I read this and I find myself troubled. While I agree with some, I am afraid I cannot agree with all of it. Particularly, the last two points. I do not think killing a million civilians, who happen to have been born in the country of the aggressors, in order to save one defender, is just.I agree that the Bombs dropped on Japan was morally the correct and just thing to do,
See my previous posts.
I do give a moral question though with the fake scenerio of an attack on the U.S…
Is it within the pervues in the definition of the Catholic Church of a just war to kill 300,000,000 to save 3,000,000 lives. The answer under our Church’s definition is no!
This scenrio was to bring to the table the understanding of what is a just war under the Catholic definition. A just War definition can only be used as a guide to begin war and is not defendable, reality, or useful to be used by a state in time of war.
War is never “just” once it has begun. There is only two sides, the winner and loser. You cannot compare apples and oranges. To be just one must have justice. People get hurt and killed that do not deserve it and are innocent. There is a saying that we all know and that is “all is fair in times of love and war”.
Lives of civilians, prisoners, and innocents of our enemy in war of course are always considered by the moral country, but with that being said it cannot result in the death of a member(s) own countrymen if we know as a fact that would be the end result.
It has to be the minumum amount of force necessary to end the agression and to cause defeat and surrender by the enemy with the minimum of lives lost first and foremost of our own forces.
For instance an atomic bomb used on Iraq would not meet the definition of a just or moral war.
The ousting of Sadam and his forces were by conventional war means was just. (justice was carried out) Weither the Catholic Church wants to admit it or not, it meets it’s own definition of a just war.
The atomic bombs used on Japan was just and moral
The retaliation in the fake scenerio is just and moral.
If the bombs dropped in Japan killed 1,000,000 Japanese civilian and military than it was just in order to save the lives of 1 or 1.000.000 Americans. Overwhelming and deliberate military force wins wars.
Life is not a quantitative factor in a time of war.
The main goal of a soldier is to kill and to not be killed.
But how do you define moral?I would like to repeat that I never said the use of atomic weapons against Japans was morally good. What I said was that the evidence appears to lean in th direction that their use was not morally evil. That is a significant difference.
the definition comes from the word morale.I would like to repeat that I never said the use of atomic weapons against Japans was morally good. What I said was that the evidence appears to lean in th direction that their use was not morally evil. That is a significant difference.
As I do put my faith in the Catholic Church and Her teachings but Her definition on of a just war is far from definitive and creates a quandry by definition of what is moral esspecially once war has begun. The definition of a just war is an oxymoron. War for the paticipants is never just but is necessary to defeat evil.I do not care one wit what a dictionary says. I put my faith in the Catholic Church and her teachings.
Does life have a quanative meaning in war?This topic always troubles me, and Chris hits the nail right on the head: no Catholic who justifies the A-bombings can read the Catechism’s entry on just war and not worry that he has just joined the cafeteria. It doesn’t mean we’re wrong to say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just actions, but, boy, should those passages ever make us nervous.
I mean, Chris is definitely right about at least one point: you cannot commit an intrinsically evil act in order to bring about the greater good. His example of embryonic stem cell is extreme, and there are much, much fewer complexities and extenuating circumstances surrounding that question, but it is a valid comparison. rpp, the principle you put forward that A-bombings were justified simply because they brought about reduced deaths is utilitarian, and it does lead to stem cell and worse. By Catholic lights, even in the seemingly simpler scenario, where you have to choose between torturing one single terrorist for information or letting hundreds of millions of people die, you cannot torture the terrorist, even if you have 100% certainty that he has the information you need. (Jack Bauer is a notorious sinner by Catholic lights.)
However… however…
I find it difficult to argue that the Hiroshima bombings were any more indiscriminate than any other means of attack available to military units at the time. Hiroshima did contain military targets, remember–a lot of military targets (particularly including the industrial support dedicated to the military). This is a time before smart bombs. This is a time before satellite imagery, or detailed intelligence, or guided missiles. Had we used conventional bombing methods–which I think no one here would argue are unjust–to reduce the military capacity of Hiroshima, we would have acheived the same effect: utter devastation of the entire city. Had we resorted to crueller methods, like the unjust firebombings, it could have been even worse.
