There have been 4152 confirmed US deaths in Iraq.And before you ask, not a single item in your statement is true. .
This is off topic, butAnd before you ask, not a single item in your statement is true. .
Well, let’s see what the Catholic teaching on this really is:I do not agree with you and your indiscriminate use of the CCC to justify your pacifism. The use of atomic weapons in WW II were not indiscriminate. They were used against legitimate industrial, transportation, communication, and military targets. They saved lives, many hundreds of thousands of lives…
First, The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written 50 years after the use of the atomic bomb in WWII.Well, let’s see what the Catholic teaching on this really is:
"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 (CCC 2314).
The U.S. has not always been committed to this principle. In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II the United States violated it. Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations. They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God’s law, according to which, “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57)."
Your argument is not with me, but you are arguing against the Catholic just war principle.
catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp
The primary problem with the SBS lay in Nitze’s summary. The body of the report supported not one of his contentions, which he had settled on even before he started working on the survey, for about 9 weeks, in Japan.First, The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written 50 years after the use of the atomic bomb in WWII.
You need to cite Catholic documents written and published prior to World War II.
Second, to date no one has come up with a viable alternative war-ending strategy.
Third, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets because we laypeople know now from books such as “First Into Nagasaki” by George Weller that, for example, the point in Nagasaki where the atomic bomb was aimed for included all kinds of military production facilities as well as shipping facilities for military cargo going to the Japanese army in China.
That civilians were killed is an unfortunate byproduct of war. There are ways of avoiding or minimizing civilian casualties, but they weren’t discovered until 50 years later with the very recent improvements in “smart bombs” … precision guided munitions … the first attempts at smart bombs took place toward the end of WWII and had some, limited success.
Bomb aiming technology was not very good in WWII. The military did the best they could come up with. But it took another 50 years to get the technology to where it is now; and even then sometimes mistakes happen.
The idea of terror bombing was anathema even back in WWII. When all else failed, Air Marshall Arthur Harris of the Royal Air Force defended bombing cities because they didn’t have the accuracy to hit anything smaller. His superiors held their noses and went along with it. It was very controversial, but the Allies didn’t have anything else to fight with at the time. By the end of the war, navigation got better; they could at least find the targets most of the time. They could bomb through clouds some of the time … prior to that they could only bomb visually. Airplane performance finally improved with better engine and fuel technology.
After the war, Harris was unable to continue living in England because of the criticism and moved out of the country.
More recent nuclear weapons were designed with very small explosive yields which combined with precision aiming result in carefully calculated demolition of their intended targets while keeping civilian casualties to an absolute minimum.
Fourth, we now know that the writers of the Strategic Bombing Survey deliberately shaded and spun their report to minimize the effects on enemy war production and also to minimize the impact of having to pull millions of army personnel out of the field to defend the German and Japanese homelands. The
SBS was basically a dishonest document. Interested people can look up the authors and learn that some of their other writings were similarly biased.
Galbraith was extremely negative about the efficacy of bombing.The primary problem with the SBS lay in Nitze’s summary. The body of the report supported not one of his contentions, which he had settled on even before he started working on the survey, for about 9 weeks, in Japan.
His attitude was odd, on the surface. He was a super hawk, a prime archtect of the Cold War, and never met a weapon system he didn’t like. But the idea of a highly efficent atomic bomb, as a deterrent, mitigated against the size and composition of an independent Air Force, which was about to be formed. Hence, the likely reason for his idiosyncratic opinions.
GKC
Name the book.The question here is morality. Some are answering like lawyers defending a client. No one here is badmouthing America, but their tatics in war, their intent in war and ultimately their morality in war. And yes, there is morality in war, like not shooting POW’s when they put their hands up and surrender which by the way was not always followed by both sides.
War is a complete failure to communicate and negotiate. War forces negotiation bringing it to a definite conclusion and it is usually messy. (with weapons) Once again, other than waving your flag because you won your war, what did we learn from it all?
