Atomic Bomb In WWII

[pnewton]

Is it moral to kill 20,000 soldiers but also kill 120,000 civilians in the same act?

Every time this type of question is asked, then the law of double effect is being used. The balance of evil must be considered. As worded, the answer is “no.” But is it moral to save the lives of millions if it kills 100 civilians? If the answer is “yes” then the atomic bomb can not be viewed as intrinsically evil and there is room for prudential judgment in this matter.

 

[miguel]

I think it’s worth noting that CCC 2314 did not exist in 1945. More to the point, the whole moral analysis of large-scale bombing hardly existed, since the technology itself was new. It is always, always a mistake to judge one age by another age.

If what you say is true, CCC 2314 makes no sense.

 

[Caesar517]

miguel, you seem to be stuck on the idea that CCC 2314 declares the dropping of an atomic bomb to be an intrinsically evil act. That is not what it says. It says that the danger of modern warfare (the presence of nuclear weapons) provides the opportunity to commit such crimes.

I fully believe that dropping an atomic bomb can be immoral. I do not think that it always is.

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."110 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.

 

[miguel]

There is one difference. In the CCC, it states that abortion is alway intrinsically evil. That is not the case with atomic weapons.

True. And I never said nor do I believe that all conceivable uses of atomic weapons are intrinsically evil. Only those uses directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants are intrinsically evil. Why? Because it’s mass murder. Murder, even more so, mass murder, is always intrinsically evil. Dropping an atom bomb on a city is mass murder. CCC 2314 makes no sense otherwise.

 

[miguel]

I fully believe that dropping an atomic bomb can be immoral. I do not think that it always is.

Well your arguement isn’t with me because I never said that.

 

[Brendan]

If people would take the time to read CCC 2314, they’d see that the acts you’re describing are not what is condemned by the Church in CCC 2314. Did the acts you’re describing result in the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities and vast areas with their inhabitants? No they did not.

I fail to see how the US did not provide ample discernment on the circumstances and conditions for the use of the atomic bomb, which is precisely what the CCC is ask for when it uses the word ‘indescriminate’ - deficient in discernment.

It is clear from the documentation that there was extensive discussion from Truman on down on if the bomb should be used or not.

That meets the qualification given by the CCC, as well as the fact that the direct target was a military base, and advanced warning was given to the civilian population.

 

[VociMike]

If what you say is true, CCC 2314 makes no sense.

I can’t possibly reply intelligently to such a cryptic comment.

 

[Brendan]

There is one difference. In the CCC, it states that abortion is alway intrinsically evil. That is not the case with atomic weapons.

Exactly,

The CCC has no objection to the use of an atomic crusie missle to attack an enemy carrier battlegroup. It would be clearly a military target with no civilian population.

( Of course, there would still be non-combatants, such as the medical personal in the ship’s sickbay, but then the same is true of the carrier was sunk via conventional means.)

So clearly, the use of atomic weapons itself is not an intrinsically evil act.

The question then becomes, what constitutes a porportional good when X number of civilians are killed under double effect.

Obviously, a certain numer were morally acceptable for the D-Day invasion, as I have not hear anyone here claiming that D-Day was an immoral act even though several hundred French were killed in the process.

 

[Caesar517]

Well your arguement isn’t with me because I never said that.

You say that you do not believe atomic weapons to be intrinsically evil, but you do not seem to support a single practical senario in which they can be used.

 

[miguel]

I can’t possibly reply intelligently to such a cryptic comment.

Sorry. I think your point was valid. But I also think the Church refined (not changed) its moral position based on its consideration of events in the recent past. Looking back at the horrible destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, as others have pointed out, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, the Church did pass judgement on those acts. That’s what CCC 2314 is all about.

 

[Holly3278]

I would think that considering what the Catechism has to say on this, that the bishops in the United States would not have approved of the atomic bombing of Japan. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist back then. Even so, the teachings of the Catholic Church never change and so the teaching of the Catholic Church on weapons of mass destruction then was the same as it is now.

