As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[tqualey]

Hi, Ghosty,

Thank you for your response.

None of us can go back. But, it really appears that whatever lessons were learned with the atomic bombing of H/N - there is little to suggest that such an activity would not take place again. This is truly sad - for this time we are looking at terrorists organizations (not nation states) sneaking such a bomb into an American city.for the purpose of destruction on an unimaginable scale. Today (2/17/12) we find that there was a man planning a suicide bombing of the US Capitol washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-agents-arrest-man-who-allegedly-planned-suicide-bombing-on-us-capitol/2012/02/17/gIQAtYZ7JR_story.html?hpid=z1 None of us are safe.

God bless

oldbrit2009: You’re post is so far off base from what I have written, even confusing my account of what others have said as my own words despite the fact that I said I disagreed with them in the very same sentence, that I’m not going to bother to make a full response. I enjoy being challenged, but this is at least the second post you’ve directed towards me where you’re challenging me on things I’ve not said. What’s more, you’re continuing to challenge me on mistaken ideas that I’ve already answered before. I won’t respond to such posts in the future.

tqualey: If that was truly the intent then the issue would definitely change, but the answer might still be the same if all other things remained equal. The targeting would no longer be the issue, but the proportionality and the mitigation of destruction would then be the issues. Honestly I’ve not given much thought or study to the targeting capabilities of the time period to say what would be appropriate mitigation of damage, so I’m not capable of judging that hypothetical at this point.

I will point out, however, that I said earlier in this thread that I don’t believe the use of nuclear weapons is inherently evil. I even went as far as saying that the use of nuclear weapons in a densely populated area is not inherently evil. It was post #80 if you want to go back and see what I said eight months ago on the matter.

vz71: Go look in any dictionary for the definition of non-combatant. It is not a theological terms and needn’t be defined by the Church in order for it to be used. The term

All that needs to be known is that these folks had not entered combat, and were not on “the battlefield”. Had the invasion begun and the civilian population mobilized in Ketsugo then it would be a different matter; they would be combatants even if they were women, children, and the elderly. That did not happen, however, so it’s a moot point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I was told to look up any dictionary.

I did. Twice.

Perhaps the goal posts are being moved.
Perhaps the statement should have been to look up any dictionary except those two.

I happen to know that a people trained to fight, that will kill given the opportunity, and has shown this, cannot be classified as non-combatant.

Once again the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not engaged in combat. The invasion hadn’t even begun, and the only thing we know for certain is that they were not an activated fighting force at the time they were targeted. Once again I’ll quote the Encyclopedia:

In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force.

They were capable, certainly, but were not in fact participating in the war. What’s more, they were not targeted as a fighting force, but as civilians. Had the invasion began, and they grabbed their bamboo spears to banzai charge the beach, that would be another matter all together, though then proportionality would be the issue.

tqualey: None of us are ever safe, and I think this notion that somehow we should be safe is a bigger problem then the dangers we actually face. Death is lurking around the corner for all of us, and not one of us will escape it. I’ve seen it enough to accept it as just a part of life.

As for such bombings happening again, I don’t know. I’m less worried about nukes being used than I am about the general principles being ignored. I do think that countries like the U.S. are much different in our attitudes towards war now, however, and targeting non-combatants is not as accepted as it was during WWII.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

Once again I’ll quote the Encyclopedia:

In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?
You may have a point…if it is the case that only the imperial command and the armies were engaged in the war effort.
Please provide the facts and figures to back this contention.

 

[Ghosty]

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?
You may have a point…if it is the case that only the imperial command and the armies were engaged in the war effort.
Please provide the facts and figures to back this contention.

Supporting a war doesn’t make one a combatant. Every single person in a nation, by virtue of paying taxes, “supports the war”. That doesn’t mean they can be targeted; the Church is very, very clear on this.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

Supporting a war doesn’t make one a combatant. Every single person in a nation, by virtue of paying taxes, “supports the war”. That doesn’t mean they can be targeted; the Church is very, very clear on this.

Peace and God bless!

True enough.
But I believe the church is silent concerning individuals that are trained for combat and engaged in logistical support.

 

[Ghosty]

True enough.
But I believe the church is silent concerning individuals that are trained for combat and engaged in logistical support.

That’s irrelevant since the whole populations of these cities were the targets, not simply the logistical support for the war. They were targeted with the explicit intent of widespread, indiscriminate destruction. Had the war machine been the target then we’d be discussing proportionality in targeting logistical support with a city-killer bomb.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

That’s irrelevant since the whole populations of these cities were the targets, not simply the logistical support for the war.

Now that is simply not true.

It is well documented that the entire population of the city was not the target.

 

[wcknight]

War is H*** and in this case it really was… I don’t think atomic weapons should be used on any civilian populations… for that matter virtually carpet bombing Dresden was not such a great idea either.

The Japanese military were a ruthless bunch, and they were involved in atrocities or allowed atrocities to take place throughout the war. The massacres in China were almost as bad as the Nazi attempts to exterminate the Jews.

