Atomic Bomb In WWII

[Al_Masetti]

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.

Why didn’t they speak up in 1943?

 

[Wolseley]

Why didn’t they speak up in 1943?

Because the bombs didn’t exist in 1943, which is a fact that all these posts conveniently overlook.

It’s fine to use the Catechism to look back to 1945 and condemn the bombings, but that’s sort of like using the 1947 Geneva Conventions to look back and condemn the Confederate prison at Andersonville in 1865.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Because the bombs didn’t exist in 1943, which is a fact that all these posts conveniently overlook.

It’s fine to use the Catechism to look back to 1945 and condemn the bombings, but that’s sort of like using the 1947 Geneva Conventions to look back and condemn the Confederate prison at Andersonville in 1865.

AND, as you pointed out, none of the people doing the writing were in a position to speak out in 1943 … or in 1945.

[One wonders if the original poster understands the nature of rules that are “ex post facto” or “retroactive” or “after the fact”.]

 

[Contarini]

Please explain what is moral about sticking a bayonet into another mans belly. It seems hypocritical to say a weapon is intrinsically evil because of its enormous capacity to do damage and destruction and then maintain other weapons are ok because of their limited capabilities to kill. Shouldn’t the consideration of morality be about the act, its intended consequences and motivation of the actors? Otherwise, it seems to me, all you are really arguing over is the body count.

No, because mass weapons cannot be controlled as easily. You’re right that it’s not about sheer numbers. It is, as you note, about intention. But part of proper intention means that you avoid doing things that will very likely have evil consequences. You can’t drive through a small village at 80 mph and then plead in your defense that you didn’t mean to kill anyone. That’s where “consequentialist” decisions come into play. If I am chasing a terrorist who has a bomb with which he is going to blow up thousands of people, then it may be OK to drive recklessly through the small village. (But if I’m a cop pursuing a normal criminal, then it probably wouldn’t.) It would not, however, be OK to drive over an innocent person on purpose, no matter how many people I was going to save.

Since statistics are completely amoral isn’t the real question then if there is anything like an innocent civilian in a modern war.

And the answer is unquestionably yes. The only people it is legitimate to kill in war are people who are actively and directly engaged in trying to kill you or your comrades. Perhaps this can be broadened to include, for instance, people who work in munitions factories. But it certainly does not include a whole society. (Bear in mind that “innocent” here is not a global moral judgment–just as in a court case, it has a very specific relevance. The soldier with a gun in his hands may be a much better person than the corrupt enemy politician who voted for the unjust war. But it is not legitimate to kill the latter–not at least until he is lawfully convicted of a capital crime.)

they seem to not want to think about Auschwitz being shutdown by a Red Army who’s leadership believed the only innocent German was one that wasn’t yet born

I see no reason to think that they haven’t thought about it. God can use evil people to accomplish good things. He does it all the time. How is this relevant?

and Japan’s pro war cabinet wasn’t going to surrender until they thought we could burn their island up without setting foot on it. That is the cold hard reality of this world.

Whenever people start talking about “cold hard reality” they are trying to defend the indefensible. The reality is, in fact, that we demanded unconditional surrender not only of Hitler but of the Japanese. Why did we have to force unconditional surrender in the first place? Why was invasion the only alternative to mass bombing? What were the Japanese able to do to us if we did not invade? I have never heard a good answer to these questions.

If you still think A-bombing Japan into surrender wasn’t moral tell me how it would have been more moral for an 18 year old from America to machine gun a bunch of Japanese kids charging him with bamboo spears?

Because in those circumstances the American soldier’s life would be directly at risk. That’s a fairly obvious answer–why do you find it so difficult?

Furthermore, as I said, no one has made a case as to why invasion was necessary. Why were we so bent on unconditional surrender?

Yes armies do the killing but societies do the war. How do you kill a society that is hell bent on killing you? And do it morally?

You can’t. If the only way to win a war is to “kill a society,” then we will have to be pacifists.

Edwin

 

[Caesar517]

"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.

This argument operates on the basis that we were deliberatly trying to kill innocent people. There are two counter-arguments here:

1. We weren’t trying to kill largew numbers of innocent people, we were aiming for military targets. The is a difference between intentionally killing innocents and just knowing that innocents will die.
2. The Japanese civilians weren’t innocent because they were all contributing to the Japanese war effort.

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)."

I agree completely with the phrase in quotes. I don’t think the atomic bombs killed civilians voluntarily, though. We really had no other options. We needed to force Japan to unconditional surrender.

