Atomic Bomb In WWII

[Contarini]

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.

But that’s one of my problems with your line of argument. This is not a realistic situation. I am not arguing (nor, as far as I can tell, is anyone else) that the atomic bombs were the only thing that was morally problematic about the conduct of WWII. Anyone with the power to influence the dropping of the atomic bombs would also have been in a position to influence a host of other decisions.

The deeper issue, of course, is whether there is a natural law, and if so whether dropping weapons of mass destruction on a place where civilians (including children) live is according to natural law. I hold that there is a natural law, and that such attacks are always contrary to it.

If those two things are true, then everything else becomes irrelevant. If committing murder were necessary to preserve the entire universe from destruction, then the universe would have to be destroyed.

Whenever I enter an argument in which you are on the other side, I feel rather as King Arthur’s knights did when they realized Sir Lancelot was jousting against them. (I don’t mean that I feel betrayed–I mean that I feel terrified!) But in this case I am ironically defending the more conservative position. I’m defending natural law against utilitarianism and relativism. And in that position I will take on anyone I have to.

I remain, of course, always your admirer:thumbsup:

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Brian_Millar]

In my opinion, I don’t think the church ever sanctions killing of any kind, ie. though shalt not kill. Personally, I feel they should have bombed a section of Japan that was unpopulated, simply to show them what we now had at our disposal. This surely would have gotten them to realize it’s futile to continue on, it would also show them that in spite of the atrocities of the war committed against the allies, that we can show mercy, effectively killing their propaganda against us. They would realize that not only would their actions result in the same scenereo as what happened to Germany, that with this new weapon, it would be far more devastating.

We can look to the cold war, there never was a nuculear exchange, it was clear that it was simply not worth it for either side to go that route. The same scenereo would have happened even if Japan managed to build their own. It was a horrible waste of human life entirely due to poor strategy. I tend to think two ways, and this is relavent to more then just war, it’s for accompolishing any task where you face opposition. One one hand, most people use the sludge hammer strategy, this works but only for a short period of time, you have to go back and re-hammer what ever you are dealing with. The other would be to use a strategic approach, finding the root to the problem, working out a permanent solution and deploying it. The latter requires more thought then the former, yet it’s more permanent.

 

[beeliner]

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?

bob, with all due respect, I think we’ve reached the going-around-in-circles point here.

I’ve already admitted several times that warfare is immoral, and it’s not moral to kill innocents under any circumstances.

Why then was/is the Church not consistant by forbidding, as the Mennonites and some other denoms do, its members from serving in combat, or by at least strongly recommending or advising young Catholic men to register as conscientious objectors?

One thing is for sure - once you’re in the military, you’ve got to obey orders; if that were not true, the military would be chaos, as some might suggest it is anyway.

That being the case, the responsibility would seem to fall on the commander-in-chief, in this case president Truman, from all indications a religious man. He gave his rationale for the bombings and never backed down from it. The matter is, it seems to me, between him and his Creator.

 

[GKC]

But that’s one of my problems with your line of argument. This is not a realistic situation. I am not arguing (nor, as far as I can tell, is anyone else) that the atomic bombs were the only thing that was morally problematic about the conduct of WWII. Anyone with the power to influence the dropping of the atomic bombs would also have been in a position to influence a host of other decisions.

The deeper issue, of course, is whether there is a natural law, and if so whether dropping weapons of mass destruction on a place where civilians (including children) live is according to natural law. I hold that there is a natural law, and that such attacks are always contrary to it.

If those two things are true, then everything else becomes irrelevant. If committing murder were necessary to preserve the entire universe from destruction, then the universe would have to be destroyed.

Whenever I enter an argument in which you are on the other side, I feel rather as King Arthur’s knights did when they realized Sir Lancelot was jousting against them. (I don’t mean that I feel betrayed–I mean that I feel terrified!) But in this case I am ironically defending the more conservative position. I’m defending natural law against utilitarianism and relativism. And in that position I will take on anyone I have to.

I remain, of course, always your admirer:thumbsup:

In Christ,

Edwin

My point is that the atomic bombs were the only thing that saved lives.

