Hiroshima

[GEddie]

Not how Catholic morality works- the ends don’t justify the means. This is why the Catholic Church won’t permit a direct abortion even if both the mother and child will die without an abortion.

Are you certain about this; my understanding is that medical procedures needed to save the pregnant woman’s life (not “health”, which can mean anything and nothing) are morally ok even if the fetus will die.

I mean, isn’t that how the Italian lady from the 1960s (Gianna? – name escapes me) got her sainthood; by refusing medical treatment that would save her at the cost of her fetus, and therefore dying? One doesn’t make sainthood just by by “not committing a mortal sin”.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tjm190]

Are you certain about this; my understanding is that medical procedures needed to save the pregnant woman’s life (not “health”, which can mean anything and nothing) are morally ok even if the fetus will die.

I mean, isn’t that how the Italian lady from the 1960s (Gianna? – name escapes me) got her sainthood; by refusing medical treatment that would save her at the cost of her fetus, and therefore dying? One doesn’t make sainthood just by by “not committing a mortal sin”.

ICXC NIKA

Certain medical procedures, sure. You can, for example remove a fallopian that happens to have a scarcely developed human in it. This removes the diseased tissue, and sadly kills the human. That is a medical procedure that had a legitimate purpose (removing a part of a woman’s body likely to kill her)
However, you may not have a chemical abortion that dissolves said human. That is a direct abortion- the intent and results were the same, but the means are labelled illicit.

A direct abortion is always labelled sinful- this is why that nun who’s name escapes me was excommunicated.

 

[GEddie]

People die unjustly in war all the time; that is the nature of the beast. I have yet to hear anybody take Germany to task over the London blitz, nor the British over the bombing of Dresden; where the human tolls were worse than in the atom bombings.

Whatever “wartime morality” is, if it is not just a mirage, it cannot be determined by the number of planes involved; which is the only real distinction of the atom bombings.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Brendan]

Unless you consider a city full of civilians a military target because a few factories are there (would you consider nuking Detroit to be licit if we were at war?) then I believe catholic morality would say no- in fact, killing a single Japanese innocent to end the war would be considered immoral.

There was more to it than that. Hiroshima was the headquarters for the 5th Army Group, which was responsible for planning and executing the defense of the Home Islands.

So, Hiroshima was effectively the ‘Pentagon’ for Homeland defense.

 

[tjm190]

People die unjustly in war all the time; that is the nature of the beast. I have yet to hear anybody take Germany to task over the London blitz, nor the British over the bombing of Dresden; where the human tolls were worse than in the atom bombings.

Whatever “wartime morality” is, if it is not just a mirage, it cannot be determined by the number of planes involved; which is the only real distinction of the atom bombings.

ICXC NIKA

/sigh

If you accept that God’s rules are absolute, and that the Catholic Church’s rules are God’s rules. then it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re in a time of war.

Intentionally killing innocent civilians is always against God’s rules. The number of planes actually is important- it allows you to control collateral damage.

For example, if there were a hostage situation in a building, the police would enter and attempt to kill or capture the criminal. Presumably, this would involve multiple police and multiple guns. Sure, I bet a few of the bullets fired by the police would find their way into innocent people. That is sad, but acceptable, collateral damage, comparable to a school or hospital getting hit by a wayward bomb.

Now, consider that instead of trying to take the building and kill the criminals wit a few dozen 9 mm weapons, they bring in a 155mm howitzer and simply fire into the building., killing everyone. Is this morally acceptable?

 

[tjm190]

There was more to it than that. Hiroshima was the headquarters for the 5th Army Group, which was responsible for planning and executing the defense of the Home Islands.

So, Hiroshima was effectively the ‘Pentagon’ for Homeland defense.

Yes. Would you consider nuking the Pentagon a legitimate act of war, despite the fact that millions of Americans in the DC metro area would die?

 

[Brendan]

First- I don’t think Pearl Harbor would be considered illicit.

Second- Again, the ends don’t justify the means in Catholic morality. If you could have gone back in time and killed an infant Hitler to stop the whole war and save 10’s of millions of lives, Catholic morality would still label that act mortally sinful.

The question was though, were the civilians the actual target.

If Hiroshima, the factories, port facilities and the 5th Army Group destroyed, but it turned out that the civilian population had all been out of town at a picnic, would Truman have considered the attack to be a failure and the target missed?

To claim that would be a real stretch.

Especially since Truman’s own diary entry stated otherwise

The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new Kyoto or Tokyo].

“He Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement * the Potsdam Proclamation*] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”

Personal Diary 7/25/45

If no civilian died, and the actual military targets were destroyed, I believe Truman would have been elated.

