Atomic Bomb In WWII

[GKC]

Not sure if anyone has addressed this yet but…

Those of you that feel that dropping the bombs was immoral in the eyes of God and the RCC, what would your alternative have been to dropping them? Would you have preffered to invade Japan using conventional warfare? This was the only other alternative at this point in history. I have not heard anyone present another alternative that is viable given our situation during WWII.

Statistically this would have caused a MUCH greater loss of life than the two bombs did, civilian and military. Would choosing this option simply to avoid the use of certain types of weapons have been moral?

I agree that both options are great evils because all war is a great evil no matter how it is fought. I haven’t heard anyone argue that war isn’t a horrible terrible evil present only because we live in a sinful, fallen world. The question though as stated before by a few previous posts is, “which was the lesser of the two evils?” In WWII we had to choose one.

In my opinion choosing the option with a smaller loss of life and a quicker surrender by Japan was the lesser of the two evils.

I agree with your conclusion.

But there were one or two other approaches that might have been tried. One was continued conventional bombing. With the number of bombers scheduled to be available from the fall of 1945 estimated to be about 6 times what had been used in the spring-summer of 1945, the loss of life would have been horrific. Or, Japan could have been isolated, bombing continued at a leisurely rate against the transportation system (Lemay’s next targets), and starvation allowed to finish the job. There were some even less realistic ideas. Or, for the worst of possible worlds, the plan to invade, and use the bombs as tactical support could have won out.

In all, the best route was taken. Two planes. Two bombs. The smallest number of deaths. No war.

Good idea.

GKC

 

[Swan]

Their intention was to try to make our land invasion so costly that we wouldn’t do it. But the good end (their surrender) did not justify the use of evil means (the dropping of atomic bombs on cities and the indiscriminate killing of civilians).

I agree. I don’t care how folks try to rationalize it, slice it and dice it, it was just flat out wrong, IMO. That’s the problem with war - it leads to the rationalization of the murders of innocent people. Why don’t the right to lifers step up the plate on issues like this?

 

[pnewton]

I agree. I don’t care how folks try to rationalize it, slice it and dice it, it was just flat out wrong, IMO. That’s the problem with war - it leads to the rationalization of the murders of innocent people.

I do not think anyone here is rationalizing it, unless by that you mean the application of reason. The fact that we do not agree with you is because we do not see it as objectively sinful, whereas you do, not because we rationalize sin.

 

[stevegravy]

Swan brings up a point about hurting innocent people. So, who is an innocent?

What no one has been willing to answer this queation. In a total war of nation states who is innocent? Josef Stalin had voiced one opinion when, according to the history channel, he said the only innocent German was the one not yet born.

If you paid tax you support the war effort. If you work in a defense industry or in any activity that ultimately assist those fighting you are supporting the war effort. If your supporting the war effort you can not possibly think yourself innocent. Can you?

 

[Aquinas74]

I struggle with this. Is a land invasion truly less evil? We would have had to destroy and capture cities as well. Would the Japanese have used a scorched-earth policy? I think a full-force land invasion would have resulted in more innocent loss of life than the two atom bombs did.

The Japanes told there people through propaganda that the U.S. soldiers were such awful things as cannibals and other grossly distorted things. The invasion of Japan would have had us not fighting merely the soldiers of Imperial Japan but the entire population. It would have been a horrendous bloodbath for both sides.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I agree. I don’t care how folks try to rationalize it, slice it and dice it, it was just flat out wrong, IMO. That’s the problem with war - it leads to the rationalization of the murders of innocent people. Why don’t the right to lifers step up the plate on issues like this?

A war is a fight to the death between nations.

There is no way to put a nice face on war.

If one side fails to make a maximum effort, they will lose. And losing a war means eventual annihiliation.

 

[bobzills]

As I stated in a post on this forum about the Crusades, it is not always possible to “turn the other cheek” …

I thought that with trust in God, all things are possible, including the possibility to obey the words of Jesus?

 

[bobzills]

Swan brings up a point about hurting innocent people. So, who is an innocent?

children are innocent, and I don;t see any justification for the USA to murder and torture children by dropping an A-Bomb on them.