And I had a long and eloquent post worked out in my head, to illiustrate my point.

Now I’m sort of tongue-tied.

*Pax, frater. * Which is what the bombs brought.

GKC

 

[GKC]

bob, with all due respect, I think we’ve reached the going-around-in-circles point here.

I’ve already admitted several times that warfare is immoral, and it’s not moral to kill innocents under any circumstances.

Why then was/is the Church not consistant by forbidding, as the Mennonites and some other denoms do, its members from serving in combat, or by at least strongly recommending or advising young Catholic men to register as conscientious objectors?

One thing is for sure - once you’re in the military, you’ve got to obey orders; if that were not true, the military would be chaos, as some might suggest it is anyway.

That being the case, the responsibility would seem to fall on the commander-in-chief, in this case president Truman, from all indications a religious man. He gave his rationale for the bombings and never backed down from it. The matter is, it seems to me, between him and his Creator.

In 1958, Truman wrote a letter emphasizing that the use of the bombs were necessary, and that given the same circumstances, he would do it again.

The letter was to the Hiroshima City Council.

GKC

 

[JimG]

In 1958, Truman wrote a letter emphasizing that the use of the bombs were necessary, and that given the same circumstances, he would do it again.

The letter was to the Hiroshima City Council.

GKC

The letter is here, along with the letter from the Hiroshima City Council to which it was a reply.

 

[JimG]

I certainly agree with Catholic moral teaching prohibiting the indiscriminate killing of whole cities, which is contained in CCC 2314.

I also agree with GKC that the use of the two bombs against Japan saved a great many lives, both American and Japanese. This apparently was Truman’s view, as well.

It would of course have been possible to drop a “demonstration” bomb in some deserted area of the Japanese mainland. I doubt that would have had the desired effect. Communications then were not what they are now. And even a nuclear bomb, dropped in a deserted area—particularly a relatively “small” yield bomb as those were—while it might make a big impression on any nearby inhabitants, would not be much noticed by the rest of the country. (The U.S. as a whole didn’t much notice the nuclear bomb exploded on the Trinity test tower in New Mexico shortly before.)

The Catholic Church in 1945 had no official policy on the moral usage of nuclear weapons. Nobody did. With the knowledge available to it, I suspect the Church would have been more likely to condemn the firebombings than the first nuclear bombs.

During the Cold War, the weapons available had much greater yields, and both sides were fully prepared to use them, but did not use them, because the arsenal possessed by the other side acted as a deterrent.

The United States bishops during the cold war gave conditional approval to the policy of deterrence provided it was used as a step toward reduction or elimination of nuclear weapons.
It did not, and still does not, prohibit Catholics from serving in those parts of the armed services responsible for using nuclear weapons.

USAF launch officers, after having been briefed about the effects of nuclear weapons, are required to sign a statement acknowledging their willingness to turn the keys if the President gives a valid launch order. I am sure that there are Catholics and other Christians among those launch officers.

A few years ago, there was a news item about a Catholic USAF launch officer who refused to serve in an isolated launch control capsule with a woman, as he deemed it an occasion of sin. His priest agreed with him and argued his case. But neither the airman nor the priest objected to his willingness to turn the keys to launch nuclear missiles, which I found rather ironic.

 

[beeliner]

It would of course have been possible to drop a “demonstration” bomb in some deserted area of the Japanese mainland.

That was indeed suggested and seriously considered, but rejected because it was believed that such a demonstration would not have the desired effect and, perhaps more important, they didn’t really have one to waste.

 

[GKC]

That was indeed suggested and seriously considered, but rejected because it was believed that such a demonstration would not have the desired effect and, perhaps more important, they didn’t really have one to waste.

Im my AF career, I worked with some folks who had been involved with the Manhattan project. This was his statement, too, along with a concern that the thing might fizzle. Of course, a 3rd bomb, destined for Tokyo, was likely available by the end of August, and the production schedule was such that 8-9 would be ready by the proposed start date of OLYMPIC. Where it was seriously contemplated that they be used to support the landings. It is possible for the world to have been much, much worse than it was.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The letter is here, along with the letter from the Hiroshima City Council to which it was a reply.

