Morality of War

[Mount_Carmel]

I thought the primary reason for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was to speed up the end of the war and to thus limit casualties by doing so. The fact that Allied personnel would be unlikely casualties or perhaps just a few POWs in the areas, would also be an ‘attractive’ proposition.

ps. The Enola Gay’s bomb aimer did later commit suicide, but perhaps the bombing wasn’t the sole case of his depression and psychcological breakdown.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Your quote: "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and other acts) were intended to kill innocent civilians. They were acts of mass murder. "

Maybe you did not say that “all soldiers” who served in WWII were murderers, but we can extrapolate from what you have posted that those who were involved in the daytime/night-time bombings of Germany and the bombings of Japan (the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the two atomic bombs) were, by your standards and logic, murderers, something the Church (and rational human beings) have never said.

the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

The nature of the act of dropping bombs is good or morally neutral?

 

[Timothysis]

The nature of the act of dropping bombs is good or morally neutral?

As a means of ending a brutal war, yes it is. How many thousands of servicemen should have been sacrificed in order to end the war? Remember that even after the second atomic bomb was dropped, the Japanese war council wanted to continue the war. The Emperor, in a rare and historic moment, said that it was time to end it.

The same goes for the European theater. Hitler started the concept of total war and it was required on the allied side to end it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As a means of ending a brutal war, yes it is. How many thousands of servicemen should have been sacrificed in order to end the war? Remember that even after the second atomic bomb was dropped, the Japanese war council wanted to continue the war. The Emperor, in a rare and historic moment, said that it was time to end it.

The same goes for the European theater. Hitler started the concept of total war and it was required on the allied side to end it.

In determining the morality of dropping bombs, the practicality of it’s good effects cannot be held up along side God’s teachings through the Church. As has been quoted many times in this thread, one may not do evil, even if some good is the result. Your argument focusses on the good that came from dropping those bombs. But no matter how much good comes of it, and no matter how many lives may have been spared because of it, the principle remains: one may not do evil in order that good may come of it. If you disagree with that principle, then present your arguments against it. If you think dropping those bombs was not evil in the first place, then justify that position without resorting to citing how much good came of it.

 

[Timothysis]

In determining the morality of dropping bombs, the practicality of it’s good effects cannot be held up along side God’s teachings through the Church. As has been quoted many times in this thread, one may not do evil, even if some good is the result. Your argument focusses on the good that came from dropping those bombs. But no matter how much good comes of it, and no matter how many lives may have been spared because of it, the principle remains: one may not do evil in order that good may come of it. If you disagree with that principle, then present your arguments against it. If you think dropping those bombs was not evil in the first place, then justify that position without resorting to citing how much good came of it.

Let’s try again:

"Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologiae.[1]

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if the following are true:

the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.[2]"

 

[Timothysis]

If you think dropping those bombs was not evil in the first place, then justify that position without resorting to citing how much good came of it.

It is really rather simple; the act of dropping the two atomic bombs was done as a means to end the war, not as a means to an end of simply killing civilians. It is the same as a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy or a man who shoots an intruder in his house. The aim is not to destroy life but to preserve it through extraordinary means. It is completely safe to say that each act is, at least, morally neutral, and possibly a moral good, as it means to protect those who deserve protection; the bad is not sought as a means to an end; and the good effect outweighs the bad.

 

[Timothysis]

If you think dropping those bombs was not evil in the first place, then justify that position without resorting to citing how much good came of it.

It is really rather simple; the act of dropping the two atomic bombs was done as a means to end the war, not as a means to an end of simply killing civilians. It is the same as a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy or a man who shoots an intruder in his house. The aim is not to destroy life but to preserve it through extraordinary means. It is completely safe to say that each act is, at least, morally neutral, and possibly a moral good, as it means to protect those who deserve protection; the bad is not sought as a means to an end; and the good effect outweighs the bad.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is really rather simple; the act of dropping the two atomic bombs was done as a means to end the war, not as a means to an end of simply killing civilians.

The fact that the ultimate end was to end the war does not change the fact that the immediate end was to kill civilians. The killing of civialians was not a side effect. This can be demonstrated by considering why the bombs were dropped on the population centers. Suppose the bombs were dropped on uninhabited islands near Japan, or maybe in a rural area where fewer people lived. I don’t think the generals would have gone for that idea. As merely a demonstration of a capability, the effect would not have been as strong. No, it was because of the large number of civilian causalities that Japan was moved to surrender. Now if they had dropped the bomb on a giant industrial compex that supplies war resources, you might be able to claim that civilian deaths were a side effect. In that case we would not care if all the people evacuated first and then we destroyed the place. The destruction of the industrial complex would be the primary goal.

If civilian deaths were only an unfortuante side effect, one could imagine removing the civilian deaths and still see a military goal accomplished. But in this case one cannot imagine that. Remove the civilian deaths and you have removed the “punch” from the action. No, it was through and because of civilian deaths that the ultimate goal was accomplished.

