Atomic Bomb In WWII

[GKC]

Of course not.
Becasue the only answer is that it is morally wrong to directly kill innocent civilian children in order to bring about a higher good. I can see why you are not interested in the morality of this issue.

Wrong.

But that is not what I discuss. You should, and do, I have no doubt, accept the dictates of the magisterium on the matter assuming (as I have no reason to doubt) that you understand it correctly). To explore whether you do, or whether this position was held during WWII, as you interpret it to be held, now, is not something that I do. There are people here who do that.

I talk about not killing people, period. A good thing, that. I talk about not killing civilians, military, Allies, Japanese, elderly, young, and in between, by Nambu Type A 8mm rounds, B-29s from the 73 BG using M-69 incendiaries, counter-activated pressure mines in the Inland Sea, lunge grenades in the hands of school girls, M43A flamethrowers, and general starvation.

My concerns are wider than yours. I’m concerned about more deaths.

To do so meaningfully, it helps to understand history. Hence your handicap.

I certainly respect your opinion of the teachings of the RCC. I urge you both to respect them, and not to venture beyond them into history, unaided.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

homelandcivildefense.org/view/homelandcivildefense/s141p1522.htm

Obituary of Cresson Kearny

 

[bobzills]

My concerns are wider than yours. I’m concerned about more deaths.

I repeat my concern and opinion that it is not justified to murder and torture thousands of innocent civilian children in order to bring about the supposedly higher good of fewer casualties.

 

[jman507]

I repeat my concern and opinion that it is not justified to murder and torture thousands of innocent civilian children in order to bring about the supposedly higher good of fewer casualties.

Are you saying it is justified to murder and torture thousands of innocent civilians children in order to bring about the supposedly higher good of more casualties? I don’t think so, but the logic seems flawed, if your going to greatly increase the number of casualties, chances are you will also increase the number of casualties of the innocent.

 

[bobzills]

Are you saying it is justified to murder and torture thousands of innocent civilians children in order to bring about the supposedly higher good of more casualties? I don’t think so, but the logic seems flawed, if your going to greatly increase the number of casualties, chances are you will also increase the number of casualties of the innocent.

What I say is this:
In my personal opinion, and I beleive that this is supported by the teaching of the RCC, it is not morally justified to directly kill innocent children in order to attempt to bring about a possible higher good of reduction of casualties and quick end to a war.

 

[wabrams]

What I say is this:
In my personal opinion, and I beleive that this is supported by the teaching of the RCC, it is not morally justified to directly kill innocent children in order to attempt to bring about a possible higher good of reduction of casualties and quick end to a war.

I think we all can agree on that. What you seem to not understand is that the civilians killed at both atomic bomb sites were collateral damage; we didn’t intentionally target them.

 

[jman507]

What I say is this:
In my personal opinion, and I beleive that this is supported by the teaching of the RCC, it is not morally justified to directly kill innocent children in order to attempt to bring about a possible higher good of reduction of casualties and quick end to a war.

Personally, I believe that the prospect of the Battle of Japan would seem so gravely worrisome, that it’d be worse on the innocent, I might option for the bomb. The Battle of Japan may force it into conscripting innocent into soldiers. I guess if Japan goes into a complete total war footing, that would do away with my fear of killing the innocent.

 

[GKC]

I repeat my concern and opinion that it is not justified to murder and torture thousands of innocent civilian children in order to bring about the supposedly higher good of fewer casualties.

And I repeat that it is pointless to discuss subjective moral schemes. I deal in history, not in arguing against your understanding, or affirmation of the teachings of your Church.

As to the deaths of innocent children, as I have pointed out before, the fire bombings from March-June 1945 killed more civilians, hence proportionately more children than did the two atomic bombs. The issue, if you want to be consistent about it, is that of strategic bombing, as the same teachings of the RCC recognise. The thread itself is misleading.

And yes, I think that the greater morality is the program which produces the fewest deaths, young and old. And that any moral judgement which proposes that program A, which results in X number of deaths is immoral, and program B which results in 10-20 X deaths is moral, is itself grossly immoral.

Which is an argument that leads nowhere. As long as anyone who condemns the use of the bombs recognises what he has condemned the larger population to, I have little more to say. Save that it is essential such an immoral position never control national polity.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

And I repeat that it is pointless to discuss subjective moral schemes.

That is where we differ. Morality is not subjective and relative. There are absolute norms which apply, such as the immorality of killing children because the Japanese soldier is a fierce fighter. The fact taht the Japanese soldier is a fierce fighter does not justify the direct killing of innocent children, except in a subjective and relativistic morality scheme which has been condemned by many Churches and religious groups.

