S
Sarcelle
Guest
Or for that matter merely paying taxes which supports the military.
- Status
U
undead_rat
Guest
C
Canvas
Guest
This is absolutely correct. You cannot do evil so good can come of it. And I agree that both the Allied conventional bombing campaigns and the use of the atomic bombs targeted non military targets hence they cannot be morally justified. However, in order to stop Japan and Germany and the millions of deaths in Asia and Europe, it is hard to get around the fact that both nations had to be strategically targeted beyond their field armies and naval warships. It creates a huge moral dilemma. The ways those nations waged war and governed conquered territories created a moral mandate to stop them. Actually, this discussion about WWII is one of the hardest tests of Catholic moral theology in history. Basically, how in actual wars one may defeat a morally evil adversary without using tactics and strategy that are evil in themselves.
C
Canvas
Guest
He is correct morally and theologically. Many things the Allies did against Germany and Japan were truly evil. But, you are correct in pointing out the moral urgency of forcing Japan to end the war and that there was a distinct lack of moral options, and time was scarce. Thousands upon thousands of people were dying every month in Japanese controlled territory in Asia by 1945. This is one of the hardest moral quandaries I can think of in modern history. How to stop a giant moral evil without using evil.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
So the more moral thing to do was to continue letting the Japanese torture and kill lots of people in Asia without doing anything? Civilians are going to die either way.
It’s not like the Japanese were innocently minding their own business until the big bad USA decided to drop two atom bombs on them.
Doing nothing to stop evil is evil in and of itself.
Last edited:
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
Ok, now that is funny…
P
phil19034
Guest
This is exactly why the priest & professor of history from Norte Dame creates the video… to discredit the view you just wrote. The good father says that it is your view that is the revisionist theory.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, what you write is correct.
HOWEVER, you are forgetting WHY we have the Just War Doctrine in the first place.
War is always evil. A war begins because at least one side is committing evil and/or a moral injustice.
Rules of engagement only work when both sides follow it.
When fighting the Germans in World War II, the Nazis were evil atheists & occultists. However, many soldiers were Christians or at least grew up with Christianity. They had a basic understanding of human life from a Christian perspective.
However, the Japanese were not Christians, and their view of honoring the kamikaze is very different.
Point it, there is no such thing as a moral war, only a moral/just cause. Meaning, you don’t have two sides warring against each other for a moral/just cause. At least one side must be wrong and/or evil.
When you are fighting a side that is simply wrong - traditional rules of war can be followed.
But when you are fighting evil - it can sometimes be impossible to win without succumbing to the darkness that is war.
We have to remember- when we are fighting a war, that means that we have already lost moral discussion.
And you are right, the ends DO NOT justify the means. But in war, sometimes leaders don’t have choices that are black & white (or at least don’t seem to be black & white).
When presented with a situation where all options are black or gray - the sometimes leaders are forced to make a decision and pray God will forgive them. That is the burden of leadership.
This is exactly why the Church asks us to pray for our leaders, because they need God’s gift of wisdom more than anyone.
God Bless
Last edited:
C
Canvas
Guest
No matter why or how a war begins or is prosecuted, the very act of making war is always a loss for humanity.
J
JimG
Guest
So Truman had perhaps several options:
Although Truman is now demonized for using the A-bombs, I think he would have been even more demonized if the war had dragged on for months with increasing deaths on both sides, and it later came out that he had weapons which could have ended the war sooner and did not use them.
- Use the atomic bombs to hasten the end of the war. Not moral because civilians die.
- Continue with invasion plans, resulting in a great many more deaths on both sides. Maybe moral because in an invasion everyone who resists is a combatant, including women and children?
- Allow USSR to invade and conquer Japan. Probably immoral because it would result in more death and destruction than the atomic bombs, plus gulags and oppression.
- Impose a blockade, resulting in mass starvation.
- Continue with conventional bombing, resulting in more and more civilian deaths as the war drags on.
Although Truman is now demonized for using the A-bombs, I think he would have been even more demonized if the war had dragged on for months with increasing deaths on both sides, and it later came out that he had weapons which could have ended the war sooner and did not use them.
I would go with these two, not because they are desirable, but because they are not intrinsically evil. Reserve conventional bombing for targets with military significance (including industry and infrastructure). Appeal to the emperor to allow his people to quit suffering. Appeal to the people with propaganda broadcasts reminding them that they can get out of this with their honor intact.
This way, you always have the option of being able to say “you can make this stop right now, quit starving, quit being bombed, if you will just agree to cease hostilities and help all of us to find a way to end this war with dignity and honor”. As I noted above, Hirohito was allowed to paint the US as “the bad guy”, which harmed no one, and allowed him to walk away with his dignity intact, and that of the nation as well. That is huge in Japanese culture.