Today, we can use modern military standards and conclude that, of course, a nuclear weapon in an urban center would be a needless and indiscriminate attack on a civilian population, whose only possible intent would be to slaughter as many people as possible. We’re more used to the world typified by the “shock and awe” offensive of 2003, which did a stunning job of minimizing civilian casualties while totally crippling Baghdad as a military center. But we’re talking about a time when bombs were dropped by, literally, opening up the bottom of a plane and letting them fall out. The hit percentage on that method of bombing is not exactly high.
By 1945 standards, I do not believe we can conclude that the Hiroshima bombing was the indiscriminate destruction of a civilian population referred to by the bishops. At the very least, it was no less discriminate than the most discriminate combat practices available at the time. Therefore, we are able to move away from the question of whether this was an intrinsic evil and begin to consider proportionate damage, using rpp’s well-founded considerations to conclude that the bombings were just.
However, we cannot consider those questions of proportionality without first dealing with the question of indiscriminate destruction of a civilian population.
Like I said, I’m troubled by the whole question, so take none of this as the Authoritative Word of Wowbagger, because I’m not nearly as sure about this as I might sound.
I did not bring up the word you did in defining Church teaching. I just wanted you to define Church teaching as you stated using the word morally or the Church definition of morally.I would like to repeat that I never said the use of atomic weapons against Japans was morally good. What I said was that the evidence appears to lean in th direction that their use was not morally evil. That is a significant difference.
This is entirely irrelevant. If dropping the bomb was an intrinsically evil act (which is what the Catechism is saying), then it cannot be done under any circumstances.The use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan saved American lives.
The lives of the Japanese populace was considered and they were warned by leaflets and radio with enough time to evacuate.
Do you seriously believe the Japanese had any inkling of what that weapon would do? That it would wipe a city off the map? Men, women and children? For all they knew it was a psyop. If they HAD evacuated both cities then heck, if it worked once, why not drop leaflets wherever we were going to hit the beach? See why that argument (they knew it was coming and deserved what they got) doesn’t wash?Those that stayed was of their own free will knowing a powerful bomb(s) were going to be dropped.
Please show how this washes with Catholic teaching. Some lives are worth more than others? A Japanese schoolchild’s life was worth less than a GI’s… why? Do you REALLY think that’s how the Church looks at it?But the lives of the just in a just war must take precidence. The United States fighting soldier was on the side of justice in WW 2
If any entity that wants to define once a war is already well underway that an American soldier should lose his life because use of a weapon system may cause a large loss of enemy life, it’s populace which was considered and warned with enough time to evacuate is not being just.
Again the Catholic Church never put forth that the use of the A-Bomb was justified or not. Pope John Paul’s statement was his opinion and not said from His chair.
It wasn’t just JPII. Paul VI and other Popes have reiterated that it was indefensible to use nuclear weapons against cities under any circumstance. It must be nice to be able to ignore the Pope when he’s not defining something infallibly if it makes you uncomfortable. It’s the exact same tactic that the heretics on the left use regarding their pet issues.The A-Bombs in Japan saved American Soldier lives and was absolutely the moral thing to do.
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
So do I, but I think different conclusions ought to be drawn considering that the Church’s moral teachings do not change due to technological advances. The firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. would also be considered illicit. Rather than firebombing causing nuclear weapons to be more palatable, nuclear weapons should show using massive incindiary bombardment against urban centers are just as much of an intrinsic evil. I think the horrific results of those firebombings support this assertion.I find it difficult to argue that the Hiroshima bombings were any more indiscriminate than any other means of attack available to military units at the time. Hiroshima did contain military targets, remember–a lot of military targets (particularly including the industrial support dedicated to the military). This is a time before smart bombs. This is a time before satellite imagery, or detailed intelligence, or guided missiles. Had we used conventional bombing methods–which I think no one here would argue are unjust–to reduce the military capacity of Hiroshima, we would have acheived the same effect: utter devastation of the entire city. Had we resorted to crueller methods, like the unjust firebombings, it could have been even worse.
