Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[GKMotley]

If I did, blame the wine. Or if you thought I did, something went astray.

As Togo told Sato, the efforts to get the Soviets to broker a negotiated end to the war, and to accept a Japanese envoy (Prince Konyoe) to discuss it, were NOT to be represented as an attempt to surrender through contact with the Soviet Union. Sato had asked if that was the intent and if this was a formal (and unanimous, as it would have had to be) decision and direction from the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi. No. After all, Anami had approved the idea of the contacts.The Japanese had hopes of winning the Soviets over with goodies, as they had always hoped, back in the day, to reconcile the Soviets and Germans, and move closer to the Soviets to dominate their area of the world. The Japanese were not perceptive.

 

[njlisa]

I’m going to speak of the here and now – not of World War II.

According to atomicarchive.com, radioactive fallout can leave areas uninhabitable for one to five years.

A country with advanced weapons can destroy entire cities without using the nuclear option. In the case of armed conflict, leaders should select weapons that defeat the enemy while minimizing harm to civilians.

Can a nuke ever be justified in this day and age? I don’t know the answer. I welcome feedback.

 

[Hume]

Where’s the contentless post policeman?

Don’t be sour. You’re obviously a smart, well-read guy.

But you’ve locked on to an ideological belief that we had to nuke the Japanese. Growing up in an overwhelmingly Christian culture practically demanded you do it. So no hard feelings.

But there’s very good reason to believe that Mac, Eisenhower and a bunch of other guys that were “in the loop” thought the Japanese wanted to end the war.

There’s also very good reason to believe that Truman simply wanted to demonstrate those bombs for reasons other than “ending the ability of Japan to make war”.

In order to deny it, you have to call most of the relevant players liars, which just isn’t particularly reasonable.

This information isn’t hard to find. And as in the nature of truth involving people - a lot of it doesn’t come out until the parties who don’t want to see it come out are long dead. We also have to contend with culture. For at least 60 years, the west largely bought this jingoism for the same reasons you have (which raises a lot of concerns about older texts on the subject).

It can’t be dispelled. There’s very good reason to think that we didn’t have to drop those bombs. And there’s very good reason to think that there more options than a million American war-dead.

We just didn’t have to do it. We - largely meaning Truman - probably wanted to.

 

[vz71]

But there’s very good reason to believe that Mac, Eisenhower and a bunch of other guys that were “in the loop” thought the Japanese wanted to end the war.

No citations, no source, but a record of ad hominem argument and absolutely incorrect claims.

I can’t be the only member of the audience to notice.

 

[Hume]

It was you!

You did a terrible job of playing ad hominem cop.

As to the substance, this is a forum not a term paper. If you don’t want to take me at my word, fine with me.

I think the only thing I might have slipped up on was MacArthur being a six-star general. It was applied for before Hiroshima and he just never got it. Might have had something to do with Truman canning him.

Good luck in applying the law in a less partial manner in the future, officer.

 

[vz71]

It was you!

?

As to the substance, this is a forum not a term paper. If you don’t want to take me at my word, fine with me.

If you really want to convince people, you need to back up your argument.

I think the only thing I might have slipped up on was MacArthur being a six-star general. It was applied for before Hiroshima and he just never got it. Might have had something to do with Truman canning him.

A cursory Google run through the events says otherwise.
I am usually hesitant to source Wikipedia, but in this case, it is accurate.

Six-star rank - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Good luck in applying the law in a less partial manner in the future, officer.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is that a concession that the facts do not bear out your case, so distractions are the order of the day?

 

[Hume]

Read a little more. He never actually got it.

It was put in for, never awarded.

 

[Hume]

If you really want to convince people, you need to back up your argument.

Oh lord. Rationale has no power to change positions people hold for emotional or ideological reasons. Different currency.

I’m here 70% because I still can’t go back to work and 30% because it’s fun. Brain games.

 

[vz71]

Rationale has no power to change positions people hold for emotional or ideological reasons. Different currency.

If you’re banking on credibility, you really need to consider sourcing your conjectures.

 

[Hume]

Again, public forum. Not a setting worth the effort.

As far as conjectures, I listed direct quotes from the generals themselves and posted an article from that British magazine.

But because of the emotional foundation of the “we had to bomb them” position, the quotes could just be the generals lying, saving face, ect and the British magazine “total trash” or whatever.

People believe what they want, especially if there’s a reason based on personal identity.

 

[undead_rat]

Oh sure I’ll not argue for one second that the bombs didn’t immediately end the war.

I have and will continue to make that argument. Hirohito did not order Japan to surrender immediately after either the first or the second A-bomb attack. He ordered the surrender after Japan received a USA communication which his advisors interpreted to indicate that he (the war criminal Hirohito) would not be prosecuted by the USA and, in addition, could remain as Emperor of Japan. That, in my opinion, is the key. The A-bombs were irrelevant and it is just US government propaganda that these awful devices had anything to do with Japan’s conditional surrender or with the saving of any lives at all.