There is nothing good or honorable in killing hundred of thousands of civilians. The ends do not justify the means, It’s like the question, Do you purposely kill one innocent infant, even if you knew for certain it would save hundreds or even thousands of people down the road.

That it brought about the end of the war was a big positive, BUT there was no absolute certainty that not dropping the bomb would have required an invasion. Could the US have not blockcaded the Japanese island and not risked the thousands of troops needed to invade ??? The Japanese knew it was losing. They were in full retreat, they knew that Germany and Italy had already fallen. It was only a matter of time before they too were defeated.

The irony of it all, is that 50 years later, the Japanese and Germans were poised to take over the world economically anyway.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wcknight,

I have really learned a lot from this thread - and I certainly appreciate the posts from everyone. I will be taking a Lenten Break … and give up CAF during this time. I really enjoy this list - so, I guess this is an appropriate penance.

God bless

Leaving the CAFs for Lent! Be back in 40!

War is H*** and in this case it really was… I don’t think atomic weapons should be used on any civilian populations… for that matter virtually carpet bombing Dresden was not such a great idea either.

The Japanese military were a ruthless bunch, and they were involved in atrocities or allowed atrocities to take place throughout the war. The massacres in China were almost as bad as the Nazi attempts to exterminate the Jews.

There is nothing good or honorable in killing hundred of thousands of civilians. The ends do not justify the means, It’s like the question, Do you purposely kill one innocent infant, even if you knew for certain it would save hundreds or even thousands of people down the road.

That it brought about the end of the war was a big positive, BUT there was no absolute certainty that not dropping the bomb would have required an invasion. Could the US have not blockcaded the Japanese island and not risked the thousands of troops needed to invade ??? The Japanese knew it was losing. They were in full retreat, they knew that Germany and Italy had already fallen. It was only a matter of time before they too were defeated.

The irony of it all, is that 50 years later, the Japanese and Germans were poised to take over the world economically anyway.

 

[vz71]

Hi, Wcknight,

I have really learned a lot from this thread - and I certainly appreciate the posts from everyone. I will be taking a Lenten Break … and give up CAF during this time.

That is a great idea.

I can’t say I will give it up, but I will try.

 

[Ghosty]

Now that is simply not true.

It is well documented that the entire population of the city was not the target.

I honestly can’t make any sense of this statement. There was no discrimination in the targeting, entire cities were the target.

 

[Contarini]

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?

I won’t speak for the other poster, but that’s certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a “combatant” in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn’t anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don’t kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort–they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren’t combatants.

This isn’t rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

 

[Ghosty]

I won’t speak for the other poster, but that’s certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a “combatant” in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn’t anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don’t kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort–they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren’t combatants.

This isn’t rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

Amen.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I won’t speak for the other poster, but that’s certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a “combatant” in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn’t anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don’t kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort–they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren’t combatants.

This isn’t rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

Another ‘Amen’

Blessings

Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

None of us can go back. But, it really appears that whatever lessons were learned with the atomic bombing of H/N - there is little to suggest that such an activity would not take place again. This is truly sad - for this time we are looking at terrorists organizations (not nation states) sneaking such a bomb into an American city.for the purpose of destruction on an unimaginable scale. Today (2/17/12) we find that there was a man planning a suicide bombing of the US Capitol washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-agents-arrest-man-who-allegedly-planned-suicide-bombing-on-us-capitol/2012/02/17/gIQAtYZ7JR_story.html?hpid=z1 None of us are safe.

God bless

Look at the death and destruction America has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many non-combatants have died as a result of American action. How will their families get justice and compensation for what America has done? There are thousands of refugees from Iraq, forced out their country by war. Why are Americans so surprised when individuals retaliate, you call it terrorism, and they might see their actions as striving for some kind of justice.

Has America learned anything from the bombing of H/N, I would say no, their armies still interfere in other countries.

Praying for justice and peace for all people.

Eric

 

[oldbrit2009]

Look at the death and destruction America has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many non-combatants have died as a result of American action. How will their families get justice and compensation for what America has done? There are thousands of refugees from Iraq, forced out their country by war. Why are Americans so surprised when individuals retaliate, you call it terrorism, and they might see their actions as striving for some kind of justice.

Has America learned anything from the bombing of H/N, I would say no, their armies still interfere in other countries.

Praying for justice and peace for all people.

Eric

There is absolutely no connection between WW2 and what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone who attempts to make a connection is just demonstating a total lack of knowledge of history.

 

[DennisTate]

Wow, that is a heavy question!

I didn’t vote yet and would have preferred more options because personally I do think that both options have validity!

I believe that the question by Rabbi Jesus/Yahushua, to the Pharisees, “is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill”, refers partly to the situation faced by the Machabees.

In a sense I believe that Rabbi Jesus was backing up the decision by the Machabees to fight back if attacked by Greco-Syrian armies on the Sabbath. If this is true then he was also backing up the idea that defending your families, your village or your nation can be a justification for taking lives when it is done in self-defence. It was estimated that the Japanese army was so well trained and equipped that a million American soldiers would die before the Japanese Empire could be persuaded to surrender. President Harry Truman did not make that decision lightly!