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.”

I agree that we shouldn’t use nuclear weapons today. Now that everyone has them, whoever used one first would likely start a nuclear war (Mutually Assured Destruction)

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).

Have you read throught the entire thread? The intrepetation of this paragraph is the primary subject of this debate. Read through my past posts here and you will see where I stand with this.

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.

All weapons kill indescriminately. If you are in the path of a bullet, you are going to be hit, regardless. If you are beside a live grenade, you are going to die. It doesn’t matter if you are a civilian or not. You will die just the same.

All bombs send shockwaves, even grenades do (so do bulets, technically). The only difference between an atomic bomb and a 2,000-lb bomb is that the atomic bomb does more damage. If you are going to condemn atomic bombs just because they are bigger, then you have to draw a concrete line somewhere. Are you going to limit bombs to a certain blast radius? That’s rediculous.

 

[Caesar517]

And the answer is unquestionably yes. The only people it is legitimate to kill in war are people who are actively and directly engaged in trying to kill you or your comrades. Perhaps this can be broadened to include, for instance, people who work in munitions factories. But it certainly does not include a whole society.

The Japanese civilians were all working towards the war effort in this way. In almost every home, there was a machine to produce weapons of war that the Japanese soldiers used. It is plausable to argue that there were no innocents in Japan (or very few).

Whenever people start talking about “cold hard reality” they are trying to defend the indefensible. The reality is, in fact, that we demanded unconditional surrender not only of Hitler but of the Japanese. Why did we have to force unconditional surrender in the first place? Why was invasion the only alternative to mass bombing? What were the Japanese able to do to us if we did not invade? I have never heard a good answer to these questions.

We had to force unconditional surrender because The Axis powers were trying to domine the world! The regimes were entirely evil. Evil such as this cannot be allowed to endure (“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”) . If we hadn’t pushed them to unconditional surrender, they would have done it again when they recovered (they were close, after all). Nobody wanted a WWIII.

The Japanese made it clear that they weren’t going to surrender quietly. They were training all their citizens to attack U.S. soldiers. They even refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb. They only surrendered after the second bomb because they were convinced that we could turn their entire island into dust without losing a single soldier.

Many people forget about Japan’s invasion of mainland Asia. They were brutally dominating China and slaughtering many more innocent people every day. They best way to stop them here was to hit them where it really hurts (their home island). Thus, we had to either bomb them into submission or invade them by land. How else could we have gotten them to surrender?

 

[wabrams]

For all those who think the atomic bombs were dropped on civilains indiscrimently have your facts all wrong. Both cities were chosen for their military value: one was HQ to the 7th army, the other a naval port; both cities had factories that supported the war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate collateral damage.

 

[Caesar517]

For all those who think the atomic bombs were dropped on civilains indiscrimently have your facts all wrong. Both cities were chosen for their military value: one was HQ to the 7th army, the other a naval port; both cities had factories that supported the war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate collateral damage.

Yes, and people seem to think that “unfortunate civilian casualties (collateral damage)” and “deliberate murder of innocent people” are the same.

 

[GKC]

No, because mass weapons cannot be controlled as easily. You’re right that it’s not about sheer numbers. It is, as you note, about intention. But part of proper intention means that you avoid doing things that will very likely have evil consequences. You can’t drive through a small village at 80 mph and then plead in your defense that you didn’t mean to kill anyone. That’s where “consequentialist” decisions come into play. If I am chasing a terrorist who has a bomb with which he is going to blow up thousands of people, then it may be OK to drive recklessly through the small village. (But if I’m a cop pursuing a normal criminal, then it probably wouldn’t.) It would not, however, be OK to drive over an innocent person on purpose, no matter how many people I was going to save.

And the answer is unquestionably yes. The only people it is legitimate to kill in war are people who are actively and directly engaged in trying to kill you or your comrades. Perhaps this can be broadened to include, for instance, people who work in munitions factories. But it certainly does not include a whole society. (Bear in mind that “innocent” here is not a global moral judgment–just as in a court case, it has a very specific relevance. The soldier with a gun in his hands may be a much better person than the corrupt enemy politician who voted for the unjust war. But it is not legitimate to kill the latter–not at least until he is lawfully convicted of a capital crime.)

I see no reason to think that they haven’t thought about it. God can use evil people to accomplish good things. He does it all the time. How is this relevant?