There’s always time to push the button or drop a bomb and all you need is a monkey for that. It doesn’t take much thought or planning. Just kill everyone. Sounds nuts doesn’t it? Negotiation is not weakness. It’s only viewed by the armchair warriors as such. However skilled negotiators can avoid such a calamity by seeing around corners before they get there.
The line between you and your enemy is a thin line brother and sometimes after a while, it is hard to tell between the two. Never become the people your parents warned you against. If you read books, read the one on the personel who flew on the Enola Gay. They had a different take on it.
Of course you are absolutely right.Dropping the atomic bomb was immoral, I don’t care what the prudent rationalizations are. Carpet bombing European cities was immoral too.
Glad we could see this together.Yes, I believe that you are absolutely right and it was wrong and immoral to drop the A-Bomb on civilians in Japan. And it set a bad precedent. If it was OK for the USA to drop the bomb and kill civilians, why would it not be OK for another country in the future?
According to my understanding of the Catholic just war teaching, the use of the A-Bomb on cities in immoral since it will unavoidably result in the killing of thousands of civilians. It is simply wrong to use the A-Bomb on civilians to pressure a government to unconditional surrender. If this is not a form of terrorism, then I would be interested to know what is terrorisim actually?
Yes it was immoral to destroy a whole city with the intention of pressuring an enemy government to surrender unconditionally.America made a big mistake in dropping the bomb and should make amends for it. .
No, if the war had continued for another year, the loss of life throughout the Pacific theater, would have been around 10 times the loss of life from the bombs.Glad we could see this together.
I will also point this out. America (a protestant country) decided to drop an atomic Bomb on Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan. Sure, Japan in not a very Catholic country as we make up only 1% of the population but of all the places they could have dropped the A bomb they choose the place, the one place in Japan that had a 50% Catholic population. Something in that should have us seeing something. Why didn’t they drop the bomb of Kyoto, the center of paganism and prostetution, or Osaka where all the big battle ships were built or Tokyo where the “god man” emperor lived. No, they decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, with the second biggest Catholic population at that time and Nagasaki, the very center of Catholicism in Japan. You have to be thinking to yourself that the protestants in the presidents office were thinking about this. It’s not like the world did not know.
Plus at the time of the dropping of the bomb Japan was about to callapse form the war effort anyway. You didn’t have to invade. In fact, the U.S. didn’t have to invade Okinawa. We didn’t have to invade, just blockade. We were winning. Yah, the war would have lasted for another year before Japan finally gave in but it would have happened with no bomb, no invasion and a lot less loss of life, but no, the protestant president of the united states wanted to get elected so he dropped the bomb and then tried to strut American policy around the world.
On a side note, what is happening in Georgia south of Russia. The same thing that America used to do in Haiti, Cuba and Puerto Rico. America made a big mistake in dropping the bomb and should make amends for it. We should confess our mistakes so that we have have a better future and not repeat them. If America had been a Catholic country in WWII we would not have dropped the bomb and the world would be better off for it.
are you saying the allies should have accepted surrender on terms (an impossibility) or that the navy should have starved the japanese into surrender or that DOWNFALL should have gone forward with the resulting million or so casualties?Yes it was immoral to destroy a whole city with the intention of pressuring an enemy government to surrender unconditionally.
We know what happened. It’s why and how it happened that we are focused on. How does anyone know for sure, if the war had continued for another year WITH A BLOCKADE the loss of life throughout the Pacific theater, would have been around 10 times the loss of life from the bombs? You don’t. And how would this happen, by magic. Others are correct, weeks before dropping Big Boy, Japan was standing on one weak leg and was ready for surrender. But we blew it by dropping an A bomb on an ant. I think the word is overkill. At this time they had no navy, they had no air force and were surrounded on a tiny Island they called home. You sit and wait. You don’t try to storm anyones homeland unless you really want to die. THis would have been complete suicide. You wait. Ultimately in this situation it is concievable that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered if given the proper amount of time. But our leaders did not want that to have a chance. THey wanted to crush their enemy, not end a war. They are not both the same. It’s this possibility and option that we chose to ignore that should haunt everyone. It is this possibility that can offer insight into the next learning curve and maybe head off unecessary loss of life.No, if the war had continued for another year, the loss of life throughout the Pacific theater, would have been around 10 times the loss of life from the bombs.
