Atomic Bomb In WWII

[GKC]

Just a quick note, morally the stats of how many might have died in a “land invasion” are utterly irrelevant. Whether 10 men or 1,000,000,000,000 men would have died in a land invasion does not change the morality in any way of the act of the atomic bombs. What matters is if the act itself was moral or immoral. If it was immoral, then all the good consequences in the world cannot make it morally permissible.

Of course. Which is why I said and will always say, that I don’t argue against the teaching of the RCC as accepted by RCs. But had I any influence over the matter, at the time, I would have done everything I could to make sure that we were parsimonius with death; that is, that we ended the war in less than a week, saving multi-millions of lives.

In discussions on this subject, I usually only function to make evident just what the implications of the RCC position is, as it is now declared to be are; i. e. that the decision to use the bombs was intrinsically immoral, and that the argument from “consequentialism” does not hold, and that an intrinsically immoral act, as defined by Rome, must not be performed, though it would save somewhere around (let’s say) 5 million lives net, civilian and military, Japanese and Allied, and other.

It is for such reasons that I am not a RC.

GKC

 

[miguel]

Sorry, that doesn’t help at all. Maybe you could walk through the application of the principles step by step to the two scenarios under discussion.

I’ve already done that over and over and I’m tired. The basic principle is that a good end (Japan’s surrender) did not justify the use of evil means (dropping an atom bomb on a city).

 

[GKC]

Most people don’t dispute the fact that the bombs resulted in Japan’s early surrender. I sure don’t. Whether they thus saved millions of lives is speculative (and irrelevant to the morality of how we used them). Since we’re engaging in speculation, what if the atom bomb wasn’t available at the point when Japanese forces had been removed from the Pacific and we were ready to invade Japan itself? The same calculations of the cost of invasion might have lead to negotiations instead of a demand for unconditional surrender. No doubt a factor in our demand for unconditional surrender was the availability of the atom bomb.

No. The invasion was planned and only a few months away, with all attendant estimates of casualities, when the Tinity test proved to the very few decision makers aware of it that there was an option, in mid July. The Potsdam declaration in late July affirmed the idea of unconditional surrender, but that had been the policy all along. The success of Trinity didn’t affect it, only how it might be achieved. Had there been no atomic weapons avaliable, conventional bombing, a more deadly weapon, would have continued, on an increasing scale, and an invasion would have followed. Without doubt.

One of the scariest thoughts though, was that given to invading anyway, and using the bombs as tactical support; the worse of both worlds. This was seriously considered. But it was decided to see what effect the bombs alone would have. The desired and humanitarian one, it turned out.

GKC

 

[Sure]

No. The invasion was planned and only a few months away, with all attendant estimates of casualities, when the Tinity test proved to the very few decision makers aware of it that there was an option, in mid July. The Potsdam declaration in late July affirmed the idea of unconditional surrender, but that had been the policy all along. The success of Trinity didn’t affect it, only how it might be achieved. Had there been no atomic weapons avaliable, conventional bombing, a more deadly weapon, would have continued, on an increasing scale, and an invasion would have followed. Without doubt.

One of the scariest thoughts though, was that given to invading anyway, and using the bombs as tactical support; the worse of both worlds. This was seriously considered. But it was decided to see what effect the bombs alone would have. The desired and humanitarian one, it turned out.

GKC

That is a perfect example of the proportionalist heresy. The acts must be each evaluated.

1. Dropping an atomic bomb on a city with many civilians present: Probably immoral according to reputable theologians(although Brendan presents an interesing argument). If the act is immoral than it cannot be done, no matter how many lives it saves.
2. Invading the mainland in a just war: Since the war is just and there is not an intentional targeting of civilians, this would be a moral option.

Now, if action 1 is found to be immoral, it cannot be done EVEN if the loss of life will be far far greater through action 2. So, the attempt to prove that dropping atomic bombs cost fewer lives than an invasion is totally irrelevant.

 

[VociMike]

I’ve already done that over and over and I’m tired. The basic principle is that a good end (Japan’s surrender) did not justify the use of evil means (dropping an atom bomb on a city).

But what makes dropping the bomb more evil than a land invasion where a million or more civilians get killed (mostly because their rulers send them out to fight, or refuse to evacuate them from battle zones)? That’s the claim being made, but I’m not seeing it.

 

[pnewton]

What matters is if the act itself was moral or immoral. If it was immoral, then all the good consequences in the world cannot make it morally permissible.

And that is the argument in a nut shell. If the act was an intrinsic evil, as Miguel believes, then one can not apply the law of double effect. If the act is not intrisically evil, then it may or may not have been immoral, depending on the motive, and balance of good versus evil.

I see two good arguments against the intrinsic evil idea. First, it would be a unique use of intrinsic evil since other uses apply to acts of an individual, like abortion, adultery, etc., not any act of national defense. Second, God Himself used the same tactic when Israel invaded the Promised Land. The obliteration of cities by God as the only means to keep His people holy was an application of the law of double effect.