 

[Jessup]

I think if any man here reading this post; where to be one of the young Catholic sailors on a ship in the Pacific, told to write your letters home and be ready in a few days to land in Japan, or one of the thousands of American soldiers , Chinese, or Philippine , held in a Japanese Concentration camp, being used for forced labor, prostitution, and bayonet practice you’d be quite thankful for the matrimony of nuclear chemistry and mechanical engineering
Cheers!

 

[GKC]

Wow, that is a heavy question!

I didn’t vote yet and would have preferred more options because personally I do think that both options have validity!

I believe that the question by Rabbi Jesus/Yahushua, to the Pharisees, “is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill”, refers partly to the situation faced by the Machabees.

In a sense I believe that Rabbi Jesus was backing up the decision by the Machabees to fight back if attacked by Greco-Syrian armies on the Sabbath. If this is true then he was also backing up the idea that defending your families, your village or your nation can be a justification for taking lives when it is done in self-defence. It was estimated that the Japanese army was so well trained and equipped that a million American soldiers would die before the Japanese Empire could be persuaded to surrender. President Harry Truman did not make that decision lightly!

The estimates for the butcher’s bill for the invasion of the Home Islands (Operation Downfall) varied, from source to source and from time to time, in the summer of 1945. A million American casualties was certainly among the upper estimates. This was not so much because of the excellence of the Japanese military at that time, but the fanaticism of the planned resistance, under the Ketsu-Go plan. Japanese casualties were anticipated to be in the multi-millions. And this not considering the continuing casualties in the rest of the PTO, which was running between 100,000-200,000 a month at that time, and was going to increase, with the British Operation Zipper, in Sep.

Threads on this subject tend to be long, and repetitive. I’ve been in 4 of them, in the past 8 months.

GKC

 

[Armyvet007]

Eric-

Let me respond to your off topic remark. I was in the US Army for 9 years, served as an officer for 4 of those years, and “visited” Iraq twice *. The Army operates over there on one of the most restrictive ROE [rules of engagement] ever used by the American, and I suspect any, military ever. Additionally, the military and political strategies [at both strategic and tactical levels] are rooted in minimizing non-combatant casulaties and “winning hearts and minds.”

The vast majority of non-combatant casulaties are a result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence which, for the large part, is not directly due to the international [which at one time included the UK] presence there. This violence centers around criminal activities, tribal conflict [tribes/families play a very important role in Iraqi society], ethnic conflict [kurds vs arabs], and socio-economic conflict masked as religous conflict [shia vs sunni]. This violence is a direct result of the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam’s regime. This violence follows the norm for what happens when an oppressive regime [which can be traced back to the “interference” of the UK and France] is removed from power in an artificially created state [thank you UK and France]. At best, you could argue that this violence is in-directly caused by America due to the fact that America led the international effort to remove Saddam. But, that’s like blaming death for the violence that erupted in the former Yugoslavia since death caused the oppressive regime there to fall [Tito died].

Now, let’s look at non-combatant casulaties that are a result of the international presence there. Most are due to actions taken by the insurgents [the majority of whom aren’t Iraqi] who do not operate under any sort of ROE. In fact, one of their main strategies is to intentionally target non-combatants [they don’t fight back, easy targets]. Some are also due to the infighting between various insurgent groups as they attempt to gain power within the insurgency movement and Iraq [Sadr being a good example]. All of which can only be in-directly blamed on the international presence. What casualties that can be directly linked are a normal result of war [and even here, well under the norm for warfare] or renegade/criminal actions by individuals within the international forces [once again a norm for warfare]. Trying to blame the international forces for casualties that are directly caused by insurgent forces [and at best indirectly caused by the international presence] is like blaming the French/Dutch/Polish/etc resistence movements during WW2 for the massacres undertaken by the Nazis in retaliation for resistence military operations.

As for “interfering”, rather ironic coming from a citizen of a country with one of the richest histories of “interfering” [Africa, China, India, other countries in Europe, Ireland, Middle East]. Let’s look at Iraq specfically. Iraq came into existence as an artifical state [it wasn’t formed naturally by its population] due to France and the UK carving up the Middle East at the close of WW1 in order to further their own interest (and help “civilize” the poor ignorant natives; classic european colonial mentality). The puppet government installed by the UK served the UK and oppressed, with UK help, opposition movements within the thrown together against their wills population. This oppression and general lack of concern for Iraqi interests led to the Ba’ath party, and then Saddam, gaining power [coups]. The UK then continued to “interfer” by propping up the Saddam regime through economic, military, and political support. In regards to Iraq, you could, at best, claim that America is actually interfering with the long tradition of the UK using Iraq.

Back on topic-
Morally, the bombing of Hiroshima is no different then any other bombing carried out during WW2. Don’t get caught up with it being a “special case” because it was atomic.
edit-added “Morally, the” [in regards to politics, warfare, strategy it is a “speical case”]*