 

[catholictiger]

It is really rather simple; the act of dropping the two atomic bombs was done as a means to end the war, not as a means to an end of simply killing civilians. It is the same as a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy or a man who shoots an intruder in his house. The aim is not to destroy life but to preserve it through extraordinary means. It is completely safe to say that each act is, at least, morally neutral, and possibly a moral good, as it means to protect those who deserve protection; the bad is not sought as a means to an end; and the good effect outweighs the bad.

just to make sure dropping a bomb in itself is not morally evil. You can drop a bomb on a empty weapons factory and you would be causing no harm to innocent civilians and not even combatants.

But you are talking about nuclear weapons and this goes into areas that are a little different than dropping a bomb that would only destroy a building.

1. atomic bombs cannot discriminate between combatants and non combatants.
2. the long lasting effects of atomic bombs will cause more damaging effects after it is dropped.
3. depending where you drop it, it could kill tens of thousands if not millions with the power of today’s bombs. nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ (interesting map and app in this link, I test one of the bombs in the us arsenal that would wipe out all of DC and people would receive life threatening injuries in the suburbs.)
4. In Pacem et Teris the pope clearly spoke against the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The fact that the ultimate end was to end the war does not change the fact that the immediate end was to kill civilians. The killing of civialians was not a side effect. This can be demonstrated by considering why the bombs were dropped on the population centers. Suppose the bombs were dropped on uninhabited islands near Japan, or maybe in a rural area where fewer people lived. I don’t think the generals would have gone for that idea. As merely a demonstration of a capability, the effect would not have been as strong. No, it was because of the large number of civilian causalities that Japan was moved to surrender. Now if they had dropped the bomb on a giant industrial compex that supplies war resources, you might be able to claim that civilian deaths were a side effect.

Hiroshima was serving as base for the Japanese army. Nagasaki had a decent amount of industrial targets and Nagasaki followed no zoning plan, so factories were mixed in with residential areas. Take into account the home manufacturing and the fact that women and children were preparing to resist the invasion, and it is really difficult for me to see how you can claim the immediate goal was to kill civilians.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hiroshima was serving as base for the Japanese army. Nagasaki had a decent amount of industrial targets and Nagasaki followed no zoning plan, so factories were mixed in with residential areas. Take into account the home manufacturing and the fact that women and children were preparing to resist the invasion, and it is really difficult for me to see how you can claim the immediate goal was to kill civilians.

The military value of possible target cities was just one factor. Read the declassified documents pertaining to how the targets were selected. Maximizing the number of people killed by the blasts played a large factor in selecting target cities.

 

[Brendan]

Hiroshima was serving as base for the Japanese army. .

Specifically, it was the HQ location for the Home Defense Command, the part of the Japanese Army that was responsible for defending against any allied landing

It was also home to the 5th Division, which had been pulled back from China for home defense

 

[starshiptrooper]

The military value of possible target cities was just one factor. Read the declassified documents pertaining to how the targets were selected. Maximizing the number of people killed by the blasts played a large factor in selecting target cities.

Well, when women and children are preparing to fight to the death in defense of their sacred homeland, making sure you kill as many people as possible with minimal risk to your own people sounds is common sense.

 

[Brendan]

Well, when women and children are preparing to fight to the death in defense of their sacred homeland, making sure you kill as many people as possible with minimal risk to your own people sounds is common sense.

In Feb, 1945, Japan introduced the National Resistance Program, in which all males aged 15-60 and all women aged 17-50 were instituted as a milita. By July of '45, virtually every able bodied civilian was a part of this militia and being trained to attack tanks with magnetic mines, and hand combat with bamboo spears.

 

[Timothysis]

1. In Pacem et Teris the pope clearly spoke against the use of nuclear weapons.

The question at hand is not about the unfettered use of nuclear weapons in the world of today, but of the morality of using them during World War II in order to bring the war to an end. The previous posters have all given good reasons why one can make the case that the use of the atomic bombs in World War II were, at least, morally neutral and perhaps even a moral good.

 

[catholictiger]

The question at hand is not about the unfettered use of nuclear weapons in the world of today, but of the morality of using them during World War II in order to bring the war to an end. The previous posters have all given good reasons why one can make the case that the use of the atomic bombs in World War II were, at least, morally neutral and perhaps even a moral good.

ok I still think his words (while after WWII) can give key insights into this issue.

Let us look at this for a second. The only way this could be morally licit is if it meets the requirements of the principle of double effect.

1. Is dropping a nuclear bomb morally good or morally indifferent (while its arguable I will agree to this, dropping a bomb isn’t necessarily morally evil)
2. can we assume that the person didn’t will the bad effect no. But as I think some posters have said it is questionable weather they didn’t will the evil part of this act. I woud agree with them on this point if they went after targets that would cause the most destruction that would put a huge ? when it comes to the morality of this act.
3. The next is the evil act cannot be the means to achive the good act. I would think this would be the most questionable, you know the only way to prevent the death of millions is to kill hundreds of thousands. I can see why this would be a nobel thing to do, in our view of the world I can see why people would argue for this. But You KNOW that dropping a powerful nuclear weapon on a heavily populated city will kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. This right here brings large doubts into my mind about the moral licitness of this act. I don’t think it is EVER good to kill innocent civilians to save lives. Even if its a 1 to million ratio it can never be allowed. No innocent person should ever be killed for the sake of any number of people. I know there is some complexity with this and I will adress this later.
4. the good must outweigh to bad. This is clear if this was the only way.

