As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Roy5]

Ironically, as you know, Nagaski was the Catholic center in Japan. And Hiroshima the Protestant center.

** As I age, the more I tend to agree with groups like the Quakers** and even the Amish. There always seem to be ways for combatants to find their wars are ‘just wars’, Hitler actually claimed to be saving western civilization from British-style plutocracy and Soviet atheistic-communism. Japan’s main propaganda theme was “Asia for Asians”. Europeans ran so much of Asia, the French, the British, the Dutch and the USA.

** I’ve read that the early Christians refused to participate in war**. Not sure that this is entirely true, but that’s what some scholars claim. If we are to love our enemies, as Christ commanded, we certainly don’t bomb them as we did at Hamburg and Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima. A strange way to express love.

** As I watch the GOP debates - and I have a GOP heritage, though now am an Independent - I am dismayed** that all but Paul seem ready, almost eager, to bomb Iran. Another war? Certainly the way to alienate millions more around the world and lead the USA further and further into huge debtedness. Will our beloved nation crumble mainly because of economic collapse? One has to wonder. Ron Paul, incidentally, alienates me for other reasons - long story.

** I often think of the Eisenhower warning against the industrial-military complex.** There are those who make billions off war. I doubt if many of them care about all the innocent people killed, Americans and others, as long as their pockets are full of cash. Certainly, the neocons beat the drums for belligerency and self-proclaimed patriots are swept along into hating and fearing this nation now and that nation tomorrow. We always have to have an enemy. I dislike the Iranian government, but I don’t think it’s suicidal. An attack on Israel would mean a pulverized Iran. Iran, meanwhile, looks around. Afghanistan to its east, Iraq to its west, both invaded. Ghaddafi gave up his effort to build the bomb, thinking that he could escape usurpation. See what happened to him?

  **Most of these situations are complex. Take Syria today**. The present Assad government has the support of the vast majority of Christians in that nation, and I heard that Al Qaeda supports the insurgents. There you have it. In World War II many Armenians, Ukrainians, even some IRA Irish - plus Finns, Letts, Lithuanians, etc. - hoped for a Hitler victory to bolster their particular causes.

** Enough already. Christians ought to be peacemakers** and not foster the spirit of hatred and war. We do far too little peacemaking - and have for hundreds of years. I wonder how many Christians have been slaughtered by fellow Christians? Millions. Miserabile dictu. Do I have that Latin right?

** One final thought. Check out various chapters in the Old Testament**. God allegedly ordered Joshua to kill everybody in such places as Jericho and Ai, and He ordered Saul to slaughter every remaining Amalekite. Lots of other ‘God-endorsed’ genocide in such books as Joshua and I and II Samuel. I sometimes wonder if such violence justified in the Bible doesn’t diminish the impact of the Sermon of the Mount among many Christians? Those wild tales of genocide (which I don’t believe literally - I simply can’t believe that God ordered such mass murder - see the Ten Commandments) can seem to justify holy wars. Sad.

** God bless the whole world with peace, justice and faith.** Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. Surely that is a worthy Christian goal.

 

[GKC]

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-
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.*

Well said. And one must admit that the American armed forces certainly do have a record of interfering in other nations. Such as all those folks they interfered with, from Normandy, thence south and east, some years back.

GKC

 

[Armyvet007]

GKC- The American govt/people have a history of “interfering”, the American military (as an institution) carries out the will of its govt/people within the laws of the US and warfare. To say the military “interfers” is to excuse the American govt/people of their actions and their resposnibility for those actions. A hammer does not “interfer” with a nail, the person using the hammer does; the hammer is simply the method/tool by which the person “interfers” with it.

 

[GKC]

GKC- The American govt/people have a history of “interfering”, the American military (as an institution) carries out the will of its govt/people within the laws of the US and warfare. To say the military “interfers” is to excuse the American govt/people of their actions and their resposnibility for those actions. A hammer does not “interfer” with a nail, the person using the hammer does; the hammer is simply the method/tool by which the person “interfers” with it.

Yes. But the terminology I used was to parallel that used by Eric Hyom, not as a course in American constitutionalism.

I spent a little over twice the years you did in uniform (though never in any interesting places) and the role of the military as an instrument of national expression of will is not unknown to me.

And thank you for your service.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

Armyvet007: Thank you for your service!

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”]

The atomic aspect doesn’t affect the morality of the bombing, I agree, but the targeting does. Not all bombings in WWII were with the intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction, though the bombing of London, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were. The nuclear aspect really doesn’t enter into the equation, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Armyvet007]

Armyvet007: Thank you for your service!

