Atomic Bomb In WWII

[beeliner]

1. All that these quotes do is to state that it was convenient to use the A-Bomb because it saved the lives of thousands (or even more) of Americans. It doesn’t say that it was necessary to use it. In fact we have the statements of several notable people that it was not necessary to use the A-Bomb to end the war.
2. Do we have the right to kill one innocent child in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers? My reading of Catholic theology is that it is gravely immoral to do so:
   “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).

1. Well, I don’t see the word ‘convenient’ in any of them, but you are correct to the extent that the War would have eventually been won without the two bombings which ended it in three days, and the key word is ‘eventually’. I think the number of lives, Allied and Imperial, soldier and civilian, adult and child, that would have lost winning the war by other means is significant.

It’s not a matter of convenience but of logical and pragmatic military strategy. The purpose of war is not trading shot for shot but of bringing the enemy to his kness as expeditiously as possible so that in the long run casualties, military and civilian, might be minimized.

1. Not relevant to the discussion. We’ve already agreed that war is intrinsically immoral - gravely. I didn’t see the Catholic Church forbidding young men from signing up under pain of excommunication, nor do I see that today. Why do you think that is?

I might also point out that all five of the potential A-bomb targets were important centers of war production and other military activity and certainly qualified as military targets.

 

[GKC]

1. Well, I don’t see the word ‘convenient’ in any of them, but you are correct to the extent that the War would have eventually been won without the two bombings which ended it in three days, and the key word is ‘eventually’. I think the number of lives, Allied and Imperial, soldier and civilian, adult and child, that would have lost winning the war by other means is significant.

It’s not a matter of convenience but of logical and pragmatic military strategy. The purpose of war is not trading shot for shot but of bringing the enemy to his kness as expeditiously as possible so that in the long run casualties, military and civilian, might be minimized.

1. Not relevant to the discussion. We’ve already agreed that war is intrinsically immoral - gravely. I didn’t see the Catholic Church forbidding young men from signing up under pain of excommunication, nor do I see that today. Why do you think that is?

I might also point out that all five of the potential A-bomb targets were important centers of war production and other military activity and certainly qualified as military targets.

All points of fact in here are correct.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I quoted several such statements in post 313 of this thread.

And I thank you. The quote I was particularly thinking of was from his memoirs, and I find that my copy is not only in another house, but packed 10 boxes deep somewhere. Will not see the light of day until the library addition is built.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’m only back for a minute. But you still seem oblivious to the fact that precisely the same classes of people were killed, more thoroughly, by the fire bombings, than were killed by the atomic bombs. I’ll repeat this later.

GKC

It’s later.

My wife has induced in me a spasm of concentrated moving activity, and I don’t know when I’ll be back for more than a quick look. But I’m stealing a few moments (she’s at the other house) to add some more details.

The fire bombings (roughly from Mar-Jun 1945) were aimed at 5 major Japanese cities. The total deaths/casualties in the bombings, almost all attributed to that short campaign (I think that Tokyo’s death total outside that period was around 2 thousand) was 127,000/316,000, approx.This was all classes, military, civilian, young and old. Do I need to explain to you how fire bombing works? If so, I have no time. Read ( I keep saying this) Frank/DOWNFALL, chap. 1.

I’m not making the case that fire bombing was not something you would object to, morally, as you do to the atomic weapons. I’m not interested in your moral views, as I repeatedly have said . I’m trying to get you to understand that, absent the atomic bombs, this bombing would have continued. Another book I do wish you had is Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE CULT OF HIROSHIMA. It is brutal. Had the war not ended in Aug, but continued to the projected start date of the OLYMPIC invasion, in Nov (and that was a dubious date, given the immmense problems of manpower and logistics) in the 3 months between the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb, and the start of the Kyushu invasion, deaths other than Japanese, would have been between 100,000 and 300,000 a month. That’s the butcher’s bill for trapped captive peoples, and (primarily) POWs. The Japanese general in command of POWs in the SE Asia area owned around 300,000-400,000 (these are the bridge on the River Kwai/ death railway people). He was to start killing them at the onset of the SE Asian invasions under Mountbatten, planned for 6 Sep.

Which does not take into consideration the Japanese deaths between Aug and Nov. The next line of attack was to concentrate the 20th AF on the transportaion and distribution systems, with an eye to starvation, a remarkably indiscriminate from of death, which looks to the weak, young and elderly first. And, in addition (the number of bombers was increasing daily) the next set of urban tagets was to be the 180 cities/towns with a population over 30,000 each, the major urban areas having been well worked over already. This is a target of around 5.5 million people. And all that is before the invasion itself, and without regard for the deaths involved therein, and for as long as it took to subdue the home islands.

I think I’ll recommend Newman’s book again, optimist that I am. It has a remarkable analysis of the USSBS, and it’s methods (Chap. 2). The conclusions in the oft cited paragraph about an early surrender are completely unsupported by the detailed interviews of the “surviving Japanese leaders involved”, with only Kido making even a passing reference to any form of early surrender, without either the invasion, or the bombs (in later testimony, he credits the Nagasaki bomb with being the key to being able to bring about surrender).

