R
rpp
Guest
Thank you for pointing out that God and Christ are anti-Christian and opposed to the Christian morality. More tha that, that God is immoral. I was beginning to wonder.
- Status
S
sawman
Guest
This is a preposperous thread. There is no way to acertain the accuracy of the op’s propisition. Arguements can be made on both sides of the issue. The evilness of the act is a different story. War is hell.
Peace,
Tom
Peace,
Tom
E
edwest2
Guest
What I am saying is that this appears to have been a decision to test atomic bombs under combat conditions and that’s all. It appears that their use was optional and not critical to ending the war.
The following is taken from a booklet distributed by The American Legion, National Defense Division, and published in March, 1947. It was written by W.B. Courtney, European Correspondent for Collier’s Magazine.
“It is not generally known, but weather considerations had much to do with the bombing dates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Visual bombing was desirable, to insure effectiveness; but weather for that is uncertain in Japan after the end of August. If the drops had not been in that month, the war would have ended without the introduction of the atom bomb.”
Peace,
Ed
The following is taken from a booklet distributed by The American Legion, National Defense Division, and published in March, 1947. It was written by W.B. Courtney, European Correspondent for Collier’s Magazine.
“It is not generally known, but weather considerations had much to do with the bombing dates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Visual bombing was desirable, to insure effectiveness; but weather for that is uncertain in Japan after the end of August. If the drops had not been in that month, the war would have ended without the introduction of the atom bomb.”
Peace,
Ed
C
c659smith
Guest
Tell me why do you think the Japanese would have surrendered?
How long after the Hiroshima bomb was the Nagasaki bomb dropped?
Why was the Nagasaki bomb dropped?
How many estimated deaths and all sides would have been tallyed if the bombs were not dropped?
L
Lujack
Guest
I understand the statement, but I disagree with it. Weather conditions were probably rigged, because it was something that the US had the luxury of doing, but just because the war was a foregone conclusion doesn’t mean that Japan was going to surrender. The bombs were needed to shock Hirohito into acting; all indications pre-bombs show that the Japanese were willing to let the war continue unto the destruction of the Home Islands.
I would say, however, that I’m leery of anyone who isn’t at least troubled by the bombs; they may have been the right choice, they may have been the necessary choice, but it shouldn’t be something that is answered flippantly. That might be the teenage response, but their dropping, even if one agrees they were necessary, was tragic.
R
rpp
Guest
Gosh. I must be drunk or high. I actually agree with what Lujack said here. Whether they were necessary or not; moral or immoral, using the atomic bombs to end WWII was terrible and tragic. The fact that I and my brothers would not exist notwithstanding.
C
c659smith
Guest
Does not go back to the time of Christ and was a writting by Saint Thomas. As far as going aganist the teaching of the Church I do not, I am just asking the Church to walk the walk and talk the talk. I do not think you need me to put forth some of the atrocities approved and not condemned by the Catholic Church during the Crusades which was after Jus in Bello
I have served in several armed conflicts including Deseret Storm. Let me tell you the enemy did not wear uniforms and neither the terrorist in Afganistan. They are men, women, and children.
Tell me why the Moslems do not recognize the red cross and what does it represents?
jus in bello
To say the just war theory is a Catholic revelation is far from the truth it dates back to the several hundred years before Chist from the Jews, Greeks, and Romans but was rarely followed.
St Augustine provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective (railing against the love of violence that war can engender)
A group of principles ***intended as guidelines *** and I repeat guidelines for the just prosecution of war whose origins go back at least as far as the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274 AD).
Includes the two principles of “discrimination†and “proportionality,†which attempt to define valid targets and acceptable applications of force, respectively.
Again where did Peter announce what was fair in war? Peter was an Apostle and a Jew and definitely carried a sword. Who cut off the soldier’s ear? I did not read in the story where swords were raised by the Roman or the Jews.
The U.S Soldier has a tougher standard than our Catholic Church and has a better track record and it is called the Rules of Armed Conflict.
