Fr Miscamble defending atomic bomb

[Sarcelle]

I think the poster meant that we should not expect Truman, a Non-Catholic to abide by a Catholic document that has not been written yet. Add to that nuclear weapons were a new technology and its effects were not well understood at the time of their use. Truman was acting with the limited knowledge he had at his disposal and not the knowledge we currently have.

By the way, it’s easy to second guess what Truman should have done decades after the fact.

If faced with the same choices what would you have done that was keeping in line with Catholic doctrine?

Remember that the Japanese were and continued to be brutal occupiers and will not stop brutalizing until stopped by force. More lives will continue to be cut short if nothing was done.

A land invasion would involve even more lives. It is telling that even after the first atom bomb was dropped, the Japanese had no intention of surrendering at all.

 

[Nihilo]

… Truman choose the lesser of two evils…

imo he made the moral choice, not just the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing was itself evil, because he had the power to defend those innocent ppl who were, as he considered his choice, being murdered by Kamikazes in the Pacific. The Japanese mindset during the end of WWII was tragic, no doubt, but that was the choice that the Japanese made themselves. Nobody, least of all the Allies, were coercing them to become Kamikazes. And there is no more horrific enemy than Kamikazes (e.g. 9/11 terrorists) with no regard for the preservation of even their own lives, let alone yours.

 

[Sarcelle]

The Japanese also chose to invade and kill.

Doing nothing would let this go on.

It kind of amazes me that Japan is cast as the victim instead of a merciless aggressive nation that needed to be stopped.

 

[ChuckWilson]

Slightly off-topic, but here goes: Sadly, the Japanese nation reaped what had been sown.

 

[Glennon_P]

The first (and only) test prior to its use in Hiroshima was in New Mexico in July 1945. The Bikini Atoll tests were post-WW II.

 

[OKComputer]

Yup. Ironically Truman dropping the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

 

[Nihilo]

Slightly off-topic, but here goes: Sadly, the Japanese nation reaped what had been sown.

Yes, what they themselves had sown.

And it is surely Christian to whenever possible grant indulgences to people (forgive those who trespass against us), but in this case indulgence would have only permitted more innocent lives to be snuffed out. The Japanese had to be stopped, and they were.

 

[Sarcelle]

Just in case anyone’s interested.

 

[SadPotato]

You have to put yourself into the context of Kamikazes, the Japanese had lost all semblance of humanity, and in order to defend truly innocent (American) lives, the bombs were the best option, and they did work.

Tell that to Sadako Sasaki, and all the other Japanese children who died due to radiation exposure years after a war they were too young to remember.

 

[Sarcelle]

The one who should be doing the explaining to Sadako are the Japanese leaders who led Japan on the path of destruction.

No Pearl Harbor, no rape of Nanking, no comfort women, no atom bomb.

That would be ideal.

 

[SadPotato]

The one who should be doing the explaining to Sadako are the Japanese leaders who led Japan on the path of destruction.

So the guilt of the leadership is the guilt of the civilian population?

Whatever.

 

[Sarcelle]

No guilt but consequences.

I also have compassion for the victims of Japanese aggression too and I think Japan should be stopped by the means we had at our disposal.

 

[SadPotato]

No guilt but consequences.

Same thing. You’re saying it’s okay to bomb children as long as their country’s leaders are bad enough. Can’t get behind that for what I hope are obvious reasons.

 

[Sarcelle]

What would you have done in Truman’s place?
What could you have done for the innocents brutalized by the Imperial Japanese Army? How do you stop Imperial Japan?

Remember Truman did not have the knowledge or the benefits of hindsight we have now, but he still had to stop Imperial Japan without risking a lot of Allied lives and to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians in East and Southeast Asia.

War will inevitably involve even non-combatants. It is the nature of the beast.

I do not approve of the bombing of children but what I approve of does not matter. No matter how carefully we try to avoid it, in war it is the innocents who suffer the most. In this case it is not only Sadako but also the innocent victims of Imperial Japan who too often are forgotten.

 

[po18guy]

hmmm. I’ve also heard many say that the first bomb was sort of OK (because many didn’t fully grasp the devastation) but the 2nd one was definitely wrong.

Kinda like the Crusades, huh?

 

[Sarcelle]

hmmm. I’ve also heard many say that the first bomb was sort of OK (because many didn’t fully grasp the devastation) but the 2nd one was definitely wrong.

From what I was taught in history classes, Japan would still not surrender after the first bomb was dropped, even after being warned that a second one was to be dropped.

There was a faction in the Japanese government who would rather see Japan obliterated rather than to see it surrender.

By the way, when I was at University, I attended a talk by a visiting professor from Japan.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

hmmm. I’ve also heard many say that the first bomb was sort of OK (because many didn’t fully grasp the devastation) but the 2nd one was definitely wrong.

Kinda like the Crusades, huh?

The Cursades were not wrong. Sure, a lot of crusaders did bad/immoral things (like sacking Constantinople), but the goal of the crusades was to liberate fellow Christians who had their land attacked & invaded

But this is a different topic

 

[phil19034]

You know… I just noticed that there are have 37 comments in this thread so far, but only 3 clicks of the link.

While I’m sure some of you may have copy/pasted the link, I’m sure there are many posting who have not watched this short video.

For everyone who is quick to say the priest is wrong, please watch the video first. If you still take issue with him, so be it. But if you haven’t watched the video, you really should first.

God Bless

 

[HomeschoolDad]

However, he does emphasize that the Japanese govt was planning to make all civilians members of the militia and they were going to force a ground war.

If they were all members of the militia, would they then be civilians or combatants?

And if they are combatants, aren’t they then fair game for the opposing army? By all means, try to get them to surrender, try to take them unharmed as prisoners of war if you can, but if all else fails…

Neither a nuclear bomb, nor conventional fire bombing (such as happened at Dresden), are good ways to do this, but there are times when your options are limited. And I regret the collateral damage (children and invalids) just as much as anyone else does, but you have collateral damage in any war.

 

[Convert3]

No one in this day or age has the right to judge what Truman and our military leaders chose to do back in 1945. Millions had died in the fighting of WWII, including many civilians. The longer the war kept on the more would die. There is no morality in war, other than evil must be defeated.