So under your comprehension of a Catholic just war, all wars in the bible from Abraham to Moses and the Jews fighting their wars in the desert to the crusades and beyond are not justified?This is entirely irrelevant. If dropping the bomb was an intrinsically evil act (which is what the Catechism is saying), then it cannot be done under any circumstances.
Do you seriously believe the Japanese had any inkling of what that weapon would do? That it would wipe a city off the map? Men, women and children? For all they knew it was a psyop. If they HAD evacuated both cities then heck, if it worked once, why not drop leaflets wherever we were going to hit the beach? See why that argument (they knew it was coming and deserved what they got) doesn’t wash?
Please show how this washes with Catholic teaching. Some lives are worth more than others? A Japanese schoolchild’s life was worth less than a GI’s… why? Do you REALLY think that’s how the Church looks at it?
It wasn’t just JPII. Paul VI and other Popes have reiterated that it was indefensible to use nuclear weapons against cities under any circumstance. It must be nice to be able to ignore the Pope when he’s not defining something infallibly if it makes you uncomfortable. It’s the exact same tactic that the heretics on the left use regarding their pet issues.
Again, I reiterate that the ultimate number of lives saved is irrelevant to committing an intrinsically evil act. Please reread Catechism para. 2314.
That’s not even close to the same thing.The same reason why it’s bad to kill human embryos to cure cancer. We cannot commit an intrinsic evil to achieve a good end.
I would agree that the firebombings were immoral. In fact, I think the firebombings were clearly an indiscriminate attack whose object was to kill civilians. That’s intrinsically evil, and is to be condemned. I’m not afraid to condemn those acts, even though my country was responsible for them.So do I, but I think different conclusions ought to be drawn considering that the Church’s moral teachings do not change due to technological advances. The firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. would also be considered illicit. Rather than firebombing causing nuclear weapons to be more palatable, nuclear weapons should show using massive incindiary bombardment against urban centers are just as much of an intrinsic evil. I think the horrific results of those firebombings support this assertion.
The entire population of Japan did not aggresse against us. It is a requirement in war to minimize civilian casualties. This is fundamental Catholic teaching on just war, guys!Japan attack the US thus they were the aggressor and the US the defender.
we did mimimize civilian lives we did not drop the A-Bomb on TokoyoI would agree that the firebombings were immoral. In fact, I think the firebombings were clearly an indiscriminate attack whose object was to kill civilians. That’s intrinsically evil, and is to be condemned. I’m not afraid to condemn those acts, even though my country was responsible for them.
However, I’m afraid you missed my point: all bombing at the time was indiscriminate, not just bombing with incendiaries. In order to accomplish the effect of utterly reducing the military capacity of Hiroshima (which, let us remember, was a city that was effectively being used as a giant human shield by the Japanese military), we would have had to drop enough firepower with poor enough aim that we would have done as much damage, killed as many people, or worse. It wasn’t so much a decision between wiping out an urban core and targetedly destroying military facilities within that core; it was a question of which strategy we were going to use to do it.
We can’t really condemn the use of the atom bomb in August 1945, I argue, unless we are ready to condemn all bombing missions of all urban targets at any time during WWII or the immediately succeeding decades, up until the perfection of smart bombs during the first Persian Gulf War. Since my strong instinct is that such urban bombing is acceptable, I conclude that the use of the A-bomb was not an intrinsic moral evil–and therefore the prudential considerations indicated (or even demanded) its use.
The entire population of Japan did not aggresse against us. It is a requirement in war to minimize civilian casualties. This is fundamental Catholic teaching on just war, guys!
can you name me any war including those in the bible that were just?I would agree that the firebombings were immoral. In fact, I think the firebombings were clearly an indiscriminate attack whose object was to kill civilians. That’s intrinsically evil, and is to be condemned. I’m not afraid to condemn those acts, even though my country was responsible for them.