I thank you for the link. I took the paraphrase I gave from Walker’s SHOCKWAVE (IIRC) and it seems to have been less than a direct quote. But certainly the thought was there.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

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.

The use of the atomic bomb was not immoral in World War II.

That is the subject of this thread.

You say that your understanding is that the use of the atomic bomb is immoral.

But the topic of this thread is use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII.

So, it just seems that you are using retroactive morality … and a half-century after the fact, at that.

Sorry, but you want your cake and eat it, too.

Show where the Catholic Church in 1945 banned used of the atomic bomb. It didn’t.

You are very specific here: “ATOMIC BOMB IN WWII”.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Masetti
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.

A discussion of all the Venona revelations is essential in this discussion … because this thread is on the retroactive morality of the use of the atomic bomb in WWII.

Therefore the roots of the causes of World War II AND THE ROOTS OF THE DEMANDS FOR UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER are also retroactive discussion items.

And, the roots of both can be traced back to Communism and the Soviet Union and Stalin’s demands … AND Stalin’s backroom machinations through the Soviet agents that he controlled in the United States, Canada, and the UK. Seriously, read up on the books and papers that discuss Venona. Check Google. There are more and more books coming out all the time that include research from the archives in the Kremlin and tie it in with FBI files and the Venona decrypts.

Here is one of the newer books that includes and integrates all of the above considerations in its argument.

amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X

So, this discussion NEEDS to be on the roots of what caused the “impasse” in the Pacific War and the need for dropping the atomic bomb.

Keep in mind that the nuclear physicists were mentally planning to use the atomic bomb against GERMANY. There was NO OBJECTION to using the atomic bomb against Germany.

When the circumstances changed and Japan became the target all of a sudden, objections came up.

Note: there WERE objections to Air Marshall Arthur “Bomber” Harris’ area bombing campaign against Germany. And after the war, he had to slink off to live in Africa.

The situation about the circumstances surrounding the use of the ATOMIC bomb are far more complicated than most debaters nowadays would recognize.

 

[Al_Masetti]

And yet I’ll bet that you and Al Masetti and the other pro-Hiroshima folks somehow think that *you *are the conservatives. Or am I misrepresenting you there?

Edwin

I will ask you to avoid use of descriptors that skirt being ad hominem arguments.

For the record, the atomic bomb was authorized and funded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was a liberal Democrat, by any standards.

Harry S. Truman, when he detected the huge expenditures for the Manhattan Project … [the atomic bomb project was managed by the Manhattan District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] … prior to his becoming President … was told that the project was super secret and took the word of the person telling him and allowed the expenditures to go forward without challenge.

When Harry S. Truman became President of the United States, he was briefed on the details of the atomic bomb project and authorized its use.

President Truman was also a liberal Democrat. He was severely criticized for being “friendly” to Soviet agents in the U.S. government.

 

[Ender]

I’ve already admitted several times that warfare is immoral…

The Church is quite clear about this: war, per se, is not immoral.

… it’s not moral to kill innocents under any circumstances.

The Church has been clear about this as well. However regrettable the killing of innocents is, there are circumstances when inadvertently killing them is not immoral.

We make a rather big deal out of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because all of the destruction was done by single bombs but in fact there were more civilian casualties in Tokyo caused by conventional bombs. I personally am more disturbed by the fire bombing of Dresden which, although it killed a third to a half of the number of civilians who died at Hiroshima, appears to have been almost completely gratuitous and unnecessary.

Either it was permissible to bomb cities full of civilians in WWII or it wasn’t; I don’t believe the technique used has any bearing on the morality of the action. Morally speaking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be separated from the bombing of the other cities we devastated all over Germany.

Ender

 

[Al_Masetti]

Morally speaking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be separated from the bombing of the other cities we devastated all over Germany.

Ender

Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been judged immoral ONLY because it (the use on those cities of the atomic bomb) was done by the United States.