**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.

 

[miguel]

You say that you do not believe atomic weapons to be intrinsically evil, but you do not seem to support a single practical senario in which they can be used.

Well you missed my post where I mentioned underground testing in uninhabited parts of the Nevada desert, or nuking an enemy vessel at sea (in wartime of course) are not intrinsically evil uses.

 

[Brendan]

It seems to me that you’re stretching the concept of “defense” to the point where it means nothing. Yes, the Japanese struck first. But by 1945 the Japanese no longer had any capacity to attack the U.S… The U.S. was insisting on unconditional surrender rather than negotiating. That doesn’t sound like “defense” to me.

Iffy, in Aug 1945, they still had 10,000 aircraft in reserve, granted mostly for continued Kamakazi attacks, but there were 300 Kate bombers that could attack Alaska and British Columbia.

And there was also the matter of the combat troops still in China, our Ally. Catholic Just War theory allows for the military assitance to another nation. While China was still under attack the US still had the moral authority to remove Japan’s ability to continue the attack.

And there was still the matter that Japan was sending thousands of balloon bombs to the US and Canadian West Coast via the just discovered Jet Stream, resulting the killing of several Oregon school children and a number of forest fires.

 

[Brendan]

Well you missed my post where I mentioned underground testing in uninhabited parts of the Nevada desert, or nuking an enemy vessel at sea (in wartime of course) are not intrinsically evil uses.

Great we agree, the St. Thomas Principle of Double Effect applies.

 

[Caesar517]

Great we agree, the St. Thomas Principle of Double Effect applies.

Under the Principle of Double Effect, both the atom bombs and a land invasion would have been morally permissible.

The atom bombs saved many, many lives.

 

[pnewton]

Looking back at the horrible destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, as others have pointed out, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, the Church did pass judgement on those acts. That’s what CCC 2314 is all about.

Yes. I alluded earlier to the current teaching of the Church grew from its previous teaching against unrestricted warfare. I actually have a greater problem with the fire-bombing of Tokyo than the two bombs.

 

[Brendan]

Under the Principle of Double Effect, both the atom bombs and a land invasion would have been morally permissible…

Not true, since the atomic bomb would have accomplished the desired good ( the inability for Japan to continue attacks against the US and it’s Allies), and would have produced fewer civilian casualties, it was the only morally acceptable option.

When there are several options that have the greater chance of obtaining the good, one must choose the option that produces the least of the unintented evil.

So the land invasion was not a moral option.

 

[miguel]

Great we agree, the St. Thomas Principle of Double Effect applies.

There are uses which are intrinsically evil and there are uses which are not intrinsically evil. The principle of double effect does not apply to uses which are intrinsically evil.

 

[Wolseley]

But a situation could occur where the most prudent and effective means of attacking a military target would be a nuclear weapon.

Correct. For example, hardened missile sites, where you take out the enemy’s ability to launch his missiles before he gets the chance. Nuclear weapons are the only things which could do the job in taking out a missile silo.

It targeted civilians first and foremost. The death of thousands of civilians was the intended objective.

No; the military sites were the intended objectives; but even so, the “innocent” civilians were all engaged in producing war material to further the war effort. As such, they were legitimate targets. This is hard for those born after 1945 to get their heads around, because we don’t have total wars any more, but back then, that was the rule of the day.

And this will be my last post in the thread. I already posted my thoughts a few pages back, which the pacifists have blithely ignored, as usual.

These atomic bomb threads always end up running to a specific pattern:

 

[Brendan]

There are uses which are intrinsically evil and there are uses which are not intrinsically evil. The principle of double effect does not apply to uses which are intrinsically evil.

Correct. They CAN be used in an evil manner ( but that does not mean that they are intrinsically evil)

The WW II’s do not meet the standard set out by CCC 2314. It has been shown that the civilians were not the direct targets ( see the post where Truman outlined as much in his diary ) and there is ample documentation that the decision given much discernment, so it was not indiscriminatory.

So the qualificaitons given by the CCC for the act to be intrinsically evil do not apply in this case.