Newman’s book is crisp, succinct (only around 200 pages) and devastating. And it has a 1947 quote from Einstein, supporting the use of the bombs. Opinions, opinions.

In brief: Two planes. Two Bombs. Four days. No more deaths. Good.

Now to load the car.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

Bobzills, if you want to do something meaningful, examine the Venona books to figure out after the fact how the Stalin and the Soviet Union maneuvered and manipulated the Europeans into war. And how Stalin ordered his agents in the United States to sneakily and systematically put the screws to Japan. Take a look at the role of Communism and Socialism in manipulating both the public and government bureaucracy to destabilize the world.

Yes. Perhaps, then we could have another thread on this topic. I will try to contribute to such a thread as to my ability on it. On this thread, I am trying to understand the Catholic position on the A Bomb in WWII, as I understand it to be and as I have already quoted it from the CAF theologians view on it. My understanding is that the use of the atomic bomb is immoral, and that it is not a moral approach to say that it is justified to use the bomb to wipe out a city or two, because this will save the lives of American soldiers. I believe that this mentality is contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[bobzills]

1.2. Not relevant to the discussion. We’ve already agreed that war is intrinsically immoral - gravely. I didn’t see the Catholic Church forbidding young men from signing up under pain of excommunication, nor do I see that today. Why do you think that is?.

It is because of the just war theory. I think that the A-bomb is anti-just war since innocent civilian lives will be taken in massive amounts.
It is OK to kill a couple of civilians to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers?

 

[bobzills]

I’m not making the case that fire bombing was not something you would object to, morally, as you do to the atomic weapons.

As I understand the rules at CAF, we are supposed to keep on the topic of the thread, which I thought was : Atomic Bomb in WWII. I have tried to keep to the rules and understand the Catholic position on the immorality of the A-Bomb. For that I have referred to the theological position of the CAF and to the CCC. It is obvious from a reading of the CCC that extensive and indiscriminate firebombings of whole cities with their inhabitants is also immoral. I have quoted this already:
"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).

 

[JimG]

It is obvious from a reading of the CCC that extensive and indiscriminate firebombings of whole cities with their inhabitants is also immoral.

Yes. And yet there was much firebombing of cities during WW-II. As the war shifted to the pacific theater, there was much firebombing of Japan.

We are left with the proposition that morally, the use of the A-bombs would be immoral, but so would the continued firebombing of the cities. (Historically, however, the firebombing would have continued had the war not ended.)

The remaining alternative is the invasion of Japan. Based on previous experience with invasion of other islands, the death toll would have been horrific on both sides, possibly more horrific than either of the above alternatives.

 

[Contarini]

Yes. And yet there was much firebombing of cities during WW-II. As the war shifted to the pacific theater, there was much firebombing of Japan.

We are left with the proposition that morally, the use of the A-bombs would be immoral, but so would the continued firebombing of the cities. (Historically, however, the firebombing would have continued had the war not ended.)

The remaining alternative is the invasion of Japan. Based on previous experience with invasion of other islands, the death toll would have been horrific on both sides, possibly more horrific than either of the above alternatives.

But isn’t this utilitarian, consequentialist ethics? Isn’t this kind of ethical thinking incompatible with Catholicism, or orthodox Christianity generally? If there are really only three ways to win the war, and all of them are immoral, then clearly the only thing to do is to lose the war.

To me this whole thread is an advertisement for Christian pacifism. I am not a pacifist. I believe in just war. But I agree with Christian pacifists such as John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas that our primary means of fighting evil as Christians is through the nonviolent imitation of Christ. This is the most significant and powerful weapon against the forces of darkness. I believe that in certain carefully defined circumstances, the use of lethal force is justified to protect the innocent. But it cannot ever be accepted as the *only *alternative. If it is, you wind up with devil’s bargains such as the one you propose.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

As I understand the rules at CAF, we are supposed to keep on the topic of the thread, which I thought was : Atomic Bomb in WWII. I have tried to keep to the rules and understand the Catholic position on the immorality of the A-Bomb. For that I have referred to the theological position of the CAF and to the CCC. It is obvious from a reading of the CCC that extensive and indiscriminate firebombings of whole cities with their inhabitants is also immoral. I have quoted this already:
"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, as I said from the first, I don’t and won’t argue against your understanding of the RCC teachings on the subject, or your understanding of the moral authority of the teachings. But I will and do address the history and the consequences of any decisions made in 1945. You and any others interested need to see what consequences follow from what decisions.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It is because of the just war theory. I think that the A-bomb is anti-just war since innocent civilian lives will be taken in massive amounts.
It is OK to kill a couple of civilians to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers?

What was in question were millions of lives of Japanese, American, Asian and others, of all ages; civilian and military. You seem to have trouble grasping this.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But isn’t this utilitarian, consequentialist ethics? Isn’t this kind of ethical thinking incompatible with Catholicism, or orthodox Christianity generally? If there are really only three ways to win the war, and all of them are immoral, then clearly the only thing to do is to lose the war.