I’ve seen no criticism of the Soviet Union for ANY of their “excesses” … not for the Gulags … not for the organized mass starvation of millions in the Ukraine … not for conspiring with Germany to divide up Poland … nor for the Katyn Massacres … not for any of the Communist atrocities.

Folks interested in knowing more, should get this book or ask their librarians to get a copy. It’s an invaluable asset to everyone’s reference shelf.

amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

Consider also reading books by Jean-Francois Revel, including:

amazon.com/How-Democracies-Perish-Jean-Francois-Revel/dp/0060970111/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212864966&sr=1-5

At the very least, read the reviews on Amazon.

 

[Brian_Millar]

The facts are not all on the table here. Yes, we only had two bombs, yes they were worried that they would turn out to be dud’s, yes, they were afraid that a demonstration would not suffice. My stance is, we should have taken that chance with the first one, we could have effectivly ended the war through those means.

Think about it, we show up with this super weapon, the russians are now invading from the west, the Americans from the east, Japan had their own new arsenal, yet was not able to deploy it due to lack of resources. It would have taken longer to end the war, but I don’t think there would be as many casualties as expected since we have crushed their moral. We should take into account the intelligence of the people of Japan and give them credit where it’s due. They would have realized the futility of it all, if they did not, then, and only then, would it be necessary to drop the “second” on a major city.

We must learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it, I would like to think we have evolved since then, but I’m looking to the middle east and see that clearly we have not. Back to sludge hammer verses tactical in my book.

 

[wabrams]

In my opinion, I don’t think the church ever sanctions killing of any kind, ie. though shalt not kill.

That’s incorrect on two points:
First, killing is permissable by the Church in acts of self-defense or in just wars.
Second, it’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder”

Personally, I feel they should have bombed a section of Japan that was unpopulated, simply to show them what we now had at our disposal. This surely would have gotten them to realize it’s futile to continue on, it would also show them that in spite of the atrocities of the war committed against the allies, that we can show mercy, effectively killing their propaganda against us.

if it took dropping 2 a-bombs on military targets to get the Japanese’s attention, what good would dropping one out in the sticks have done?

 

[Al_Masetti]

That’s incorrect on two points:
First, killing is permissable by the Church in acts of self-defense or in just wars.
Second, it’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder”

if it took dropping 2 a-bombs on military targets to get the Japanese’s attention, what good would dropping one out in the sticks have done?

Thanks for providing the correction(s).

I’m curious why some folks are posting misinformation and being so extremely positively sure that their misinformation is correct.

 

[Ender]

We should take into account the intelligence of the people of Japan and give them credit where it’s due. They would have realized the futility of it all, if they did not, then, and only then, would it be necessary to drop the “second” on a major city.

Apparently the battle of Okinawa, which ended just weeks before the surrender, did nothing to convince them of the futility of continuing and they lost about as many civilians in that battle as in Hiroshima. Japanese soldiers did not surrender in any meaningful numbers; that was simply anathema in their culture. As someone else said: they were unconvinced by the first bomb and (if you read accounts about the intrigue involved) almost didn’t surrender even after the second one.

Ender

 

[GKC]

Apparently the battle of Okinawa, which ended just weeks before the surrender, did nothing to convince them of the futility of continuing and they lost about as many civilians in that battle as in Hiroshima. Japanese soldiers did not surrender in any meaningful numbers; that was simply anathema in their culture. As someone else said: they were unconvinced by the first bomb and (if you read accounts about the intrigue involved) almost didn’t surrender even after the second one.

Ender

To the Japanese, the battle of Okinawa was a morale booster; it went just as desired. It was precisely what they planned for the defense of the rest of the home island to be: massive casualties, on both sides, which in themselves represented the “decisive victory” (part of the Japanese military psyche), in order to reduce America’s will and morale, prior to negotiating favorable terms for the end of the war. This, with the addition of vastly larger miitary forces available, and the use of far more civilians in suicide roles, was what was facing OLYMPIC and CORONET. Mega-deaths.

For a harrowing account of what happened on Okinawa, and what awaited an invasion of the remaining home islands, read Feifer’s TENNOZAN.