 

[GKC]

That is where we differ. Morality is not subjective and relative. There are absolute norms which apply, such as the immorality of killing children because the Japanese soldier is a fierce fighter. The fact taht the Japanese soldier is a fierce fighter does not justify the direct killing of innocent children, except in a subjective and relativistic morality scheme which has been condemned by many Churches and religious groups.

I’ll try again. Assertion of opposing schema of morality is a dead end. I’ve told you what I think of yours, you have done the same. That is the personal aspect.And I certainly agree. Killing fewer people is absolutely more moral than otherwise, not relative.

My interest is in the historical revisionism first suggested by Blackett, then promulgated by folks like Alperovitz. It is these things that are reflected, as I said, in the “And anyway …” comments that often show up in this sort of discussion. I deal with those. Generally, as with a few other subjects, I know more about the historical facts of these matters than most who discuss the issue.

As to the morality of the approaches, the moral path was taken. And we killed far fewer children (which seems to be your major concern) than in an alternate approach.

Kill fewer people, of all types. Good idea.

GkC

 

[bobzills]

Assertion of opposing schema of morality is a dead end.

In my personal opinion, Catholicism and the morality espoused by Catholicism is not a dead end.

 

[GKC]

In my personal opinion, Catholicism and the morality espoused by Catholicism is not a dead end.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can find someone to discuss your personal opinions with.

If you refrain from egregious historical blunders, you’ll be safe.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

I’ve been to a couple of the annual seminars; they are excellent. Worth checking out:

oism.org/oism/s32p1464.htm

DDP promotes homeland defense and prudent preparedness for disasters of all kinds, including war or terrorism. Its annual meeting brings together America’s foremost authorities on strategic and civil defense as well as prominent scientists speaking on real threats or manufactured scares. Recent topics: global warming, ozone “depletion,” radiation hazards and radiation hormesis.

DDP 26th Annual Meeting - July 11-13, 2008 - Mesa, AZ - A Tipping Point for America?

ddponline.org/flyer08.php

DDP
1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716
520-325-2680

oism.org/oism/s32p1414.htm

oism.org/oism/s32p27.htm

oism.org/oism/s32p1868.htm

oism.org/oism/s32p1467.htm

oism.org/oism/s32p903.htm

 

[Al_Masetti]

A lot of bits and pieces, which when taken together become persuasive. When I looked a year or two ago, there was quite a bit of material on the internet, but it seems to have been taken down since then.

[Consider that until recently, even the existence of the massive I-Class Japanese submarines was not widely known.]

amazon.com/gp/product/156924815X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb (Paperback)
by Robert K. Wilcox (Author)

store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74425

kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

Pyongyang, August 8 (KCNA) – The Japanese Tokyo Shimbun August 6 disclosed that the old Japanese army tested an A-bomb in the sea off Hungnam on the east coast of Korea just before the end of World War II.

According to a secret document of the U.S. Army quoting the Jiji news from the U.S. National Archives, the U.S. Army was informed of the fact that a test related to the atomic power took place at a chemical factory in Hungnam in 1945 and ordered investigation into it. It also said in an investigation report worked out on January 16, 1947, that the Japanese army made an explosion test with the help of a boat in waters off the east coast of the North Korea, the result of which was like an A-bomb.

The U.S. forces received information from an intelligence officer of the old Japanese army that it tested an A-bomb in waters 30 km away from Hungnam at the dawn of August 12, 1945, and huge mushroom-like clouds rose at that time. Tokyo Shimbun said that Japan began an A-bomb research in secrecy on the order of the army headquarters from about 1940.

---

But then, this article wants to debunk the idea of a Japanese Navy bomb program in northern Korea:

physicsdaily.com/physics/Japanese_atomic_program

---

As you know from your own experience, there is so much squishy information out there and so many people either relying on or trying to quash the information, that it is difficult to know who to believe.

On the other hand, a lot of documentation was destroyed during the fighting and bombing during WW2. And even now, we are just beginning to find out a lot of surprising information about events that took place during WW2. New books about WW2 are being published almost daily.

I can’t wait for Cold War information and books to start to emerge. As it is, friends who are in the “dying process” are starting to write their memoirs, even if only as articles in “suburban shoppers”.

I was just channel surfing looking for something else and just happened to find that there will be two rebroadcasts of “Japan’s Atomic Bomb”.

They will be on HISTI on Friday 15 August 2008 at 1pm and 7pm Eastern. History Channel International

Check your listings for your local time.