Now 3 is for me the clear knock out punch against the use of nuclear weapons in a populated city in Japan during WWII.

Now I understand that if the United States where to attack Japan the cost of live would be staggering. I understand that dropping atomic bombs saved many lives. But if we get to tied up in this how many lives we saved I think we miss the main discussion on morality.

I also understand that some of you will argue that people in Japan where all combatants which would not make them innocent. There is a big problem with this argument in my view, how can you say that 100% of the people in the places we bombed would engage in war if it was on their doorstep. Isn’t it possible that there are some people in those cities who didn’t agree with fighting to the last man and at the sight of american soilders would have surrendered on spot or said we will not fight you. Those CLEARLY would be non-combatants. As John XXIII said the reason nuclear weapons are morally illicit is because they do not discriminate between combatants and non combatants. This is a possiblity in a land invasion. If the United states invaded Japan those who died in the bombing could have lived. While Pacem en Terris hadn’t been written yet I don’t think it excuses the action.

My view is that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII was morally illicit because it didn’t discern combatants and non combatants. There were women children babies, who were in those two places that died who would have never fire one bullet or try to kill one american solider. If a similar situation presented itself in today’s world, you should do the most to save those innocent civilians who would never want to harm any enemy of their state or country.

sorry for the long post.

 

[Timothysis]

1. The next is the evil act cannot be the means to achive the good act. I would think this would be the most questionable, you know the only way to prevent the death of millions is to kill hundreds of thousands. I can see why this would be a nobel thing to do, in our view of the world I can see why people would argue for this.

The reason for the use of the atomic bombs was, perhaps, secondarily to prevent the deaths of millions but its main purpose was to end the war. It was not used as a means to an end of simply killing thousands of Japanese; this was an unfortunate result, the “double effect.”

I don’t think it is EVER good to kill innocent civilians to save lives. Even if its a 1 to million ratio it can never be allowed. No innocent person should ever be killed for the sake of any number of people. I know there is some complexity with this and I will adress this later.

Then you bring into question the traditional teaching of the Church in regards to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. It is the same dilemma as above. The principle of double effect allows a certain course of action to be taken if the double effect is not meant as a means to an end. The Japanese atomic bombs were used to end the war, not as a means to an end of killing thousands of people which makes it, at least, a morally neutral act.

 

[GKC]

The reason for the use of the atomic bombs was, perhaps, secondarily to prevent the deaths of millions but its main purpose was to end the war. It was not used as a means to an end of simply killing thousands of Japanese; this was an unfortunate result, the “double effect.”

Then you bring into question the traditional teaching of the Church in regards to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. It is the same dilemma as above. The principle of double effect allows a certain course of action to be taken if the double effect is not meant as a means to an end. The Japanese atomic bombs were used to end the war, not as a means to an end of killing thousands of people which makes it, at least, a morally neutral act.

Among my hobbies, for over 25 years, has been the study of the literature on the use of the 2 bombs in ending the Pacific Theater war. Your first para is partially correct, and I’m not arguing with it. The purpose of the bombs was to end the war, as quickly and with as few casualties, as possible. The method by which they would achieve this was through economy of effort (one bomb, one plane), to accomplish what was currently being done with 500-800 plane B-29 raids, which was expected to overcome the war faction in the *Saiki Senso Shido Kaigi *and bring about the Japanese surrender. It did.

I’ve posted, on the history of this subject (I have no interest in discussing the morality) between 500-600 posts on the board, over the past 5-6 years. I have no plans to do it again; I doubt I’ll open this thread again, after tonight.

GKC

 

[GKC]

In Feb, 1945, Japan introduced the National Resistance Program, in which all males aged 15-60 and all women aged 17-50 were instituted as a milita. By July of '45, virtually every able bodied civilian was a part of this militia and being trained to attack tanks with magnetic mines, and hand combat with bamboo spears.

This was the Ketsu-go Plan.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hiroshima was serving as base for the Japanese army. Nagasaki had a decent amount of industrial targets and Nagasaki followed no zoning plan, so factories were mixed in with residential areas. Take into account the home manufacturing and the fact that women and children were preparing to resist the invasion, and it is really difficult for me to see how you can claim the immediate goal was to kill civilians.

Hiroshima was the headquarters for the 2nd General Army, under Field Marshall Hata, and the port of embarkation for the reinforcements going to Kyushu, the site of the planned first landings in the Home Islands, in Operation Olympic,with a military population at the time of around 45,000 plus (the highest percentage of military to civilians in the Home Islands).

Nagasaki, the primary city on Kyushu, had a large industrial component, primarily the extensive Mitsubishi plants along the Urakami River.

GKC