D
dochawk
Guest
I’m not going to jump into the middle of this, but the US only had enough fissionables for three bombs.
The first was in New Mexico, the only test before use. It is often falsely claimed that the Nagasaki bomb was dropped because it was a different type and that “we didn’t know that it would work.” Aside from the sheer bizarreness of the claim, that bomb was the same type as tested. It was the Hiroshima bomb that was of the other type.
The rapid dropping three days later was part of the message that “we have a super weapon and will keep using its until you submit”, creating the false impression that we could keep doing this, even though we were months from having enough more fissionables for the next point (but at that point, could have produced a fairly steady stream).
Also, note that the casualties from either of these bombs, horrific as they were, were small compared to those from the firebombing in Germany or Tokyo (and I think London, but I’m not certain).
It’s a hard moral question. While I come down on the side of dropping both as having fewer innocent casualties than the alternatives (and I count those that would not have been in the military, but for the war of aggression, in that category along with civilians) reasonable minds can (and do) differ on this call, on whether Japan actually surrendered due to the Russian declaration (I’m skeptical; that only slightly increased the overwhelming military disadvantage they already faced), on whether they might have surrendered with just one, etc. . . . (and, come to think of it, the harm that would have occurred to other nations from being “liberated” by soviet troops . . .)
C
Canvas
Guest
Actually, the UK lost less people in all of the German bombing raids than were killed in the Tokyo firebombing of March 1945, including the V-weapons of 1944-1945. Tokyo lost lost approx 100,000 on March 9-10 1945 plus around a million survivors were left homeless. About 61,000 were killed by air attack in the UK during WWII. (About 8800 by V-weapons)
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
The plans the Japanese had in place for an invasion of the main islands, which would have involved civilians, even school children, being cannon fodder to take out as many Allied soldiers as possible, would have an astonishing number of casualties. The casualties on the US side would have been astronomical as well. There’s some debate as to the justification, but I think part of the pressure on Truman was the Soviet invasion of Japan (they took, and Russia still holds some of the northern islands). A quick end to the war with Japan meant Japan would surrender to the US. History might have been very different if there had been an invasion. Japan might be like the Koreas.
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
If we are making this a morality play, the firebombing’s we conducted prior killed as many people as the atomic bombs, a point that is often glossed over…
Last edited:
That is correct. Nuclear weapons are demonized because they are very efficient, they can be fired accidentally with no way to stop them once they’re on their way, they exist in such quantities as to create massive, massive damage in the space of a very short time, and their effects can be very long-lasting (though, curiously, that does not seem to have been the case in Hiroshima and Nagasaki — both cities are inhabited today). To tell the truth, I am pleasantly surprised that it’s been over 70 years and they have never again been used in warfare. Maybe they never will.
So a possible war continuing would result in surrender, but the US demonstrating that we can completely destroy their country one city at a time doesn’t result in surrender.
Your alternative history doesn’t even pass logic.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Oh, dear. Here we go again.
This is mostly accurate, as to the history. There was a 3rd bomb, which would have been deliverable roughly the last week in August. The production rate of 2-3 bombs a month, based on the plutonium production rate, would have made roughly 6-8 more bombs available by 1 November, the planned date for OLYMPIC. But there was another use planned for them. On Kyushu.
For Fr. Miscamble’s views, try his THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION and his FROM ROOSEVELT TO TRUMAN. Books are always the best source.
Now to see what other historical comments are warranted, in this thread.
Added:
Yep. A lot of historical comments that could be made. But I can’t do such until someone else has posted, when I could do 3 more. Just as happy not to. Will if opportunity arises and it seems appropriate.
Historical comments, note. I do not address the RCC teaching on the morality. I have my own opinion on that, not interested in others. But history of the event is a major hobby of mine.
This is mostly accurate, as to the history. There was a 3rd bomb, which would have been deliverable roughly the last week in August. The production rate of 2-3 bombs a month, based on the plutonium production rate, would have made roughly 6-8 more bombs available by 1 November, the planned date for OLYMPIC. But there was another use planned for them. On Kyushu.
For Fr. Miscamble’s views, try his THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DECISION and his FROM ROOSEVELT TO TRUMAN. Books are always the best source.
Now to see what other historical comments are warranted, in this thread.
Added:
Yep. A lot of historical comments that could be made. But I can’t do such until someone else has posted, when I could do 3 more. Just as happy not to. Will if opportunity arises and it seems appropriate.
Historical comments, note. I do not address the RCC teaching on the morality. I have my own opinion on that, not interested in others. But history of the event is a major hobby of mine.
Last edited:
- Status