 

[miguel]

That is a perfect example of the proportionalist heresy. The acts must be each evaluated.

1. Dropping an atomic bomb on a city with many civilians present: Probably immoral according to reputable theologians?(although Brendan presents an interesing argument). If the act is immoral than it cannot be done, no matter how many lives it saves.
2. Invading the mainland in a just war: Since the war is just and there is not an intentional targeting of civilians, this would be a moral option.

Now, if action 1 is found to be immoral, it cannot be done EVEN if the loss of life will be far far greater through action 2. So, the attempt to prove that dropping atomic bombs cost fewer lives than an invasion is totally irrelevant.

If you consider CCC 2314 authoritative as I do, the act was condemned as a crime against God and man.

 

[miguel]

No. The invasion was planned and only a few months away, with all attendant estimates of casualities, when the Tinity test proved to the very few decision makers aware of it that there was an option, in mid July. The Potsdam declaration in late July affirmed the idea of unconditional surrender, but that had been the policy all along. The success of Trinity didn’t affect it, only how it might be achieved. Had there been no atomic weapons avaliable, conventional bombing, a more deadly weapon, would have continued, on an increasing scale, and an invasion would have followed. Without doubt.

Whether or not it was the policy all along, policies can be changed. They didn’t know all along what the cost of extricating the Japanese from Peleliu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa would be until they did it. I don’t simply assume unconditional surrender would have been pursued without the atom bomb. Millions of lives could also have been saved through negotiations.

 

[Caesar517]

miguel, you are saying that dropping an atomic bomb on an enemy fleet (where there are no innocent lives lost) is not intrinsically evil, whereas dropping an atomic bomb on a city is intrinsically evil.

So you are saying that dropping an atomic bomb is sometimes intrinsically evil. This is a paradox. Your logic contradicts itself. Dropping an atomic bomb is either always evil (intrinsically evil) or not always evil (morally neutral).

If it is intrinsically evil, then an atomic bomb can never be used morally. If it is not intrinsically evil, then the Principle of Double Effect applies.

I do agree that you cannot decide the morality of the bombs by weighing the consequences of both options. This is the province of consequentialism.

Once you decide that both are morally acceptable, however, you can look at the consequenses to determine the most prudent course of action.

 

[VociMike]

Whether or not it was the policy all along, policies can be changed. They didn’t know all along what the cost of extricating the Japanese from Peleliu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa would be until they did it. I don’t simply assume unconditional surrender would have been pursued without the atom bomb. Millions of lives could also have been saved through negotiations.

I think you’re being conveniently naïve here. The Allies had just beaten Germany into unconditional surrender, at a far greater cost in lives, and it wasn’t Germany that sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor and the other American bases. And it wasn’t the Germans who used Kamizazes and blew up American doctors trying to help wounded enemy soldiers. And then there are the prisoner of war statistics - American POWs died at 7 times the rate under the Japanese than they did under the Germans and Italians. How were the American leaders possibly going to justify to the American people letting the Japanese off more lightly than the Germans? That’s about as inconceivable under the circumstances as I can imagine.

 

[GKC]

That is a perfect example of the proportionalist heresy. The acts must be each evaluated.

1. Dropping an atomic bomb on a city with many civilians present: Probably immoral according to reputable theologians(although Brendan presents an interesing argument). If the act is immoral than it cannot be done, no matter how many lives it saves.
2. Invading the mainland in a just war: Since the war is just and there is not an intentional targeting of civilians, this would be a moral option.

Now, if action 1 is found to be immoral, it cannot be done EVEN if the loss of life will be far far greater through action 2. So, the attempt to prove that dropping atomic bombs cost fewer lives than an invasion is totally irrelevant.

The unnecessary loss of the lives, resulting directly from such a decision, is the immoral act. And had you presented this logic to the men preparing to invade Kyushu, they would have agreed woth me.

As I said, I am not an RC. But do not and never shall argue a RC should go against the teachings of the RCC, on such a matter. But I would and will do all to make sure such a teaching would not be acted on, as policy. It is grossly immoral.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think you’re being conveniently naïve here. The Allies had just beaten Germany into unconditional surrender, at a far greater cost in lives, and it wasn’t Germany that sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor and the other American bases. And it wasn’t the Germans who used Kamizazes and blew up American doctors trying to help wounded enemy soldiers. And then there are the prisoner of war statistics - American POWs died at 7 times the rate under the Japanese than they did under the Germans and Italians. How were the American leaders possibly going to justify to the American people letting the Japanese off more lightly than the Germans? That’s about as inconceivable under the circumstances as I can imagine.

Without the time to add detail to your points here, I only can say I concur.

It is not a question of what should have been done. It is a question of what would be done, that would result in a quicker end to the war, and a vastly reduced death toll.

GKC

 

[pnewton]

If you consider CCC 2314 authoritative as I do, the act was condemned as a crime against God and man.