This is a subject that it really helps to know some history on, if one is going to discuss the history, as opposed to amking a moral judgement. I recommend Frank’ DOWNFALL, as I always do. Or Newman or Maddux’s books. Or something, anyway.
Kyoto was off limits primarily from the decision of the Sec. of War, and the former Ambassador to Japan, who didn’t want to destroy the origianl cultural center of Yamato. The Emporor was off limits fro a number of reasons, including the expectation that he waw the single force that could cause the Committe on the Direction of the War to eventually surrender. Which was correct; that is what happened.
The idea that the cities were chosen because of the RC connections is worthy of a Jack Chick mentallty. Nagasaki was the secondary taget for the 2nd bomb; Kokura had inadequate visibility when the plane arrived there. And Nagasaki was the port of embarkation for Kyushu, the first island slated to be invaded.
Knowing history helps. Reading helps.
GKC
a BLOCKADE means that the first people who are going to starve or die from lack of medical care are the noncombatants: women, children, the elderly, foreign workers POWs and anyone else the government considered secondary to national survival.We know what happened. It’s why and how it happened that we are focused on. How does anyone know for sure, if the war had continued for another year WITH A BLOCKADE the loss of life throughout the Pacific theater, …
The names of the bombs were Little Boy (the uranium bomb) and Fat Man (the plutonium bomb).We know what happened. It’s why and how it happened that we are focused on. How does anyone know for sure, if the war had continued for another year WITH A BLOCKADE the loss of life throughout the Pacific theater, would have been around 10 times the loss of life from the bombs? You don’t. And how would this happen, by magic. Others are correct, weeks before dropping Big Boy, Japan was standing on one weak leg and was ready for surrender. But we blew it by dropping an A bomb on an ant. I think the word is overkill. At this time they had no navy, they had no air force and were surrounded on a tiny Island they called home. You sit and wait. You don’t try to storm anyones homeland unless you really want to die. THis would have been complete suicide. You wait. Ultimately in this situation it is concievable that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered if given the proper amount of time. But our leaders did not want that to have a chance. THey wanted to crush their enemy, not end a war. They are not both the same. It’s this possibility and option that we chose to ignore that should haunt everyone. It is this possibility that can offer insight into the next learning curve and maybe head off unecessary loss of life.
See Georgia and Russia. See the pipeline of oil from Georgia into Russia they are trying to protect. Know that Western Oil companies are in Georgia Helping them out with the oil transfer. See Russia get worried that their borders are being breached and the pipeline being cutoff and controlled by western companies. See us send our ships into the region instead of negotiators. Slowly but surely situations can spin out of control IF WE LET THEM? It just depends on if you want situations to spin out of control to use it to further aggression.
Indeed. And the minimum estimates for Coronet and Olympic, were even higher, for Americans. The Japanese toll would have been unimaginable, given the plan for resistance that would have been used.a BLOCKADE means that the first people who are going to starve or die from lack of medical care are the noncombatants: women, children, the elderly, foreign workers POWs and anyone else the government considered secondary to national survival.
and can you point to some source indicating that the imperial government was ready to accept an unconditional surrender and/or had communicated that to the allies prior to the first atomic bombing? you are aware that the war faction stated an attempted coup on the day of the surrender?
as one of the recent posters has noted, you really need a lesson in history if you think the IJA and IJN weren’t capable of causing the estimated 50,000 or so american dead.