No, but then that is not what happened. Nagasaki’s main industry at the time was the building of war ships. Hiroshima was used as a central collection and distribution point of military supplies. I believe this is why they were bombed. If there is any reason, other that the killing of civilians, then it does not qualify as indiscriminate mass killing of civilians. A reason means that there is discrimination.
Don’t shoot the messenger. CCC 2314 suggests that we shouldn’t have used them.Very nicely said Wolseley.That is the only conclusion I have been able to come to. I can’t understand why someone? would say that we shouldn’t have used the atomic bombs.
I suggests that they should not be used indiscriminately. Also, I do not think one can use 2314 retroactively. I agree that the use of atomic weapons today in almost any population area is problematic.
I don’t argue that there were military targets. But clearly, an atom bomb dropped on a city does not discriminate between military and civilians, hence my use of the term indiscriminate. It’s not the same thing as dropping a less destructive bomb on a military target with some unintended civilian casualties.
I think 2314 is obviously the Church’s carefully considered response to certain horrible acts of war that occured in the not-to-distant past. In that respect it is a retroactive condemnation of those acts. As to how God himself ultimately judged those acts, given that the Church’s position on them might have been unclear at the time? That’s something only God knows.
I don’t think the atomic bombs were directed to the killing of civilians. They were collateral damage. I think it would have been a war crime to say: “let’s go kill some innocent people.” I don’t think that’s what we did, though. I think we examined the consequences of both options and picked the best of the two.
This argument is that it is a question of degree. How much collateral damage is acceptable? Today, the teaching of the Church is that one should always minumize civilian casualties. I am not an expert enough on bombs of the WWII era to know if this one done, but in any case, the teaching at the time condemned only unrestricted warfare. This would be the equivalent of bombing Tokyo to maximize casualties.
If you drop an atom bomb on a city, you can’t argue that it wasn’t directed at civilians. Because the thing kills a massive amout of people and it does not discriminate between military personel and civilians. That’s the nature of dropping an atom bomb on a city. Whether you intend a massive amount of civilians to be killed or not, they will be. And you know that going in.
But what you are using here is the law of double effect which would allow for the moral use of such a weapon as long as the evil of the secondary effect does not outweigh the good that is done.
Yes, you do. But that doesn’t mean you are doing with the intention of killing civilians. What we did saved the live of many more people, American, Japanese, and anyone else who would have helped invade them.
I hear what you’re saying. The Church had not developed a moral position on the use of atomic weapons at the time they were used. How could they? They were a carefully guarded secret. But does that mean the people who decided to use them have absolutely no moral culpability? I don’t think we can just assume that either. I mean they did have the 5th Commandment. And they did have the use of reason. And they did have varying levels of ignorance about Catholic moral teaching. God takes all this into account for every individual.
Actually, I’m not using double effect. Double effect only applies when the action taken is not an intrinsic evil. The action taken in this case is dropping an atom bomb on a city. I think 2314 condemns that as an intrinsic evil.
Only if used indiscriminatly.
It is important to remember that their were cottage industries all over Japan supporting the war effort.
An atom bomb dropped on a city can’t be used any other way. That’s the nature of it.
Your point is not lost on me. Likewise, Sherman burned everything in his path to the sea because of his perception that civilians were helping the rebel troops. Were they? Probably. His actions are still considered an atrocity at least in the South.
Only to the extent that any bomd is indiscriminate. Trying winning a war without bombs. If one is in the blast area, one will die. If a military target is chose over a civilian target, that is a discrimination.