Who in the United States Military indiscriminately and purposely killed civilians where enemy troops, equipement, or the facilities used by them was not the focal point or the cause was not to limit the amount of casualties on the side of the enemy and was not brought to trial? Tell me so he or she can be tried under the U.C.M.J.
I just to not like it when therre is Monday Morning quarterbacking and never has the Catholic Chuirch formally denoted any conflict publicly as an unjust war.
The Pope is the leader of the Church and love him dearly as the vicar of Christ and respect him as the leader of Christ’s Church. But still unless in the Chair fallibility is there
W
Wowbagger
Guest
These statements contradict.
Additionally, I never claimed that just war is a Catholic revelation. I claimed that it was authoritative Catholic teaching. The Romans figured out the bit of the moral law that says “Thou shalt not murder,” too. Doesn’t mean “Thou shalt not murder,” isn’t a Catholic principle.
…and? I believe what I said was that Catholic teaching prohibits the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, not the targeted killing of ununiformed personnel reasonably believed to be hostile enemy combatants.
Huh? What’s this have to do with it?
pquote]St Augustine provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective (railing against the love of violence that war can engender). A group of principles ***intended as guidelines *** and I repeat guidelines for the just prosecution of war whose origins go back at least as far as the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274 AD). Includes the two principles of “discrimination†and “proportionality,†which attempt to define valid targets and acceptable applications of force, respectively.
While I appreciate your ability to use google and quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy back at me, you’d be well-served to actually read what Aquinas has to say on the topic of just war. You’ll very quickly notice that the person he quotes as his authoritative source on nearly all points is… Augustine. It’s in the Summa, Part II of Part II, Q.40, Article 1. A good read.
The guidelines are binding. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2307-2317. See also Gaudiem et spes, the authoritiative teaching of an ecumenical council… which is infallible.
Now, this is strangely Protestant of you, to reject what the Church is saying in favor of a skewed reading of the Bible, so let me leave it to the side and simply ask you this: who told Peter to put the sword down?
Hint: it was Peter’s boss.
Not saying that we should be pacificists, but if you start quoting Scripture and ignoring the Church, there’s a lot more support for pacifism than for warmaking.
So, here we are then. Can we agree that the indiscriminate or deliberate killing of civilians for any reason is an inherent moral evil that must always be condemned?
I would argue that no such thing happened. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have noticed that I believe the atom bomb was necessary and just under Catholic principles. However, I’m more than a bit shocked by your seemingly cavalier attitude toward the whole thing–and the fact that you don’t seem to care about the Church teaching that indiscriminately or deliberately killing civilians is always wrong. That’s what I’m addressing here; not your conclusion, which I agree with, but your deeply worrisome justification.
Now, of course, somebody like Chris, who is an honest and sincere thinker on the same topic, would say that Paul tibbets indiscriminately and purposely killed civilians, and therefore a war crime. I don’t agree–but we must accept the strength of the argument and deal with it on those terms, not by ignoring the principles on which all just wars are fought.
C
c659smith
Guest
The point is that our Church has never ever formally used it so where is the beef.
There is no meat is this.
There is no meat is this.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Pardon? I don’t follow.
C
c659smith
Guest
You cannot follow because the Church has never taken the lead in this area.
Can you name me a time in Church history where the Catholic Church has declared
( formally ) a demand on all Catholics to be a conscientious objector that a paticular war from the beginning is declared unjust?
R
rpp
Guest
I believe that on occasion, some popes expressed personal opinions about particular conflicts, but I do not believe that the Church has ever infallibly declared what constitutes a “just war”. Generally, what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote is brought out, but that has never been declared as actual doctrine. Of course I might be wrong and I invite charitable correction if I am.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Whoo! An opportunity for multiquote!
However, it has nothing to do with anything we’ve been discussing whatsoever, as far as I can tell. So I’ll ask again: pardon? I don’t follow.
