AND THE DEFEAT OF JAPAN/Fr. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C. Fr. Miscamble teaches (or did so, 3-4 years ago) at Notre Dame. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

Your moral conclusions are your own; mine differ. I am not addressing yours at all; I relate the history.

Absolutely. Although we differ in our view of the morality of the decision that’s not of much importance to me. You’re not a Catholic and I can’t expect you to follow Catholic moral teaching on this matter. Since this thread was aimed at Catholics and the moral question that is my focus, but the proper historical facts are important to addressing the question and that is why I appreciate your presence regardless of our differences on the moral question.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

Absolutely. Although we differ in our view of the morality of the decision that’s not of much importance to me. You’re not a Catholic and I can’t expect you to follow Catholic moral teaching on this matter. Since this thread was aimed at Catholics and the moral question that is my focus, but the proper historical facts are important to addressing the question and that is why I appreciate your presence regardless of our differences on the moral question.

Peace and God bless!

I demur only on one point in your post.

And you’re very welcome.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

I demur only on one point in your post.

And you’re very welcome.

GKC

What point would that be? Are you a Catholic? I seem to remember you saying you were an Anglican or Episcopalian, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

What point would that be? Are you a Catholic? I seem to remember you saying you were an Anglican or Episcopalian, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Peace and God bless!

No, you’re not mistaken on that. Anglican. But that’s the right point.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

H, StevenFrancis,

Great post!

God bless

I didn’t really care for the answer choices, because life isn’t binary. There are many values and shades to such things. As a hopefully faithful Catholic, I can say that the explosion of a nuclear device over a population of persons is morally wrong. Then, I remembered that the world had gotten so far off track with tyranny and expansionism of evil ideologies, that in the 1940’s it seemed to be a reasonable solution, and the people involved with it, did so out of a feeling of necessity to end a thus far 2 part series of ever escalating horror which may well have taken millions more lives, and placed billions of persons into lives which would have hardly seemed worth living. The world of men made a choice from among the tools at it’s disposal. Did it make the right one? Maybe not. To combat evil with evil is never right. But then love isn’t always pretty, and tied up with a pink bow either. Was it hard love? or was it murder? Were the atrocities of the Nazis and the imperialists hard love? or were they murder, torture and slavery. Was ending those things right? Did God want man to end those things? Did we prevent untold suffering, or did we raise a new kind of horror to live with until Christ returns?

I answered “we had to do it”, which it turns out is the minority view when prevented as a binary choice. It was impulsive. The truth is, I haven’t worked out an answer to this one. Nor has God seen fit to bless me with a simple answer on this one to soothe my own prayerful heart. It’s so horrible, I don’t want to form a personal opinion on it until my properly catechized conscience tells me I may. So these are mysteries of man. Not of God.

Jesus tells us that all will be made known, and brought to light on the last day. I believe Jesus. I will accept truth on that day. In the mean time, I’ll pray that man made a reasonable decision on that fateful day which brought about an end to the second world war. And most of all, I’ll pray that mankind never has to make a decision of that magnitude again, and that Christ will bring us home long before we reach such a horrid boiling point on earth again.

For all those souls who participated in the two great wars, or the American Revolution, or the war between the states. The huge ideological wars which changed the world forever, may God look with favor on their souls, as he instilled the vigor of certain belief in them as they fought with courage for what they loved.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[vz71]

I haven’t said the Allied leaders were guilty of anything, I’ve merely pointed out that targeting non-combatants for any reason is a moral evil. Whether or not the leaders who ordered the attacks are culpable is a question way above my pay-grade, but there actions were certainly evil according to the Church.

I am a little confused here.

You are claiming that you are not saying the Allied leaders were guilty of anything; but at the same time claiming their actions were evil.

These two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

Either their actions were evil, and they are guilty, or they are not.

You claim that you cannot speak of moral culpability, but at the same time are saying their actions were sinful.

 

[Ghosty]

I am a little confused here.

You are claiming that you are not saying the Allied leaders were guilty of anything; but at the same time claiming their actions were evil.

These two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

Either their actions were evil, and they are guilty, or they are not.

You claim that you cannot speak of moral culpability, but at the same time are saying their actions were sinful.

A moral action is either evil or not, but the person doing the action may not be culpable. Murder is evil, but a paranoid schizophrenic may not be guilty in murdering someone they believe is invading their mind. Abortion is evil, but a scared young girl who panics at the notion of raising a child may not be guilty in having an abortion.

In this case I don’t know what level of culpability the Allied commanders had, though I do assert that their actions were objectively evil.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ricks1948]

Very interesting I’m glad I’m here to throw in. My dad (rest his soul with the Lord) He was a POW in Japan at the time. I read somewhere I don’t know if its true or not, or even if they would have done it, but it was ordered that all POW’s were to be killed if the mainland was invaded. So not only American soldiers were spared and Japanese but the generations from the spared including me, my children and my grandchildren.

 

[GKC]

Very interesting I’m glad I’m here to throw in. My dad (rest his soul with the Lord) He was a POW in Japan at the time. I read somewhere I don’t know if its true or not, or even if they would have done it, but it was ordered that all POW’s were to be killed if the mainland was invaded. So not only American soldiers were spared and Japanese but the generations from the spared including me, my children and my grandchildren.

That is correct. POWs were to be eliminated in advance of any possible chance of rescue, whether in the Home Islands, by invasion, or in the progress of the Brits in Operation Zipper, or any such analogous conditions.

