Fr Miscamble defending atomic bomb

[HomeschoolDad]

There is no morality in war, other than evil must be defeated.

Actually, there are ethics and morality that pertain to the waging of war.

To use an extreme example: let’s say that there is an orphanage with 1000 disabled infants in it. If you annihilate the orphanage, you will horrify the enemy so much with your ability to wage war that they will sue for peace. This is an example of an immoral means to a just end, the surrender of the enemy. You can’t do it.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Though I was not alive at the time, I believe the reason for dropping the bomb was because many, many more lives were going to be lost trying to defeat the Japanese through conventional (at that time) warfare. The Japanese were going to fight to the last person for the Emperor.
Was it morally or ethical to drop the bomb? I don’t know. But there were a lot of civilians who are killed through conventional bombing in various different countries during World War II.

 

[Sarcelle]

How about this.

Your enemy is in your country and is happily killing and torturing your citizens. Your best bet to win the war and end the carnage visited upon your citizens is to bomb the factory where the enemies weapons are being made.

It is right next to the orphanage.

What do you do?

Your enemy shows no signs of stopping and will gladly and happily torture and kill all your fellow citizens.

A land invasion will result in the loss of even more lives. If you bomb the weapons factory you end the war quickly. However there is a risk of the orphanage being hit.

What do you do?

 

[Convert3]

I know there are rules of war, but there’s really nothing ethical regarding the immorality of war. I understand the need for war…to fight evil. Targeting helpless people is of course immoral and illegal. But innocents will always be hurt in war because it is impossible to avoid them and still wage a war against evil.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Your enemy is in your country and is happily killing and tortured your citizens. Your best bet to win the war and end the carnage visited upon your citizens is to bomb the factory where the enemies weapons are being made.

It is right next to the orphanage.

What do you do?

Your enemy shows no signs of stopping and will gladly and happily torture and kill all your fellow citizens.

A land invasion will result in the loss of even more lives. If you bomb the weapons factory you end the war quickly. However there is a risk of the orphanage being hit.

What do you do?

I hate to say it, but that is probably collateral damage we would have to accept. There wouldn’t be a thing pleasant about it, and there is only a risk — not a certainty — that the orphanage would be hit. I’d like to think there could be enough surgical precision to the strike that collateral damage would be minimized or eliminated.

I live not too far from a legitimate military target (for the enemy). I have long accepted that if The Big One drops, it’s game over for my family and me. Not worth it to move, and we like our home.

 

[po18guy]

Fair enough, but they did run off the rails.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How about this.

Your enemy is in your country and is happily killing and tortured your citizens. Your best bet to win the war and end the carnage visited upon your citizens is to bomb the factory where the enemies weapons are being made.

It is right next to the orphanage.

What do you do?

Your enemy shows no signs of stopping and will gladly and happily torture and kill all your fellow citizens.

A land invasion will result in the loss of even more lives. If you bomb the weapons factory you end the war quickly. However there is a risk of the orphanage being hit.

What do you do?

There is one more point to be made: When we dropped two bombs, Japan surrendered. The war was over.

And when we went into Japan, we went into panic mode – there was not enough food and fuel to last through the winter. If we had NOT taken over Japan and made a major effort to get food and fuel into the country there would have been massive loss of life that winter.

The bomb saved literally millions of lives.

 

[vz71]

let’s say that there is an orphanage with 1000 disabled infants in it. If you annihilate the orphanage, you will horrify the enemy so much with your ability to wage war that they will sue for peace.

You don’t think for a second that such actions would simply solidify the resolve of the enemy?

An enemy that wages war on infants needs to be completely wiped out. No hesitation, no suing for peace. Complete annihilation. And yes, I would consider nukes.

 

[mythbuster1]

Not only was there only one test, but the decision makers weren’t there when it happened. The Manhattan Project scientists implored President Truman not to use this weapon on people, but he did not understand their objection. The scale of nuclear energy in general is hard for the untrained to comprehend: a piece of uranium the size of a lollipop can meet a person’s energy demand for life.

 

[mythbuster1]

I live within a few miles of multiple military targets, though I’m not so resigned. If nuclear war were imminent and evacuation not an option, I’d go to the hospital (just outside of the blast radius of Norfolk Naval Shipyard) and volunteer my services as a health physicist.