The atomic aspect doesn’t affect the morality of the bombing, I agree, but the targeting does. Not all bombings in WWII were with the intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction, though the bombing of London, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were. The nuclear aspect really doesn’t enter into the equation, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

“…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…” assumes that the purpose of said bombings was “just for the hell of it” or because “we don’t have to, but we want to IOT punish them.” That is not the case. All 3 fall under the accepted and legal policy of total war as defined and practiced during that time period. All 3 have political/military strategic aims [destroy infrastructure, destroy the populace’s will to fight, disrupt/reduce/destroy the ability to fight].

Let’s look at why Hiroshima was selected-

-it was one of the few untouched/mainly untouched urban areas in Japan [maximizing the political/military impact of the bomb (here it being atomic does play a role]

-it would have been bombed anyway in preparation for an invasion of Japan [not just Hiroshima, but all of Japan]; and/or bombed during the fight for Japan after the invasion

-a bombing of an already bombed urban area would have been of little military value (already destroyed), only served to increase non-combatant casulaties/suffering, and have greatly reduced the impact on the Japanese populace/govt in regards to the bomb

-a bombing of a non-populated/little populated area would have been of no military/political strategic value (the Japanese govt [which like Hitler wanted to fight to the death] would have covered it up (and yes, the Japanese govt would have been able to cover it up, review Japanese propaganda and its impact on the Japanese populace if you don’t believe me)

-not bombing it would (atomic or otherwise) would have prolonged the war and resulted in the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives

-the use of and full picture of the destruction caused by an atomic weapon would send a clear politically strategic message to the USSR (which was already predicted to be the next threat to what would become known as the “free world”)

From a martial and political stand point, the bombing of Hiroshima was fully justified and within the legal framework of war for that time period. Claiming it was intended to maximize indiscriminate destruction is a form of historical revisionism; and ignores the real and valid reasons for the bombing.

 

[tomarin]

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

GKC

Indeed. Perhaps there should be a permanent sub-forum called “Hiroshima/Nagasaki”.

 

[GKC]

Indeed. Perhaps there should be a permanent sub-forum called “Hiroshima/Nagasaki”.

Aaarrgh.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…” assumes that the purpose of said bombings was “just for the hell of it” or because “we don’t have to, but we want to IOT punish them.” That is not the case. All 3 fall under the accepted and legal policy of total war as defined and practiced during that time period. All 3 have political/military strategic aims [destroy infrastructure, destroy the populace’s will to fight, disrupt/reduce/destroy the ability to fight].

Let’s look at why Hiroshima was selected-

-it was one of the few untouched/mainly untouched urban areas in Japan [maximizing the political/military impact of the bomb (here it being atomic does play a role]

-it would have been bombed anyway in preparation for an invasion of Japan [not just Hiroshima, but all of Japan]; and/or bombed during the fight for Japan after the invasion

-a bombing of an already bombed urban area would have been of little military value (already destroyed), only served to increase non-combatant casulaties/suffering, and have greatly reduced the impact on the Japanese populace/govt in regards to the bomb

-a bombing of a non-populated/little populated area would have been of no military/political strategic value (the Japanese govt [which like Hitler wanted to fight to the death] would have covered it up (and yes, the Japanese govt would have been able to cover it up, review Japanese propaganda and its impact on the Japanese populace if you don’t believe me)

-not bombing it would (atomic or otherwise) would have prolonged the war and resulted in the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives

-the use of and full picture of the destruction caused by an atomic weapon would send a clear politically strategic message to the USSR (which was already predicted to be the next threat to what would become known as the “free world”)

From a martial and political stand point, the bombing of Hiroshima was fully justified and within the legal framework of war for that time period. Claiming it was intended to maximize indiscriminate destruction is a form of historical revisionism; and ignores the real and valid reasons for the bombing.

True.

Hiroshima was the HQ of the 2nd General Army under Hata, and the port of embarkation for Kyushu, the planned site of the opening invasion of the Home Islands (Olympic). About 45,000 military were in the city when the bomb was dropped, the hghest percentage of any of the major cities.

That being said, the intent of the bombing was not the destruction of such forces, per se, which could have been done using conventional bombing, but the breaking of the resistance to surrender, under the terms of the Potsdam accord. The economy of force required to achieve the destruction was what was hoped would break the resolve of the Anami group on the Supreme Committee for the Conduct of the War. It did, permitting the Emperor to direct the acceptance of the terms, at the 2nd *gozen kaigan * on 10 August, and after the 2nd bomb.