 

[NE_Catholic]

History Records that about 100 thousand people died in hiroshima when the A BOMB
was drop. Is the decision to do it fully justifiable? claiming that thousands of lives were save
and it ended the horrible pacific war. Are a large majority of the people killed truly innocent ?
If they are is it still justifiable but unfortunate? Is this just a case of self defense?

you ask several guestions rolled in to one.

Was it justifiable? From a Military & Political standpoint, yes. From a moral standpoint, no. No act of killing innocents is morally justifiable except if God says so (a little OT here).

So, the question should be, should we have dropped it? Well, I think yes. Individual Service Men were kiling each other everyday, dealing with a similiar morality crisis. We were fighting an evil enemy. I think we should pray for forgiviness for killing innocents, but let us never forget the intent and phlosophies of our enemies in that conflict.

 

[Brendan]

Yes. Would you consider nuking the Pentagon a legitimate act of war, despite the fact that millions of Americans in the DC metro area would die?

Do you consider the Pentagon to be a military target?

 

[tjm190]

The question was though, were the civilians the actual target.

If Hiroshima, the factories, port facilities and the 5th Army Group destroyed, but it turned out that the civilian population had all been out of town at a picnic, would Truman have considered the attack to be a failure and the target missed?

Interesting. So, if there is a bank robbery is it acceptable to hit the bank with an artillery round? Sure, a few dozen civilians might die along with 3-4 bank robbers, but the bank robbers are the target.

 

[GEddie]

Certain medical procedures, sure. You can, for example remove a fallopian that happens to have a scarcely developed human in it. This removes the diseased tissue, and sadly kills the human. That is a medical procedure that had a legitimate purpose (removing a part of a woman’s body likely to kill her)
However, you may not have a chemical abortion that dissolves said human. That is a direct abortion- the intent and results were the same, but the means are labelled illicit.

A direct abortion is always labelled sinful- this is why that nun who’s name escapes me was excommunicated.

Was the saving of the woman’s life an issue in this instance?

In Gianna’s (if that was the name) case, she had a medical condition that required treatment that would kill the fetus (radiation? powerful drugs?) and refused to be treated until the child was born; by which time she could not be saved. Yet the treatment was morally ok, else she would not have received canonization. It requires much more to be canonized than saying “no” to a serious sin; that is just what we are required.

And what about Siamese twins that share the heart or major blood vessels, that are separated even though one will die? What is the “limit” for these sacrificial procedures?

ICXC NIKA

 

[tjm190]

Do you consider the Pentagon to be a military target?

Yes- but by your logic, I could drop a bomb that would kill everyone on Earth, so long as it destroyed one legitimate target.

 

[tjm190]

Was the saving of the woman’s life an issue in this instance?

Yes.
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
"Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.”

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital."

In Gianna’s (if that was the name) case, she had a medical condition that required treatment that would kill the fetus (radiation? powerful drugs?) and refused to be treated until the child was born; by which time she could not be saved. Yet the treatment was morally ok, else she would not have received canonization. It requires much more to be canonized than saying “no” to a serious sin; that is just what we are required.

I believe she refused an emergency hysterectomy. In fact, in her wiki page it says
“Abortion – that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus – is never permitted…Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

And what about Siamese twins that share the heart or major blood vessels, that are separated even though one will die? What is the “limit” for these sacrificial procedures?

ICXC NIKA

Direct killing is never morally acceptable under Catholic morality.

I’m not sure how conjoined twins are dealt with.

 

[Ghosty]

The responses on this thread just go to show how deep the indoctrination of the necessity of the a-bombings goes. Almost everyone listed the alternative as being an invasion of the Japanese homeland, yet no one has mentioned that Japan was actively trying to surrender for months before the atomic bombing. An invasion would not have been necessary at all, and would have been even more immoral than the atomic bombing.

The reason that the U.S. turned down surrender offers is that the Japanese had certain conditions, such as the preservation of the Emperor. The civilian leaders of the U.S. wanted unconditional surrender. Ironically, after Japan did surrender unconditionally after the atomic bombings, the U.S. left the Emperor intact anyway. Had the U.S. simply said it would do what it ended up actually doing, it’s quite likely that no invasion nor bombings would have been necessary.

Yet in this country we are always faced with all-out invasion as the alternative to a-bombs. Blockades of the country are never brought up (Japan had no Navy left to speak of, and had no native materials with which to build ships), and neither is the fact that Japan was trying to surrender. Even the highest military leaders in the U.S. at the time felt that the a-bombs were unnecessary, as was an invasion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Brendan]

Yes- but by your logic, I could drop a bomb that would kill everyone on Earth, so long as it destroyed one legitimate target.

By your logic, having a day care center in the Pentagon (which there is) renders it free from enemy attack, correct?

Or the Japanese having their headquarters for army homeland defense accross from a school ( which it was) rendered it immune from attack, right?

 

[Brendan]

The reason that the U.S. turned down surrender offers is that the Japanese had certain conditions, such as the preservation of the Emperor.