To me this whole thread is an advertisement for Christian pacifism. I am not a pacifist. I believe in just war. But I agree with Christian pacifists such as John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas that our primary means of fighting evil as Christians is through the nonviolent imitation of Christ. This is the most significant and powerful weapon against the forces of darkness. I believe that in certain carefully defined circumstances, the use of lethal force is justified to protect the innocent. But it cannot ever be accepted as the *only *alternative. If it is, you wind up with devil’s bargains such as the one you propose.

Edwin

To your first question, yes. To the second, no (and no reductios). In your last, you present precisely the reasoning that must ensure that this interpretation of warfare is never allowed to govern national polity.

As you know. I’m a SF fan, including of alternate history. Let us do a thought experiment. We will go back in time to the pivot point of the decision, let us say, to 1 Aug 45. All is as it was. Both of us can make one decision, and invoke one counterfactual, if desired . I will chose not to do so. You will chose to make the decision not to drop the bombs. And that’s the only change you can make. Otherwise, it will be as in the real world.

Following my non-decision, all remains as in our history books. Approx 140,000 people die in the two bombings. Approx 2+ million live, as opposed to all other options available in the real world. These 2+ million are free to excoriate me, for not choosing the path that would lead to their deaths. Or they may express gratitude for that choice, for their lives. As Paul Fussell’s article put it, Thank God for the Atomic Bomb. But either way, these paths are available to those people. They are alive. I can live with that.

You choose to stop the use of the bombs. And that’s the only change to the real world you can make. You cannot make the American people other that what they were, or make them to have experienced other than what they experienced. You cannot invoke the Tooth Fairy, as appearing and changing the nature of the Japanese society from what it had become from the Meiji restoration (which was what, more or less?) to 1945. The real world proceeds then from the fork you choose. And 2+ million more people die; Americans, Japanese, captives and Russians, young and old. These people will not excoriate you for your choice. Nor will they applaud you for adhering firmly to your interpretation of your moral code. They will be dead, and unable to appreciate it, either way.

Two planes. Two bombs. No more killing. Good. And moral.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And, on a related front.

This is the 64th anniversary of the Normandy invasion. My wife’s uncle, for whom she was named, made it off the beaches of Normandy. But not out of the bocage country.

Invasions are inherently risky.

A salute to those who served.

Lest we forget.

GKC

 

[Sure]

Two planes. Two bombs. No more killing. Good. And moral.

GKC

And proportionalist.

I guess sometimes abortion could be okay also.

 

[GKC]

And proportionalist.

I guess sometimes abortion could be okay also.

I have heard folks say so.

And, to be sure, consequentialist.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

What was in question were millions of lives of Japanese, American, Asian and others, of all ages; civilian and military. You seem to have trouble grasping this.

GKC

Is it moral to kill one innocent child to save the lives of millions of Japanese, American, Asian and others? My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it would be gravely immoral to do so.

 

[Sure]

Is it moral to kill one innocent child to save the lives of millions of Japanese, American, Asian and others? My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it would be gravely immoral to do so.

Not if you reject centuries of Catholic teaching. Not if you reject St. Thomas Aquinas. Not if you follow Frs. McBrien and Curran.

But you have to be prepared to take the argument to uncomfortable places.

 

[GKC]

Is it moral to kill one innocent child to save the lives of millions of Japanese, American, Asian and others? I think that Catholic teaching is that it would be gravely immoral to do so.

And yet it was done, long before the atomic bombs. Assuming, as one might, that the children in Tokyo in early March of 1945 were innocent, in the sense you mean.

But remember, I am not concerned with the RCC moral teachings (though, certainly, you are correct to be, and correct to discuss it). Only with presenting the consequences that would have followed, had these teachings been the controlling factors in Aug 1945. You are certainly free to decide what the moral action was. So am I.

GKC

 

[Sure]

But remember, I am not concerned with the RCC moral teachings
GKC

Then why are you on a Catholic forum discussing Catholic teaching?

 

[GKC]

Then why are you on a Catholic forum discussing Catholic teaching?

I’m on a Catholic forum discussing the facts related to the atomic bombings of WWII. My self-imposed limitations were announced back in the first posts somewhere. I correct facts, from those who seek to use the revisionists approach to this history (Blackett’s, or Alperovitz’ sort of things); that the Japanese were about to surrender anyway, that the bombs were used to imtimidate the Russians, that they killed people unnecessarily, that there would have been some other way to defeat the militarists in control of Japan, with fewer casualties, that it was a racist decision, that various individuals, after the war, expressed opinions in various ways, etc. All that is subject to factual discussion.

What the RCC teaches on the matter, while it is of interest to me, is not of overwhelming interest; my opinion of the magisterium not being yours. So I don’t argue that an RC should not follow the teachings of the RCC in this matter, as truly taught.

But I do bring the facts into the matter, when they have a place, as when someone else presents them incorrectly. Certainly, if the RCC teaches in a certain way, on this matter, the facts should not cause anyone any problem, they not being the governing factors.

GKC