However, I’m afraid you missed my point: all bombing at the time was indiscriminate, not just bombing with incendiaries. In order to accomplish the effect of utterly reducing the military capacity of Hiroshima (which, let us remember, was a city that was effectively being used as a giant human shield by the Japanese military), we would have had to drop enough firepower with poor enough aim that we would have done as much damage, killed as many people, or worse. It wasn’t so much a decision between wiping out an urban core and targetedly destroying military facilities within that core; it was a question of which strategy we were going to use to do it.
We can’t really condemn the use of the atom bomb in August 1945, I argue, unless we are ready to condemn all bombing missions of all urban targets at any time during WWII or the immediately succeeding decades, up until the perfection of smart bombs during the first Persian Gulf War. Since my strong instinct is that such urban bombing is acceptable, I conclude that the use of the A-bomb was not an intrinsic moral evil–and therefore the prudential considerations indicated (or even demanded) its use.
The entire population of Japan did not aggresse against us. It is a requirement in war to minimize civilian casualties. This is fundamental Catholic teaching on just war, guys!
define mimimize civilian casualties–Should that pre-clude taking out enemy military targets within the civilian populations and structures.I would agree that the firebombings were immoral. In fact, I think the firebombings were clearly an indiscriminate attack whose object was to kill civilians. That’s intrinsically evil, and is to be condemned. I’m not afraid to condemn those acts, even though my country was responsible for them.
However, I’m afraid you missed my point: all bombing at the time was indiscriminate, not just bombing with incendiaries. In order to accomplish the effect of utterly reducing the military capacity of Hiroshima (which, let us remember, was a city that was effectively being used as a giant human shield by the Japanese military), we would have had to drop enough firepower with poor enough aim that we would have done as much damage, killed as many people, or worse. It wasn’t so much a decision between wiping out an urban core and targetedly destroying military facilities within that core; it was a question of which strategy we were going to use to do it.
We can’t really condemn the use of the atom bomb in August 1945, I argue, unless we are ready to condemn all bombing missions of all urban targets at any time during WWII or the immediately succeeding decades, up until the perfection of smart bombs during the first Persian Gulf War. Since my strong instinct is that such urban bombing is acceptable, I conclude that the use of the A-bomb was not an intrinsic moral evil–and therefore the prudential considerations indicated (or even demanded) its use.
The entire population of Japan did not aggresse against us. It is a requirement in war to minimize civilian casualties. This is fundamental Catholic teaching on just war, guys!
Let’s discuss first Truman and his decision. I am sure he had a discussion with God before his use of such a weapon.First: did you seriously just quadruple post… and then post the same post of mine three separate times? Including the bits that had nothing to do with your response? Where I come from, we call that forum spamming. But this is the Catholic forum, and the banhammer is often stayed around these parts. Still, dude… forum etiquette, please, if you don’t mind my saying so.
My understanding of the Biblical slaughters has always been that a direct order from God overrides all other moral considerations. In this particular instance, God gave life, and so he has every right to take it away. Annihilations of entire populations without explicit orders from God, however, are universally condemned by all Christian thinkers throughout history.
President Truman was many things, but I do not believe he thought God was ordering him to slaughter Hiroshima.
As for the minimization of civilian casualties: I hardly think “we didn’t destroy Tokyo” is a sufficient argument that we minimized anything. If you stole my car, and, in response, instead of calling the cops, I came to your house and killed you and your family, and with your dying breath you said, “How was that a use of minimum force?” and I answered, “Well, I left your dog alive, and I didn’t go after your cousins,” that would not change the fact that I had just indiscriminately dived into massive, sinful overkill against you and yours.
Now, of course, we are authorized to destroy military structures within civilian areas, and we can even, if necessary, target military enemies who are using human shields whom we know will die. However, we cannot do so indiscriminately. To indiscriminately wipe out a population is an inherent evil and a mortal sin–dare I say it, a much more serious sin than the usual mortal sins we worry about when discussing the cafeteria line (contraception, homosexuality, et. al.).
Now, as you’ve no doubt noticed, I argue that the atomic bomb was not an indiscriminate use of force, given the available technology of the day. But we must find an argument showing that it was not indiscriminate, or else we must condemn its use as a “crime against God and man.”