GKC

 

[oldbrit2009]

“…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…” assumes that the purpose of said bombings was “just for the hell of it” or because “we don’t have to, but we want to IOT punish them.” That is not the case. All 3 fall under the accepted and legal policy of total war as defined and practiced during that time period. All 3 have political/military strategic aims [destroy infrastructure, destroy the populace’s will to fight, disrupt/reduce/destroy the ability to fight].

Let’s look at why Hiroshima was selected-

-it was one of the few untouched/mainly untouched urban areas in Japan [maximizing the political/military impact of the bomb (here it being atomic does play a role]

-it would have been bombed anyway in preparation for an invasion of Japan [not just Hiroshima, but all of Japan]; and/or bombed during the fight for Japan after the invasion

-a bombing of an already bombed urban area would have been of little military value (already destroyed), only served to increase non-combatant casulaties/suffering, and have greatly reduced the impact on the Japanese populace/govt in regards to the bomb

-a bombing of a non-populated/little populated area would have been of no military/political strategic value (the Japanese govt [which like Hitler wanted to fight to the death] would have covered it up (and yes, the Japanese govt would have been able to cover it up, review Japanese propaganda and its impact on the Japanese populace if you don’t believe me)

-not bombing it would (atomic or otherwise) would have prolonged the war and resulted in the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives

-the use of and full picture of the destruction caused by an atomic weapon would send a clear politically strategic message to the USSR (which was already predicted to be the next threat to what would become known as the “free world”)

From a martial and political stand point, the bombing of Hiroshima was fully justified and within the legal framework of war for that time period. Claiming it was intended to maximize indiscriminate destruction is a form of historical revisionism; and ignores the real and valid reasons for the bombing.

Good to read an excellent and reasoned assessment surrounding the use of the atomic bombs.

 

[JimG]

Armyvet007: Thank you for your service!

The atomic aspect doesn’t affect the morality of the bombing, I agree, but the targeting does. Not all bombings in WWII were with the intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction, though the bombing of London, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were. The nuclear aspect really doesn’t enter into the equation, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

I have to agree: the nuclear aspect doesn’t really enter into the equation.

And yet it is precisely the nuclear aspect that leads to threads like these.

 

[DennisTate]

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

GKC, I certainly am glad that you added these statistics to this thread!

Having thought about it more I am almost certain that President Truman as he eventually passed on to the higher dimensions of space time would regret not having had more faith at the time that he gave the order for the nuclear strike. From what I have read by people who had a brush with death are shown that human life has astonishing value and I am sure he would have loved to have some other good option…What would the prophet Elisha have done if he had been President of the USA at that time!!!

 

[Ghosty]

“…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…” assumes that the purpose of said bombings was “just for the hell of it” or because “we don’t have to, but we want to IOT punish them.” That is not the case. All 3 fall under the accepted and legal policy of total war as defined and practiced during that time period. All 3 have political/military strategic aims [destroy infrastructure, destroy the populace’s will to fight, disrupt/reduce/destroy the ability to fight].

First of all I’ve never claimed that it was “just for the Hell of it” or that the U.S. wanted to punish the Japanese. I’ve said that whole cities were targeted, with no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant, for the purpose of shocking the Japanese government into surrender. As for the accepted legal practice of war, that’s irrelevant to the discussion because we’re talking about Catholic moral teaching, not war crimes.

-a bombing of an already bombed urban area would have been of little military value (already destroyed), only served to increase non-combatant casulaties/suffering, and have greatly reduced the impact on the Japanese populace/govt in regards to the bomb.

It wouldn’t have increased the suffering of the non-combatants as they wouldn’t have been as many. The idea was to hit a location that was fully populated, precisely for the purpose you cite here.

-not bombing it would (atomic or otherwise) would have prolonged the war and resulted in the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives

-the use of and full picture of the destruction caused by an atomic weapon would send a clear politically strategic message to the USSR (which was already predicted to be the next threat to what would become known as the “free world”)

Both of these reasons are forbidden in Catholic moral teaching. You can’t do evil (targeting non-combatants) for a good purpose.

From a martial and political stand point, the bombing of Hiroshima was fully justified and within the legal framework of war for that time period. Claiming it was intended to maximize indiscriminate destruction is a form of historical revisionism; and ignores the real and valid reasons for the bombing.