 

[bobzills]

Not sure if anyone has addressed this yet but…

Those of you that feel that dropping the bombs was immoral in the eyes of God and the RCC, what would your alternative have been to dropping them? .

The alternative would have been to turn the other cheek as Our Divine Lord had instructed us to do.

 

[Caesar517]

The alternative would have been to turn the other cheek as Our Divine Lord had instructed us to do.

You can’t turn the other cheek to people who are trying to take over the world…

The is such thing as a just war. WWII was one of them.

 

[bobzills]

You can’t turn the other cheek to people who are trying to take over the world…

The is such thing as a just war. WWII was one of them.

The war was not necessary. You need to read the recent book by the Catholic author and former presidential candidate, Patrick Buchanan:
"Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan (Hardcover - May 27, 2008)
The murder and torture of innocent children is always wrong and that it why it was wrong to drop the A-Bomb.
And it is not wrong to follow the commands of Our Divine Lord and Saviour.
And further, the use of the A-Bomb was a grave violation of the Law of God according to the rules laid down by John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57 and according to the CAF library on the just war doctrine:
"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)."
catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp

 

[Caesar517]

How could it possibly be unnessary to defend ourselves against an enemy who wanted nothing less than total domination? That’s the last argument I expected to hear; I don’t see any room for it.

As far as the atomic bombs, I apply the Principle of Double Effect. If the intent was to kill mass amounts of innocent people, then yes it would have been wrong (although you could argue that almost none of them were ‘innocent’ because of the was they all were contributing to military production). If the intent was to destroy military targets (even though there would be civilian casualties) then dropping the bombs would be mortally correct.

I’ve always argued from the standpoint that we primarily had the latter intention in mind. Excerpts from the President’s diary seem to support this. The first bomb was dropped on a military target and the second didn’t hit the intended target.

 

[bobzills]

How could it possibly be unnessary to defend ourselves against an enemy who wanted nothing less than total domination? That’s the last argument I expected to hear; I don’t see any room for it.

As far as the atomic bombs, I apply the Principle of Double Effect. If the intent was to kill mass amounts of innocent people, then yes it would have been wrong (although you could argue that almost none of them were ‘innocent’ because of the was they all were contributing to military production). If the intent was to destroy military targets (even though there would be civilian casualties) then dropping the bombs would be mortally correct.

I’ve always argued from the standpoint that we primarily had the latter intention in mind. Excerpts from the President’s diary seem to support this. The first bomb was dropped on a military target and the second didn’t hit the intended target.

No it is not right to murder and torture children. And the war was not necessary. See my previous post. #211.

 

[Caesar517]

No it is not right to murder and torture children. And the war was not necessary. See my previous post. #211.

I’m sorry, but I’ve lost interest in your opinion. You have provided little in the way of compelling argument.

 

[LRThunder]

The war was not necessary. You need to read the recent book by the Catholic author and former presidential candidate, Patrick Buchanan:
"Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan (Hardcover - May 27, 2008)
The murder and torture of innocent children is always wrong and that it why it was wrong to drop the A-Bomb.
And it is not wrong to follow the commands of Our Divine Lord and Saviour.
And further, the use of the A-Bomb was a grave violation of the Law of God according to the rules laid down by John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57 and according to the CAF library on the just war doctrine:
"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)."
catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp

World War II wasn’t necessary? Hitler, one of the most evil men in history, was trying to impose his racist and satanic philosophy on all of Europe. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust along with millions of other people.

Then there were the Japanese, who in many ways were just as bad if not worse than the Nazis.

What were we supposed to do? Let them take over Europe and Asia? And if the author of that book is who I think it is, he is an isolationist.

 

[Al_Masetti]

If Hitler and the Japanese and Italians [the Axis forces] had made one less mistake or if the Allies had made one more mistake, then the Nazis would have won World War II.

That’s how close it was.

And to win the war took every bit of strength that the Americans had. American dead and wounded were huge.

And after World War II was over, it cost more billions of dollars and more war dead to keep the Soviets from using Communism (militant atheism) to take over the world. And it’s not over yet … it may be more than a hundred years’ war.

We did trust in Jesus … to give us the inspiration to keep our mistakes to the minimum.