…no, I can’t, because it never has. The Church can’t do that. Magisterial power extends to general principles of faith and morals, not to the specific applications of those principles in specific circumstances. Any time the Magisterium states something the specific–even something as obvious as “Hitler was not a good man”–it’s fallible and non-binding.
However, it has nothing to do with anything we’ve been discussing whatsoever, as far as I can tell. So I’ll ask again: pardon? I don’t follow.
All I know for sure are the principles set out in the Catechism (2309), but it isn’t properly footnoted (at least not in my copy). The CCC is supposed to be a “sure norm” but I’d be more comfortable if they cited an infallible document I could quote.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Isn’t this a little early? I mean these post usually start in July to August in time for the Hiroshima anniversary. Besides it’s been done to death before pages and pages of folks posting past each other.
O
OldRedleg
Guest
Time to dust off my apologitic on the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II.
As a faithful Catholic I affirm that the decision to use nuclear weapons must always be one of last resort.
However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study. While the casualties from the dropping of the two atomic bombs were horrific they were miniscule compared to the estimated casualties that would have occurred during an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The lesser evil was to use them.
As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings, for a total of around 220,000 deaths. As already pointed out in previous posts, in both cities the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.
Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation DOWNFALL, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff in mid-1945, by William Shockley, estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities (including civilians). The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. So the total estimate of casualties for both sides ran from 5.7 million to 14 million people.
These projections were based on the U.S.’s experience of the invasion of Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S. casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and only 7,000 surrendered. At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population that considered itself Japanese. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were in excess of 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded. There were numerous cases of Japanese soldiers and civilians committing suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. The same was expected for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.
There are some who try to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. As several folks have already pointed out … they were.
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a major industrial and military city of some significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was also major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. Additionally, the city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops preparing for the defense of the Japanese home islands against the pending American invasion.
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
For those of you who think that negotiation could have ended the war without “dropping the bomb” consider this. After the two atomic bombs were dropped the Emperor made the decision to end the war. When he announced this decision to the military and his cabinet there was a revolt from military hardliners in Tokyo. They attacked the Imperial Palace and tried to seize the Emperor in an effort to continue the war.
Even when faced with the destructive power of an atomic bomb there were those in the Japanese military and government who wanted to keep fighting.
Emotions of honor were very strong within Japan on the issue of surrender. Given the cultural context I doubt that any serious attempt at a negotiated surrender would have succeeded. Hitler and his fanatics refused to give up and the cultural context of the Japanese on the issue was even stronger against surrender
President Truman’s decision saved millions of lives. While I abhor the killing of innocent civilians this was a case where the ultimate good was served in saving lives in the long run.
As a faithful Catholic I affirm that the decision to use nuclear weapons must always be one of last resort.
However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study. While the casualties from the dropping of the two atomic bombs were horrific they were miniscule compared to the estimated casualties that would have occurred during an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The lesser evil was to use them.
As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings, for a total of around 220,000 deaths. As already pointed out in previous posts, in both cities the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.
Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation DOWNFALL, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff in mid-1945, by William Shockley, estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities (including civilians). The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. So the total estimate of casualties for both sides ran from 5.7 million to 14 million people.
These projections were based on the U.S.’s experience of the invasion of Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S. casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and only 7,000 surrendered. At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population that considered itself Japanese. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were in excess of 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded. There were numerous cases of Japanese soldiers and civilians committing suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. The same was expected for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.
There are some who try to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. As several folks have already pointed out … they were.
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a major industrial and military city of some significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was also major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. Additionally, the city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops preparing for the defense of the Japanese home islands against the pending American invasion.
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
For those of you who think that negotiation could have ended the war without “dropping the bomb” consider this. After the two atomic bombs were dropped the Emperor made the decision to end the war. When he announced this decision to the military and his cabinet there was a revolt from military hardliners in Tokyo. They attacked the Imperial Palace and tried to seize the Emperor in an effort to continue the war.
Even when faced with the destructive power of an atomic bomb there were those in the Japanese military and government who wanted to keep fighting.