It is not revisionism to say that the targets were chosen in order to maximize indiscriminate destruction, it is from the documents of the Targeting Committee itself. To wit:

1. Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. ** It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage**. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

There are reasons that the targets were selected, and they weren’t to punish the Japanese, but they don’t amount to “good reasons” in a moral sense. The Catholic teaching against targeting non-combatants and their property was very clear before the war, and the bombings have been explicitly condemned by the Church afterwards. That Catholics take a dissenting opinion on this matter is really no different than them dissenting on contraception and abortion; there may be reasons for these actions, but none of them are “good” from a Catholic perspective, and it is the Catholic perspective that is the subject of this thread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

GKC, I certainly am glad that you added these statistics to this thread!

Having thought about it more I am almost certain that President Truman as he eventually passed on to the higher dimensions of space time would regret not having had more faith at the time that he gave the order for the nuclear strike. From what I have read by people who had a brush with death are shown that human life has astonishing value and I am sure he would have loved to have some other good option…What would the prophet Elisha have done if he had been President of the USA at that time!!!

Beats me.

As to the statistics, you’re welcome. Of all the possible methods of ending the Pacific war, the use of the bombs was the least costly, in terms of lives lost. Unless we had decided to surrender to the Japanese.

GKC

 

[Peter57]

Morally wrong

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I agree that the bombing goes against Catholic teaching, and I can also see the perception that the bombs might have saved lives. If saving lives is at the top of the agenda, then mankind should search for other ways to save lives, bombs kill people.

The destruction of the twin towers was a total injustice, and many innocent people died, but that was not the greatest tragedy that happened on 9/11. Something far worse happened on 9/11, and it went unnoticed, 25,000 children died that day from grinding poverty, starvation, and easily preventable diseases. Around one hundred million children have starved to death since 9/11.

If the billions and trillions of dollars spent on war was diverted to saving the lives of these disadvantaged children, the world would be a safer and more just place to live in.

Another couple of hundred children have starved to death, in the time it has taken me to write this response. Lent has started, what can we do as individuals, Christ has no hands on this Earth, apart from our hands.

Blessings and peace with justice for the poor.

Eric

 

[JimG]

Much of the discussion on these types of threads seems to center on alternative histories—what might have happened. It’s interesting to consider what the effects might have been had HST decided not to use the atomic bombs.

While it’s risky to engage in alternative history analysis, it’s likely the war in the Pacific would have continued until such time as Japan surrendered. The death toll in the Pacific Theater of Operations was already in the hundreds of thousands per month. The war would ultimately have ended, most likely by an Allied invasion of Japan.

For whatever period of time the war continued, the death toll would have increased dramatically each day.

Suppose that after the war, after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost on both sides after August 15th, 1945, it came to light that the atomic bombs had been available but never used. At that point I can imagine a huge public outcry against Truman for having forgone the use of a weapon that could have ended the war sooner.

We might now be having a thread discussing whether Truman was wrong not to have used the bombs which had been available: was he wrong to prolong the war rather than using the means available to end it quickly?

Of course, that sort of thinking leads, from a moral standpoint, into consequentialism. And consequentialism is not from a Catholic standpoint, a valid way to judge actions. The ends do not justify the means. But I’m pretty sure that few people involved in the Pacific war toward the end of WW-II had consequentialism on their mind. They were thinking of how to end the war quickly. That’s not a moral justification for the use of the bombs. But it is rather difficult to go back and make retroactive judgments against those who did have that one thing on their minds—end the war quickly.

 

[GKC]

Much of the discussion on these types of threads seems to center on alternative histories—what might have happened. It’s interesting to consider what the effects might have been had HST decided not to use the atomic bombs.

While it’s risky to engage in alternative history analysis, it’s likely the war in the Pacific would have continued until such time as Japan surrendered. The death toll in the Pacific Theater of Operations was already in the hundreds of thousands per month. The war would ultimately have ended, most likely by an Allied invasion of Japan.

For whatever period of time the war continued, the death toll would have increased dramatically each day.

Suppose that after the war, after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost on both sides after August 15th, 1945, it came to light that the atomic bombs had been available but never used. At that point I can imagine a huge public outcry against Truman for having forgone the use of a weapon that could have ended the war sooner.

We might now be having a thread discussing whether Truman was wrong not to have used the bombs which had been available: was he wrong to prolong the war rather than using the means available to end it quickly?

Of course, that sort of thinking leads, from a moral standpoint, into consequentialism. And consequentialism is not from a Catholic standpoint, a valid way to judge actions. The ends do not justify the means. But I’m pretty sure that few people involved in the Pacific war toward the end of WW-II had consequentialism on their mind. They were thinking of how to end the war quickly. That’s not a moral justification for the use of the bombs. But it is rather difficult to go back and make retroactive judgments against those who did have that one thing on their minds—end the war quickly.

While I do not share your moral judgement of the bombs, the essential points in your post are accurate.