That was not the only condition.

They also wanted their government to remain intact, and immune from prosecution. That was unacceptable to the Allies, and rightly so. Their offer was pretty much to go back to pre-war boundries and pretend like nothing ever happened. Heck, they even wanted us to give them Okinawa back.

That would be like German surrendering, but leaving the Nazi party in charge and no Nurenburg trials.

Ironically, after Japan did surrender unconditionally after the atomic bombings, the U.S. left the Emperor intact anyway

It wasn’t ironic at all, the US wanted to be able to examine his war conduct and be able to try him for war crimes if necessary. The Japanese offer excluded that.

 

[NE_Catholic]

That was not the only condition.

They also wanted their government to remain intact, and immune from prosecution. That was unacceptable to the Allies, and rightly so. Their offer was pretty much to go back to pre-war boundries and pretend like nothing ever happened. Heck, they even wanted us to give them Okinawa back.

exactly.

 

[JRKH]

The responses on this thread just go to show how deep the indoctrination of the necessity of the a-bombings goes. Almost everyone listed the alternative as being an invasion of the Japanese homeland, yet no one has mentioned that Japan was actively trying to surrender for months before the atomic bombing. An invasion would not have been necessary at all, and would have been even more immoral than the atomic bombing.

The reason that the U.S. turned down surrender offers is that the Japanese had certain conditions, such as the preservation of the Emperor. The civilian leaders of the U.S. wanted unconditional surrender. Ironically, after Japan did surrender unconditionally after the atomic bombings, the U.S. left the Emperor intact anyway. Had the U.S. simply said it would do what it ended up actually doing, it’s quite likely that no invasion nor bombings would have been necessary.

Yet in this country we are always faced with all-out invasion as the alternative to a-bombs. Blockades of the country are never brought up (Japan had no Navy left to speak of, and had no native materials with which to build ships), and neither is the fact that Japan was trying to surrender. Even the highest military leaders in the U.S. at the time felt that the a-bombs were unnecessary, as was an invasion.

Peace and God bless!

You bring up some legitimate points and Bendans response also provides some interesting rebuttal. I think what both posts do, along with other posts attempting to put a historical context on the discussion is to demonstrate how complex the issue was in making the decision.
Other responses seem to want to ignore these complexities, and just make a quick judgement call on the particular instance of using the bombs.

It is true that the Japanese, or at least some Highranking Japanese were trying to end the war, but the efforts were rather clumsy at best with various conditions that were unacceptable to the allies. In the end the one “condition” that was allowed was that they were able to retain the emperor but fo course by the time all was said and done, neither the emperor or the military had any political power.

It is true that we could have blockaded. It is also true that Russia was planning to enter the war (and did after the bomb was dropped) and Truman wanted to keep the Russians as far away as possible. He wanted no division of Japan like was occurring in Germany and Eastern Europe. Negotiations with the Japanese could have drug on for some time and the more heavily Russia became involved in the war, the more complicated the peace (and resulting postwar political situation) would be.
Just another factor to add to the complexities

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

Indeed.

The issue was not, “given what they will say they know in the 2000s, will we have to invade,” the issue was whether at the time, they believed an invasion was required. If they had not, they would not have obtained Russian Pacific involvement at the Yalta conference, which seemed necessary at the time, but by 8/45 was looking like a needless headache.

The atom bombs probably headed off a Japan War in the late 1900s analogous to Korea and Vietnam, with a human toll far greater than the bombs, as well as the communization of millions more people. But hey, such isn’t valid to professional moral philosophers.

 

[cargau]

Not necessarily so. According to Catholic teaching (emphasized again by JPII in his Gospel of Life encyclical), my understanding is that the lesser of two - the one that does the least damage of two possible choices - is the one that is to be taken.

Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan scheduled for 1946, would have resulted in between 200,000 and one million US casualties (the best and worst estimate range) and untold number of Japanese deaths (at least one million Japanese dead). So the 80,000 of Hiroshima and the 70,000 of Nagasaki are small in comparison to the other choice, only some 7-15% of an invasion.
So given the two choices on the table, it was the proper decision.

No leader worth his salt (of any nation) would use that rationale. You don’t ever accept the casualties of the men and women fighting under your flag in exchange for preserving the lives of those who oppose you…

Can we agree to say that morality is not dependent on magnitude . One abortion is morally wrong. It doesn’t become morally wrong when the number of abortions reaches say, 10, or 50 or 1,000. In the same sense if a non-atomic bomb was dropped and one person died, should not this meet the same test? If dropping a “regular” bomb is permissable, then the only thing that changes with the use of an atomic weapon is magnitude. I am assuming for the sake of discussion that intent was the same with both bombs.

So, is the outrage based on magnitude or fundamental morality?