Whenever people start talking about “cold hard reality” they are trying to defend the indefensible. The reality is, in fact, that we demanded unconditional surrender not only of Hitler but of the Japanese. Why did we have to force unconditional surrender in the first place? Why was invasion the only alternative to mass bombing? What were the Japanese able to do to us if we did not invade? I have never heard a good answer to these questions.

Because in those circumstances the American soldier’s life would be directly at risk. That’s a fairly obvious answer–why do you find it so difficult?

Furthermore, as I said, no one has made a case as to why invasion was necessary. Why were we so bent on unconditional surrender?

You can’t. If the only way to win a war is to “kill a society,” then we will have to be pacifists.

Edwin

Edwin,

Find Richard Frank’s book, DOWNFALL. Read it.

It’s sort of like when I recommend Scarisbrick. The historical context is crucial.

In fact, Lemay didn’t believe an invasion was required at all. He was perfectly prepared to continue conventional bombing, using 6 times the number of strategic bombers as had been used so far, targeting mainly the food production and remaining transportation systems. Starvation is a wonderfully undiscriminating weapon.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

Edwin,

Find Richard Frank’s book, DOWNFALL. Read it.

It’s sort of like when I recommend Scarisbrick. The historical context is crucial.

In fact, Lemay didn’t believe an invasion was required at all. He was perfectly prepared to continue conventional bombing, using 6 times the number of strategic bombers as had been used so far, targeting mainly the food production and remaining transportation systems. Starvation is a wonderfully undiscriminating weapon.

GKC

The U.S. and Britain both tried precision bombing for years and it turned out that precision bombing could not be achieved.

It was impossible to hit a specific target from high altitude. In fact, they were lucky to get within five miles of the target. Hard to believe but true. And the B-29 was mechanically unreliable, having been rushed into service without complete testing. So they had to resort to area bombing.

Here is a useful account:

flgrube1.tripod.com/id15.html

 

[Al_Masetti]

Edwin,

Find Richard Frank’s book, DOWNFALL. Read it.

It’s sort of like when I recommend Scarisbrick. The historical context is crucial.

In fact, Lemay didn’t believe an invasion was required at all. He was perfectly prepared to continue conventional bombing, using 6 times the number of strategic bombers as had been used so far, targeting mainly the food production and remaining transportation systems. Starvation is a wonderfully undiscriminating weapon.

GKC

It wasn’t so much that LeMay didn’t believe an invasion was required, but rather that we had learned that an invasion would not have been successful. The Japanese had figured out correctly where we would have landed and had massed nearly one million troops to oppose the landing. The Allies had decrypted and read the Japanese communications and learned about the Japanese troop buildup at our proposed landing beaches. Our landing would have been suicidal.

So LeMay then had the only weapon that the Allies had left: the continuous bombing campaign. He would bomb the Japanese until they quit.

In addition, about 100,000 non-Japanese people were dying per month in Japanese held areas. The longer the war dragged on, the more that innocent people would die.

There were a lot of factors that weighed on the minds of the Allies who were converging on Japan.

The threat of more atomic bombs PLUS the threat of a Soviet invasion of Japan (a very real threat) led the Japanese to finally surrender.

 

[BCven86]

And the answer is unquestionably yes. The only people it is legitimate to kill in war are people who are actively and directly engaged in trying to kill you or your comrades. Perhaps this can be broadened to include, for instance, people who work in munitions factories. But it certainly does not include a whole society. (Bear in mind that “innocent” here is not a global moral judgment–just as in a court case, it has a very specific relevance. The soldier with a gun in his hands may be a much better person than the corrupt enemy politician who voted for the unjust war. But it is not legitimate to kill the latter–not at least until he is lawfully convicted of a capital crime.)

I am wondering, how would you counter guerrilla tactics? It is not always easy to know those ‘who are actively and directly engaged in trying to kill you or your comrades’. How do you fight an opponent that is out to kill you by night but ‘innocent’ by day?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Here is the Link to Frank’s book:

amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i

Get the book, or read it at the library, or at least read the reviews at Amazon.

 

[bobzills]

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

I thought that any God fearing Christian would follow the words of Our Lord and Savior, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself, when He said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

 

[Caesar517]

I thought that any God fearing Christian would follow the words of Our Lord and Savior, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself, when He said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

If an insane person wants to… say… kill everyone that doesn’t fit his idea of a superior race, should we let him?