I was unable to find a schedule on the internet, but didn’t have much time and wanted to post this ASAP.

Try here:

historyinternational.com/global/listings/listings_weekly.jsp?NetwCode=HCI&timezone=1

Here is the text from the History Channel International:

Friday, August 15 @ 7pm ET/PT

A revealing look at the untold story of Japan’s atomic bomb, and how they may have detonated a nuclear device just two days before surrender. Since the end of WWII, conventional wisdom claimed that Imperial Japan was years away from building an atomic weapon–this special shatters this view. Using once secret Japanese wartime documents, we provide evidence that Japan had world-class nuclear physicists, access to uranium ore, and cyclotrons to process it. They devised an innovative way to deliver the bombs using 400-foot long Sen Toku submarines, capable of carrying and launching airplanes. Most startling–just six days after Hiroshima, Japan tested its own atomic device on a small island 20 miles off the Korean coast. The sobering conclusion is that Japan may have been just weeks behind the US in the race for the bomb. TVPG V cc

 

[bobzills]

I was just channel surfing looking for something else and just happened to find that there will be two rebroadcasts of “Japan’s Atomic Bomb”.

this is interesting. But even supposing that Japan and Germany were developing the atomic bomb, I have not changed my opinion on the immorality of using an atomic bomb on innocent children and civilians.

 

[Al_Masetti]

this is interesting. But even supposing that Japan and Germany were developing the atomic bomb, I have not changed my opinion on the immorality of using an atomic bomb on innocent children and civilians.

What is your opinion about the morality of using starvation on innocent children and civilians?

That’s the effect of a blockade … that would have been the alternative to using the atomic bomb on Japan.

But, back to the point … what SPECIFICALLY would you have done?

Please be very specific and very precise on what you would have done back then in the summer of 1945 as the Allies closed in on Japan.

 

[bobzills]

What is your opinion about the morality of using starvation on innocent children and civilians?

That’s the effect of a blockade … that would have been the alternative to using the atomic bomb on Japan.

But, back to the point … what SPECIFICALLY would you have done?

Please be very specific and very precise on what you would have done back then in the summer of 1945 as the Allies closed in on Japan.

I would be opposed to targeting civilians in a conflct. Yes, in a just war, you may target the combatants according to my understanding of Catholic theology, but it would be wrong to target the non-combatants. That would be my opinion.
As to what could have been done, one possible suggestion would be to give a demonstration of the horrible nature of Atomic weapons. Another would be to continue the coventional war.
I really don;t know what I would have done, except that I would have made every effort to use a moral means, a means approved by the Church, to end the war.

 

[JimG]

During WW-II, civilians were frequently targeted. It seems strange that there have been protests against wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, but all of the wars since WW-II have been conducted on a more ‘moral’ basis than was WW-II, at least when it comes to bombing.

The targeting of cities, both in Germany and in Japan was sometimes done specifically to weaken morale. In WW-II there were no smart bombs; bombing even of military targets was imprecise and more apt to harm civilians, compared to bombing operations today.

It seems rather a stretch to make a case only against the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you compare the post-bombing photographs of Hiroshima with those of Tokyo after it was fire-bombed with conventional bombs, the results look exactly the same. At least based on results, the events look morally equivalent.

 

[bobzills]

During WW-II, civilians were frequently targeted. It seems strange that there have been protests against wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, but all of the wars since WW-II have been conducted on a more ‘moral’ basis than was WW-II, at least when it comes to bombing.

The targeting of cities, both in Germany and in Japan was sometimes done specifically to weaken morale. In WW-II there were no smart bombs; bombing even of military targets was imprecise and more apt to harm civilians, compared to bombing operations today.

It seems rather a stretch to make a case only against the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you compare the post-bombing photographs of Hiroshima with those of Tokyo after it was fire-bombed with conventional bombs, the results look exactly the same. At least based on results, the events look morally equivalent.

I would argue that it is morally wrong, according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, to target civilians and non-combatants. I am not restricting the argument to the use of atomic weapons.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I would be opposed to targeting civilians in a conflct. Yes, in a just war, you may target the combatants according to my understanding of Catholic theology, but it would be wrong to target the non-combatants. That would be my opinion.
As to what could have been done, one possible suggestion would be to give a demonstration of the horrible nature of Atomic weapons. Another would be to continue the coventional war.
I really don;t know what I would have done, except that I would have made every effort to use a moral means, a means approved by the Church, to end the war.

I asked you for specifics … and all I got were these generalities.