History is full of stories of Christian battles that were won by the narrowest of margins. And Christians suffered lots of losses. And I also need to include the battles of the Old Testament fought by Israel in the pre-Christ era.

Just trusting isn’t enough.

Just as faith without good works is nothing; so also faith in battle is not enough … you have to fight. And you have to win. And you have to take losses.

Read the Old Testament. Where God personally directed the Prophets to give very specific directions to the leaders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. God ordered the total destruction of their enemies.

Read “The Prophets” by Norman Podhoretz … chapter two: “Wielding the Sword”.

amazon.com/Prophets-Who-They-Were-What/dp/0743219279

Joshua at Jericho and at Ai. And God hurling hailstones down upon the Amorites. Conquest after conquest.

Moses smote the two kingdoms ruled by Sihon and Og.

Gideon against the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east. Gideon was given the “nickname” of Jerubaal … “contender against Baal”. [Baal was a false god,]

In Judges, there is Jephthah against the children of Ammon.

And then there is God speaking through Samuel to Saul: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”… But Saul defeats the Amalekies and disobeys God … allowing their king, Agag, to survive and allows the troops to take as spoil the best of the Amalekites sheep, oxen, fatlings and lambs … and would not utterly destroy them.

God then reminds Samuel, He has in the past vowed to wipe out the Amelikes because of the cruelty they showed toward the Israelites fleeing from slavery in the desert.

The failure to carry out God’s battle command caused Israel to be punished.

“And the Lord said unto Moses, write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses … said … the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”

Podhoretz’ book is filled with examples of fights to the death between nations.

We need to be careful of taking situations out of context.

War is unique in that it is utterly destructive. War is not a contest. It is a fight to the finish.

War is deadly to nations. When one ruler of a nation starts a war they had better be prepared to win or suffer the consequences of utter defeat. And some of these wars take years, decades and generations to finish.

Someday the lion will lie down with the lamb.

But not yet.

 

[Wolseley]

children are innocent, and I don;t see any justification for the USA to murder and torture children by dropping an A-Bomb on them.

Children in Japan were employed making arms for the Japanese army and navy. They were legitimate targets. I’m sorry, but there it is. World War II was the last of the “total” wars, in which every man, woman, and child in a country was engaged in the war effort. Germany had Hitler Youth. Here, we had schoolkids collecting scrap for armament drives. The bomb put an end to “total” wars, so those of us who came along after World War II find that mindset hard to understand, but that’s how it was then.

And further, the use of the A-Bomb was a grave violation of the Law of God according to the rules laid down by John Paul II

John Paul II wasn’t even a priest at the time, and Evangelium Vitae hadn’t been written yet.

bobzills:

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.

There was no such thing as a “non-combatant” in “total” wars, which World War II was. See above.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I would suggest that anyone even remotely interested in the subject of World War II, go their local library and browse through the books in the 940.91 section.

It’s history, but there are many personal memoirs there that enliven things and make the boring history more interesting and more personal.

 

[GKC]

I would suggest that anyone even remotely interested in the subject of World War II, go their local library and browse through the books in the 940.91 section.

It’s history, but there are many personal memoirs there that enliven things and make the boring history more interesting and more personal.

An area I collect books on. And if anyone is interested in the factual reasons the decision to use the bombs were based on, Frank’s DOWNFALL is the best on the subject.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

I’m sorry, but I’ve lost interest in your opinion. You have provided little in the way of compelling argument.

The argument is directly from the Catholic Answers “Answer Guide”.
catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp
“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).”
It is wrong to use A-Bombs because of the terrible damage that they cause. The Vatican UN Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino said: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation.”
The use of the A-Bomb is against the catechism:
"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).
And it is contrary to what our beloved Pope has stated:
:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).The dropping of an A-Bomb on Japan used the death of children and others as a means to achieve the good of the war’s end. This is obviously gravely immoral and against Catholic teaching.
Nuclear weapons are unlike many other weapons in that they kill massively and indiscriminately. They do not distinguish between the combatant soldiers and the innocent civilian children.
They are hideously cruel as they send off huge shock waves which flatten all kinds of buildings and set off hige firestorms. They cause long lasting injury and health damage, even to those who were not in the immediate area of the blast.