Emotions of honor were very strong within Japan on the issue of surrender. Given the cultural context I doubt that any serious attempt at a negotiated surrender would have succeeded. Hitler and his fanatics refused to give up and the cultural context of the Japanese on the issue was even stronger against surrender
President Truman’s decision saved millions of lives. While I abhor the killing of innocent civilians this was a case where the ultimate good was served in saving lives in the long run.
R
rpp
Guest
OldRedleg, that was an excellent post. It was well thought out, well reasoned and it is clear you have a good deal of knowledge and information in this area.
Thank you for taking the time to make that post. It was exceptionally well said.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Recently it was disclosed that the United States had learned that Japan had correctly figured out where the United States forces would land during an invasion of Japan.
Accordingly, Japan was preparing to inflict extremely heavy casualties on the United States.
As a result, President Truman was given even more justification for the use of the atomic bombs.
sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=118&database=DefenseWatch%202005%20A.db
Another unknown which we might have found out about the hard way was the industrial production that Japan maintained along the east coast of Korea. One of the products was the Japanese Navy’s atomic bomb project. [The Japanese Army’s atomic bomb project was located in Tokyo and was destroyed in one of the bombings.]
Supposedly the United States didn’t know about the Japanese Navy atomic bomb project. However, the Soviet Union MAY have known about it because they hastily occupied that area of Korea and never let it out of their grip. That may be the location of the North Korean nuclear weapons project.
Part of this is speculation and part is based on interviews of some of the people who worked on the project. Perhaps some day more information will be declassified.
If the speculation is accurate, then all the Japanese Navy would have had to have done was load one in a submarine [they had very good submarines] and detonate it under the U.S. invasion fleet.
Accordingly, Japan was preparing to inflict extremely heavy casualties on the United States.
As a result, President Truman was given even more justification for the use of the atomic bombs.
sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=118&database=DefenseWatch%202005%20A.db
Another unknown which we might have found out about the hard way was the industrial production that Japan maintained along the east coast of Korea. One of the products was the Japanese Navy’s atomic bomb project. [The Japanese Army’s atomic bomb project was located in Tokyo and was destroyed in one of the bombings.]
Supposedly the United States didn’t know about the Japanese Navy atomic bomb project. However, the Soviet Union MAY have known about it because they hastily occupied that area of Korea and never let it out of their grip. That may be the location of the North Korean nuclear weapons project.
Part of this is speculation and part is based on interviews of some of the people who worked on the project. Perhaps some day more information will be declassified.
If the speculation is accurate, then all the Japanese Navy would have had to have done was load one in a submarine [they had very good submarines] and detonate it under the U.S. invasion fleet.
L
Lujack
Guest
That’s assuming the project was anywhere near completion. Just because they had a project doesn’t mean that they ever had a chance of getting it off the ground. If Germany never finished their much more organized atomic bomb project, how were the Japanese going to finish theirs, as American troops were pouring into the country?
More importantly, though, it was unknown to the people who made the decision, so it can’t really factor into an analysis of the morality of the act.
G
GKC
Guest
There are two really lengthy threads on this subject, way down in the archives. I did a lot of the posts. And I see a few names here already, who did likewise.
I doubt I’ll do it again.
The bombs saved an unthinkable number of lives, Allied, Japanese, civilian, military, occupied peoples, prisoners of war, young, old. The literature on the subject is vast, and I own most of it (another of those hobbies of mine). If you can read only one book, Frank’s DOWNFALL is the one. If two, Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT. If you want the inaccurate revisionist version of history, Alperowitz’s THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB.
I note that, on this subject, I address the historical facts, in arguing thus, and not what the RCC teaches on the morality of the issue, which all faithful RCS should affirm. History is a different thing, though. Most of my previous posts were directed toward bad revisionist history. As I said, I’ll probably not do it again. Takes too much time.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Ok, one more. On the situation that we faced on Kyushu, and the Japanese disposition and troop strength there, and what it meant for OLYMPIC, see Drea’s MACARTHUR’S ULTRA.
GKC
- Status