 

[Canvas]

I wasn’t aware there was official Church teaching on nuclear weaponry.

Any action that deliberately kills innocent people, even to accomplish a good end (like ending a war) is still intrinsically evil. You cannot bomb civilians even if it will shorten a war or prevent some other tragedy.

 

[mythbuster1]

You’re making a serious assumption: that the radiation exposure indeed caused those cancers. Radiation gets the bad press, but 10:1 Sadako would have gotten leukemia anyway.

 

[Canvas]

There is one more point to be made: When we dropped two bombs, Japan surrendered. The war was over.

And when we went into Japan, we went into panic mode – there was not enough food and fuel to last through the winter. If we had NOT taken over Japan and made a major effort to get food and fuel into the country there would have been massive loss of life that winter.

The bomb saved literally millions of lives.

While I believe that the main two alternatives to using the bomb would have resulted in a greater loss of life (the full scale invasion of Japan or a naval blockade combined with conventional bombing), it is still an intrinsically evil action to target civilians, even if less civilians will die in the long run.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’d probably have gone with Operation Downfall, but without actually invading. Instead, we act like we’re going to invade, then nuke the troops on the beach and hang back. Keep indicating invasions, only to use nukes instead.

 

[Sarcelle]

What if the civilians were working in factories producing chemical and biological weapons?

 

[vern_humphrey]

While I believe that the main two alternatives to using the bomb would have resulted in a greater loss of life (the full scale invasion of Japan or a naval blockade combined with conventional bombing), it is still an intrinsically evil action to target civilians, even if less civilians will die in the long run.

Both of the cities bombed had military facilities and war production facilities.

And I fail to see how blockading the nation or invading it would NOT target civilians. The Japanese military would seize all foodstuffs and it would be civilians who starved. Children would be given grenades and spears to attack Americans as they were on Okinawa.

 

[mythbuster1]

In the same sense that the sins of the fathers are visited upon their children, even to the third or fourth generation. When the wicked rule, the people suffer.

 

[Canvas]

But there were a lot of civilians who are killed through conventional bombing in various different countries during World War II.

The conventional fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9-10 1945 killed more people than any other bombing raid in history. The bomber crews claimed they could smell human flesh roasting. This is gravely immoral too. You cannot just drop enormous amounts of ordnance on a city full of civilians. The allies committed serious war crimes in WWII, and I am not talking about the USSR. The US and UK’s bombing campaigns were moral atrocities. RAF Bomber Command Head Arthur Harris was quite deliberate about destroying Germany and killing as many Germans, whether in the military or not, to bring the Germans to surrender. USAAF General Curtis LeMay did the same with the bombing of Japan. He planned to cause massive devastation to Japan through firebombing raids like the infamous Tokyo raid he commanded.

 

[Canvas]

And I fail to see how blockading the nation or invading it would NOT target civilians. The Japanese military would seize all foodstuffs and it would be civilians who starved. Children would be given grenades and spears to attack Americans as they were on Okinawa.

This is all true. A blockade would have caused massive starvation (Japan was already suffering massive food shortages in 1945 due to the extremely effective US Navy submarine campaign and the almost total defeat of the Japanese Navy by then. Japan, like the UK, is extremely vulnerable to unrestricted submarine warfare because neither country can feed itself without imports. During the darkest days for Britain in WWII, it was the German U-Boats that caused Churchill the most anxiety) and outbreaks of disease. An invasion would very likely have been an absolute bloodbath. And yes, the Japanese military very well might have encouraged mass civilian suicide like on Saipan and Okinawa.

And I am NOT making excuses for the horrific war crimes of Imperial Japan, from China to the Phillipines to their monstrous prison camps (have you read about what they did to Manila in 1945? It is horrific. I recently read a book about the Battle for Manila and the stories of the survivors are beyond nightmarish.)

 

[vz71]

Instead, we act like we’re going to invade, then nuke the troops on the beach and hang back. Keep indicating invasions, only to use nukes instead.

Expose one of the only bombs we have to enemy fire?
Risk losing it or worse, it’s capture?

And you still bomb civilian targets as the blast radius will encompass anything near the beach.