GKC

 

[Armyvet007]

Ghostly-

“First of all I’ve never claimed that it was “just for the Hell of it” or that the U.S. wanted to punish the Japanese. I’ve said that whole cities were targeted, with no discrimination between combatant and non-combatant, for the purpose of shocking the Japanese government into surrender. As for the accepted legal practice of war, that’s irrelevant to the discussion because we’re talking about Catholic moral teaching, not war crimes.”

I disagree, based on your use of “”…intention of maximizing indiscriminate destruction…". Rephrased, you are saying the primary purpose [the intent] of the bombing of Hiroshima, London, and Dresdan was to kill as many people and material as possible without regard to their status (combatant/non-combatant) [indiscriminate], without regard to their status as valid targets (of military/political strategic/tactical value)and without regard [indiscriminate] to said bombings effects on the war. This was not the case for any of them.

As for targeting the whole cities, I suggest you review the military bombing technology of the day. We’re talking of the days when bombs were hunks of iron dropping from the sky, bombing calculations were done by hand, bomb sights were extremely primative [human hairs were used to create the crosshairs in them], and military bombing strategies and tactics were less then 20 years old *. A large amount of collateral damage [military for unintended death and destruction caused/a result of military operations] is already in the bombing of targets by these limitations. Then add the fact said bombings aren’t done in a vacuum [the enemy is trying to kill you therefore bombs will be dropped early/off target/etc].

Additionally, you aren’t talking about Catholic morality in regards to bombings. You are trying to apply a higher/different moral standard to 3 cases that are really no different then a vast number of bombings that took place during the war. If you wish to discuss Catholic morality, talk of it as a whole or select actual cases that are “special”/outside the norm [such as Coventry (British handling of it), Dolittle’s Raid, or the use of terror weapons (rockets) by the Germans].

“It wouldn’t have increased the suffering of the non-combatants as they wouldn’t have been as many. The idea was to hit a location that was fully populated, precisely for the purpose you cite here”

Which is less moral
-the bombing of a city that is a valid military target, would be bombed anyway if the invasion took place, could be used to end the war
or
-the bombing of a city that isn’t a valid military target, the bombing of which would only serve to cause needless destruction, would have no impact on the war, whose civil infrastructure is already destroyed/collapsing/overloaded by previous bombings, and whose populace is already suffering from the unintended consequences [collateral damage] of war

You are in effect arguing it is more moral to kill the robber you have already wounded [those already suffering] and neutralized then to shot the robber that is unwounded [those not suffering] and still coming after you.

"It is not revisionism to say that the targets were chosen in order to maximize indiscriminate destruction, it is from the documents of the Targeting Committee itself. To wit:

Quote:
2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)"

It is revisionism. Why? Because you took a military evaluation concerning the selection of a valid target and decided it shows the intent of maximizing indiscriminate destruction. A review of the document you cited [Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945]](Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945]) would show that the selection for what cities to bomb was very discriminate. It, in fact, shows that Tokyo [the Emperor’s Palace] was considered, but not on the target list due to lack of strategic value. And a more in-depth search concerning the selection of what city to bomb would show that the Sec. of War got Kyoto taken off the list because of its cultural importance (for Japan and the world).

[continued]*

 

[Armyvet007]

Speaking morally [here limited to Catholic morality], you’re wrong and the Holy Father [Pope Pius XII] was wrong because the argument is faulty. It wasn’t intentional indiscriminate destruction. It was intentional discriminate destruction.

The death/suffering of non-combatants [and for the sake of argument we will limit this to those who in no way could contribute to the war effort; my personal understanding of non-combatants is anyone not actively engaging in a combat function (i.e. factory workers at a munitions factory aren’t combatants, soldiers/insurgents/resitiance movements are)] was a discriminate factor in bombing Hiroshima.

The bombing of Hiroshima, like a lot of bombings that took place during the war, was immoral because it intentionally caused the death/suffering of non-combatants as a war aim *, not because it was indiscriminate.

This might sound like nitpicking, but it is a very important distinction.
-A soldier fires at a combatant [discriminate, intentional, implied morally acceptable], but also injuries/kills a non-combatant he did not/could not know of/reasonably infer was present [unintentional, no intent]; and would not have fired if he knew was there [intent to be moral] is morally correct.
-A soldier firing into a crowd and killing combatants [discrimante, intentional] and non-combatants [indiscriminate, unintentional, avoidable] is morally wrong.
-A soldier firing into a crowd killing combatants [discriminate, intentional] and non-combatants [discriminate, intentional] is more morally wrong then the above.*