GKC

 

[vz71]

A moral action is either evil or not, but the person doing the action may not be culpable.

But you have eliminated that when you decided to bring in what you believe to be the reason for the target.

You proved the actions to be evil, you proved they were deliberate.
And then you back down and claim not to be a judge of these people.

Either what you are saying is true, and there is little choice of the judgement upon those involved in dropping the bomb, or what you are saying is inaccurate and we cannot claim to know if the actions were evil or not.

You are saying one thing, but acting another.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I am sure that Ghosty has never, in her entire life, been put in a position to make a truly life-or-death decision.

Instead, she sits in her comfortable chair and receives the reward for that which has been painfully provided for her.

Jesus was crucified on the Cross so that she can go to heaven.

Generations of American marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen have made similar sacrifices of themselves and their brothers-in-arms so that she can have the freedom to disagree with their actions.

While she seems to appreciate Jesus’ sacrifice for her, she appears to be unable to appreciate the other sacrifice.

But that’s okay. Because just as Jesus climbed that cross for those who don’t appreciate it, so did the American marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen bear the burden of fighting her fights so that she can live the peacefully ignorant life she leads.

The sad thing is, as a result of America’s public schools, her thinking is gaining the majority.

 

[jonbhorton]

I am sure that Ghosty has never, in her entire life, been put in a position to make a truly life-or-death decision.

Instead, she sits in her comfortable chair and receives the reward for that which has been painfully provided for her.

Jesus was crucified on the Cross so that she can go to heaven.

Generations of American marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen have made similar sacrifices of themselves and their brothers-in-arms so that she can have the freedom to disagree with their actions.

While she seems to appreciate Jesus’ sacrifice for her, she appears to be unable to appreciate the other sacrifice.

But that’s okay. Because just as Jesus climbed that cross for those who don’t appreciate it, so did the American marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen bear the burden of fighting her fights so that she can live the peacefully ignorant life she leads.

The sad thing is, as a result of America’s public schools, her thinking is gaining the majority.

Based on private message interaction I’ve had with Ghosty, your remarks are off the mark more so than Sweeney’s drop on Nagasaki. Further, they’re off-topic and ad hominem.

Why not attack me? In part, I’ve given subjective commentary, delved into emotional reasoning as to why dissenters are not seeing my point of view, I’ve blatantly discounted opinions on the issue of high-ranking Catholics including Popes (though I admit I did give my reasoning why, which had nothing to do with their abilities and what they knew, but what they didn’t know), etc.

The only one in this thread that has presented nothing but truly objective historical data, and the objective view of what were certainly subjective opinions of the men who made the decision, has been GKC.

Don’t go overboard, boatswain.

Scouts out,
Jon

 

[Ghosty]

But you have eliminated that when you decided to bring in what you believe to be the reason for the target.

They gave the reason for the target, it’s not a matter of speculation

You proved the actions to be evil, you proved they were deliberate.
And then you back down and claim not to be a judge of these people.

Just because an action is deliberate doesn’t make the person culpable. In all of the examples I gave in my previous post the actions were deliberate and the people are not culpable.

What is required is full consent of the will and knowledge that the action is evil. I don’t know that the people knew the gravity of their action so I can’t judge them.

Either what you are saying is true, and there is little choice of the judgement upon those involved in dropping the bomb, or what you are saying is inaccurate and we cannot claim to know if the actions were evil or not.

You are saying one thing, but acting another.

Perhaps you should study more about moral culpability before you say these things.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I am sure that Ghosty has never, in her entire life, been put in a position to make a truly life-or-death decision.

First of all I’m a he. A minor point but might as well clear it up.

Secondly, while I’ve never served in combat I have had to make decisions that mean life or death. It comes with the territory of emergency medicine, a field I used to work in. I’ve watched people die with my own eyes because of the decisions people have made just minutes before. It’s not the same thing as war, to be sure, but I’m not unfamiliar with life and death decisions and the weight they carry.

Instead, she sits in her comfortable chair and receives the reward for that which has been painfully provided for her.

Jesus was crucified on the Cross so that she can go to heaven.

True of all of us, even the warriors. None of us deserve what Christ did for us, at least not from ourselves.

Generations of American marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen have made similar sacrifices of themselves and their brothers-in-arms so that she can have the freedom to disagree with their actions.

While she seems to appreciate Jesus’ sacrifice for her, she appears to be unable to appreciate the other sacrifice.

Tell that to the Pearl Harbor survivor suffering from dementia who I care for every week, and even though his mind isn’t fully functioning I thank him for his service anyway.

There are countless other examples, but the only relevance is that you don’t know me nor do you seem to understand where my criticism comes from. As I said above it is precisely because I care about, and for, warriors that I’m making the argument that I do. I’m no pacifist, I just don’t want our men and women bearing wounds on their souls they shouldn’t have to bear.

But that’s okay. Because just as Jesus climbed that cross for those who don’t appreciate it, so did the American marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen bear the burden of fighting her fights so that she can live the peacefully ignorant life she leads.

The sad thing is, as a result of America’s public schools, her thinking is gaining the majority.

Ironically it is Catholic private schools that teach the morality I’m arguing for, since it’s the traditional Catholic moral position that I’m arguing for.

jonbhorton: Thanks for popping in and sticking up for me. We may disagree on this matter, but we can respect each other as people. Hopefully others will see that and learn from it.

Peace and God bless!