 

[GKC]

It wasn’t so much that LeMay didn’t believe an invasion was required, but rather that we had learned that an invasion would not have been successful. The Japanese had figured out correctly where we would have landed and had massed nearly one million troops to oppose the landing. The Allies had decrypted and read the Japanese communications and learned about the Japanese troop buildup at our proposed landing beaches. Our landing would have been suicidal.

So LeMay then had the only weapon that the Allies had left: the continuous bombing campaign. He would bomb the Japanese until they quit.

In addition, about 100,000 non-Japanese people were dying per month in Japanese held areas. The longer the war dragged on, the more that innocent people would die.

There were a lot of factors that weighed on the minds of the Allies who were converging on Japan.

The threat of more atomic bombs PLUS the threat of a Soviet invasion of Japan (a very real threat) led the Japanese to finally surrender.

Agree in general, save that an invasion wouldn’t have been successful. It is probable that it would, but at a cost that no one could imagine bearing, as the facts became clearer as to the magnitude of the problem. Even so, an invasion would have taken place.

As to the other points you make, yes. Throughout the summer of 1945, our ability to read the Japanese military traffic indicated the consistent build up on Kyushu, and the fact that they had correctly spotted our planned landing areas. The final total number of Japanese troops on Kyushu, as we learned well before the bombs were dropped, was far in excess of the total we had planned, for, precluding the necessary advantageous ratio for the invasion. We would need even more troops.

And yes, Lemay and XXth AF would have been happy to continue to devastate the home islands, the transportation system, food production and distribution, and any surviving industrial targets around.

Instead, two planes, two bombs, and no more death.

Good.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The U.S. and Britain both tried precision bombing for years and it turned out that precision bombing could not be achieved.

It was impossible to hit a specific target from high altitude. In fact, they were lucky to get within five miles of the target. Hard to believe but true. And the B-29 was mechanically unreliable, having been rushed into service without complete testing. So they had to resort to area bombing.

Here is a useful account:

flgrube1.tripod.com/id15.html

The first use of B-29s over Japan, staging out of China, produced considerable losses, for very sparse results, for these reasons, and for others, related to the basing. The then commander of XXI Bomber Command, under XXth AF, BG Hansell, was working out the kinks in the precision bombing concept (which was never to reach the level of precision its advocates had claimed for it, in any theater), and also the inevitable teething problems in the B-29 (pretty much overcome after Lemay took over and after better bases were available on Saipan and Tinian). Then came the Washington directive for area bombing, around Jan-Feb of 1945, and then came Lemay. The first March raid on Tokyo produced around ( figures will never be precise) somewhere between 80,000+ and over 1000,000+ casulties. The man, mission and weapon had all come together.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Here is the Link to Frank’s book:

amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i

Get the book, or read it at the library, or at least read the reviews at Amazon.

And, while I recommend Frank as the best single source to understand what happened, and why, there are other titles which give insight:

THE INVASION OF JAPAN/John R. Skates

HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY: THE MYTH OF REVISIONISM/Robert J. Maddox (ed.)

CODENAME DOWNFALL/Thomas B. Allen & Norman Polmar

FIGHTING TO A FINISH/Leon Sigal

RUIN FROM THE AIR/Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan Witts

TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT/Robert Newman

And yet others.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

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.

There is nothing contradictory in that. “Intrinsically evil” has nothing to do with “practical scenarios.” It is a statement about the essence of the thing, not about practical ways in which it can be used.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We had to force unconditional surrender because The Axis powers were trying to domine the world! The regimes were entirely evil. Evil such as this cannot be allowed to endure (“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”) . If we hadn’t pushed them to unconditional surrender, they would have done it again when they recovered (they were close, after all).

Close to what? Recovery?

This is the same song and dance Bush fed us about Saddam.

I do not think that the Japanese regime was entirely evil. Metaphysically, it is impossible for anything to be entirely evil. Certainly the Nazi regime was so horribly warped and devoid of moral sense that an unconditional surrender demand was more justifiable there–though even then I wonder if lives mightn’t have been spared with a different approach. (For instance, what if at some point in late 1944 the Allies had offered an armistice on condition of the immediate release of every prisoner held in a Nazi concentration camp?) But who knows? In the Japanese case, though, your claim is even less tenable. They were aggressive, militant, militaristic human beings. But they were not entirely evil.

Many people forget about Japan’s invasion of mainland Asia. They were brutally dominating China and slaughtering many more innocent people every day.

Or demand immediate withdrawal from China as a condition of peace.

Edwin