I would like to clarify that I for one do not doubt the authority of CCC 2314, but rather your interpretation of it. That section does not state that the act of dropping an atomic bomb is intrinsically evil. If I am wrong, show us all.

It is not a fair assessment to make another poster out as questioning the authority of the Church when he is not.

 

[pnewton]

Millions of lives could also have been saved through negotiations.

The mindset of Japan at the time precluded that option. Okinawa showed us that. Negotiating with an evil empire is what Chamberlain tried, to the loss of millions of lives. If a war is just at all, then winning that war is the only righteous thing to do.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, or negotiaite.

 

[miguel]

miguel, you are saying that dropping an atomic bomb on an enemy fleet (where there are no innocent lives lost) is not intrinsically evil, whereas dropping an atomic bomb on a city is intrinsically evil.

So you are saying that dropping an atomic bomb is sometimes intrinsically evil. This is a paradox. Your logic contradicts itself. Dropping an atomic bomb is either always evil (intrinsically evil) or not always evil (morally neutral).

If it is intrinsically evil, then an atomic bomb can never be used morally. If it is not intrinsically evil, then the Principle of Double Effect applies.

I do agree that you cannot decide the morality of the bombs by weighing the consequences of both options. This is the province of consequentialism.

Once you decide that both are morally acceptable, however, you can look at the consequenses to determine the most prudent course of action.

Shooting a shotgun at a duck is not intrinsically evil. Shooting a shotgun at an innocent child is intrinsically evil because it’s murder.

 

[GKC]

The mindset of Japan at the time precluded that option. Okinawa showed us that. Negotiating with an evil empire is what Chamberlain tried, to the loss of millions of lives. If a war is just at all, then winning that war is the only righteous thing to do.

Agreed. This shows a major lack of understanding of the realities of the Japanese situation.

GKC

I

 

[Caesar517]

Shooting a shotgun at a duck is not intrinsically evil. Shooting a shotgun at an innocent child is intrinsically evil because it’s murder.

You are misunderstanding the application of the word “intrinsic.”

I will use your example: Shooting a shotgun at a duck is not evil. Shooting a shotgun at an innocent child is evil.

The act in this senario is ‘shooting a shotgun’. It isn’t ‘shooting a shotgun at a duck’ or ‘shooting a shotgun at a child’ because the second part (duck or child) describes your intentions (you intend to hit the duck or the child), not the act itself.

Obviously, shooting a shotgun is not intrinsically evil because an act is either 100% intrinsically evil or 0% intrinsically evil. Hence the defenition of ‘intrinsic’:

belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing

Therfore, an act cannot possibly be sometimes intrinsically evil. To say so demonstrates lack of understanding of the word itself.

 

[miguel]

I would like to clarify that I for one do not doubt the authority of CCC 2314, but rather your interpretation of it. That section does not state that the act of dropping an atomic bomb is intrinsically evil. If I am wrong, show us all.

Where have I said the act of “dropping an atomic bomb” is intrinsically evil? I have said many times that it is not. CCC 2314 condemns as a crime against God and man, every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants. If you can’t see that the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are horrible examples of the acts condemned in CCC 2314, there isn’t much more I can say.

It is not a fair assessment to make another poster out as questioning the authority of the Church when he is not.

SURE said “probably immoral according to reputable theologians” in reference to the acts under discussion. I thought that was a bit of an understatement, in light of CCC 2314. I did not mean to imply SURE was questioning Church authority. I certainly didn’t think that. For all I know, SURE may not have read CCC 2314. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with SURE’s moral reasoning.

 

[miguel]

You are misunderstanding the application of the word “intrinsic.”

I will use your example: Shooting a shotgun at a duck is not evil. Shooting a shotgun at an innocent child is evil.

The act in this senario is ‘shooting a shotgun’. It isn’t ‘shooting a shotgun at a duck’ or ‘shooting a shotgun at a child’ because the second part (duck or child) describes your intentions (you intend to hit the duck or the child), not the act itself.

Obviously, shooting a shotgun is not intrinsically evil because an act is either 100% intrinsically evil or 0% intrinsically evil. Hence the defenition of ‘intrinsic’:
Therfore, an act cannot possibly be sometimes intrinsically evil. To say so demonstrates lack of understanding of the word itself.

Is murder intrinsically evil? Is mass murder intrinsically evil. CCC 2314 condemns acts of mass murder committed during war.

 

[miguel]

I think you’re being conveniently naïve here…How were the American leaders possibly going to justify to the American people letting the Japanese off more lightly than the Germans? That’s about as inconceivable under the circumstances as I can imagine.

The more important question is how leaders justify their actions to God. That’s what we’re discussing here. Which brings up a good question. If the enemy is defeated, in this case the Pacific islands freed from Japanese control, Japanese forces pushed back to Japan, is it just to continue to the point of wiping them out in a land invasion? At what point does a defensive war become a war of aggression?