 

[Victoria33]

It’s hard to argue that nuclear weapons have not worked as a deterrence to violence, hence, any statement by the Vatican would need to be read closely. Nuclear weapons have very possibly contributed to peace.

 

[undead_rat]

Considering the many wars the world has endured since 1945, it is not hard to make that argument at all.
The only thing that that the world’s vast nuclear arsenals have deterred is nuclear war itself.
The predictions found in our Bible (if one still believes in them) indicate that the MAD protocol will eventually break down. It has been condemned by the Church as a “negative peace” not based on Christian values.

 

[o_mlly]

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not meant to be indirect attacks on the civilian population …

Here you address the second font of morality in Catholic teaching: intent. One may never intend the death of another human being. Intent is always subjective, in the mind of the agent actor. And, of course, one can never know the mind of another. Impugning another with a disordered intent is never a good idea.

The bulk of this thread is a back and forth on “who knew what and when did they know it?” by our armchair historians. Historians, you know, are not to be completely trusted – they read other people’s mail. However, it is amusing to read their posts at times. As a point of morality, the airman who pulled the “bomb-away” lever is the immediate moral agent in a nuclear attack. All the others are enablers to some degree from that airman to Truman to his advisors also to include the scientists in the Manhattan Project.

Leaving that aside the 20/20 hindsight project, I think the thread’s main point is to determine the Catholic perspective on jus in bello principles for the defender in a just war. There are only two: discrimination and proportion.

Discrimination limits the targeting of persons to those who prosecute and those who enable the prosecution of an unjust war machine. The use of indiscriminate weapons targeted on indiscriminate groups is intrinsically evil. But are all nuclear weapons indiscriminate? It would seem not; tactical nuclear devices do discriminate, e.g., torpedoes with nuclear warheads or surface or shipborne or air to air missiles with nuclear warheads.

Proportion limits the amount of force one may morally use to defend. Can such discriminating nuclear weapons be used disproportionately? Yes. However, since they can be used proportionately, their use cannot be intrinsically evil and, therefore, morally banned. The third font of morality, circumstances, must be employed.

So the answer to the thread, it seems to me, is, “No, the use of nuclear weapons in a just war is not immoral”. The indiscriminate use of any weapon is always immoral. The use of any weapon in which the foreseen effects are disproportionate is always immoral. Those principles would include the English longbow and perhaps even David’s slingshot.

 

[Hume]

So the answer to the thread, it seems to me, is, “No, the use of nuclear weapons in a just war is not immoral”.

The only thing I’d ask you to consider is whether you think the recipient if a lower-strength nuclear attack would answer proportionately or if they would answer with a stronger weapon thinking that the tacit “No Nukes” rule is now off the table.

 

[PetraG]

I agree. I don’t see a just use except perhaps away from earth (and even that seems mostly science fiction, but I have to grant at least that the premise is reasonable).

 

[PetraG]

The other difficult thing for us, of course, is that as Christians certain things remain forbidden to us no matter who else has a different moral code (or even if we are against an enemy with no moral code whatsoever). That’s the reality of understanding the honeyed sweetness of the laws of God. Life takes on its proper eternal context.

 

[Hume]

The other difficult thing for us, of course, is that as Christians certain things remain forbidden to us no matter who else has a different moral code (or even if we are against an enemy with no moral code whatsoever). That’s the reality of understanding the honeyed sweetness of the laws of God. Life takes on its proper eternal context.

To be frank, it’s why I’m shocked to see Christian people support their existence, proliferation and occasional use.

Jesus didn’t seem to see nationality. So setting each other’s women and children on nuclear fire because of governmental conflicts doesn’t seem to jive with what the dude taught.

 

[o_mlly]

The only thing I’d ask you to consider is whether you think the recipient if a lower-strength nuclear attack would answer proportionately or if they would answer with a stronger weapon thinking that the tacit “No Nukes” rule is now off the table.

One of the principles permitting the waging of a just war against an unjust aggressor is a positive conclusion that the war will probably be won, that the unjust aggressor will be repelled (at least for a reasonable period of time). It’s a logical argument about the future.

If the unjust aggressor has weapons of mass destruction and has demonstrated a willingness to use them then the logical argument necessary to engage in a defensive war becomes more problematic. Does that fact justify preemptive wars on those who have demonstrated the willingness to use but do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction? New thread.

 

[PetraG]

To be frank, it’s why I’m shocked to see Christian people support their existence, proliferation and occasional use.

Jesus didn’t seem to see nationality. So setting each other’s women and children on nuclear fire because of governmental conflicts doesn’t seem to jive with what the dude taught.

To be frank, Christianity has had some challenges in that department since Constantine took it up. (These aren’t decisions you have to make when you have no armies and no political power.)