Or we have to acknowledge that we are no longer faithful Catholics obeying the Magisterium. I hate to say it, but the charge of cafeteria catholicism cuts both ways.
Yes, but did anyone talk back? And, if so, did that person provide evidence in the form of major miracles to demonstrate that He was the voice of God and not a demon?Let’s discuss first Truman and his decision. I am sure he had a discussion with God before his use of such a weapon.
2nd Our Catholic Church needs to be careful of what it asks for.
What if the decision was given to the Pope at the time. 200,000 to 300,000 dead with using the nukes or continue the war and 4 to 5 million additional deaths.
Let’s bring it to today’s scenerio:
For Iraq and Afganistan – Do you think the Vatican or the Pope will make those life and death decisions and if the answer from the Pope is no what will he tell the oppressed people as to why he has the ability to remove the evil but will not.
When is evil (Sadam) types to be dealt with or does the Pope just allow him to continue to slaughter as we have seen the mass graves.
[snip]
Does the Pope allow Iran and North Korea to gain the ability of making nuclear war?
You talk a lot about the Pope here, as if the Pope is the guy saying these things. He is not. The jus in bello principles of just conduct within just war are the universal teaching of the Magisterium dating all the way back to Christ. Feel free to disagree if you honestly think you must do so, but know that, if you do, you are opposing the Church founded by Jesus Christ to whom the Keys of the Kingdom have been given.The wrong decision here could very well lead to ww-3 or the annilation of Israel. Will the Pope make that decision here on what is just?
I’ll concede that the temporal powers of Rome have frequently proven themselves incompetent at prosecuting war according to its own principles. This is a fact of the human fallibilty of the Church. But we are not talking about Rome’s frequently mishandled temporal power; we are talking about principles on a grave issue of faith and morals promulgated by the bride of Christ and the chair of Peter. The fundamental rules of just conduct in war are infallible. There are sound reasons behind them, but these have already been discussed elsewhere in this thread, and right now I am much more concerned with the fact that you seem to believe that faith in the Church is optional if you don’t like what it’s saying on an infallible matter of faith and morals.Our Catholic Church got out of the business of running wars as their track record there from the Crusades up to and even to include ww-1 was something to write home about on human rights and the art of war. Unless they want to get back into this realm of declaring Holy Wars and the manufacturing of war crosses we need to get out of the just war market.
Our Catholic Church has made no infallible statement on the matter of the War in Iraq. Nor can it; such a declaration on a specific action is beyond the competence of the Holy Magisterium, and the bishops know that. However, a number of actors within the Church–the Pope, many bishops, and so on–have declared their fallible but authoritative advisory that they believe the war to be unjust (a few have stated otherwise). Catholics must seriously consider these advisories, especially those of their local bishops. I believe they are flawed, and I do not agree with them.Is our Catholic Church telling American Catholics not to fight in Iraq or did they say it was a just war. That’s right in the middle until it’s over and then comes the declarations…
That’s what they’re doing. Indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in war is wrong.I want my Catholic Church to stand up and declare what it tells us is right or wrong.
Ummm… the basic principles of just war haven’t changed significantly since their formulation by St. Augustine 1700 years ago. How exactly is it “waiting until the horse is out of the barn” to answer questions about just war nearly two millenia before the specific concerns we have in this thread even come up?However you know the track record and will wait till after after the horse is let out of the barn.
I agree on both counts. I am not a liberal, and I am frequently ashamed of the often-cowardly stance of our U.S. episcopacy. Not only should pro-abortion politicians be denied Communion, but, as I interpret the teaching, so should anyone who votes for them.I want my Catholic Church to stop giving pro-abortion politicians Communion I want my Catholic Church to say no in giving Pres. Obama an Honary degree from that Catholic Institution .
I have four answers: (1) Several members of my family have been, and I have friends currently serving in Iraq. (2) That’s totally irrelevant to this conversation. (3) Have you? (4) No.Have you ever been a soldier? Have you ever been in combat?