G
GKC
Guest
This is correct. It was also the aim in the general conventional bombing, from March 1945, through the last day of the war, 15 August. The aim was to break the Japanese ability, and will, to continue the war.
GKC
- Status
GKC
C
catholictiger
Guest
you are not explaining this correctly. What you are explaining is that the intention is the end. This is the wrong way to look at it. What matters in this issue is the act. In the ectopic pregnancy the removing of the fallopian tube or the uterus is the act, that act is morally neutral. The problem is when you try to apply this same principle to the dropping of an atomic bomb or any bomb in that matter. What was the act of dropping the bomb in WWII. The act is as follows dropping the bomb on a populated city with some key militaristic strategic points, and also residential areas. The act is you are dropping a bomb on people. That isn’t the same type of act as removing the fallopian tube. When you remove the fallopian tube the death of the baby is the unattended consequence, the unattended consequence has no impact on what the act is. When it comes to dropping a bomb the act is morally evil. The intention doens’t matter, if you argue that intention is all that matters you are a heretic, and would agree with Peter Abelard who was opposed by St. Bernard. The act of dropping a bomb on innocent civilians is evil, I don’t care if your intention is to cure cancer or save 10 million lives. The act in itself is evil.
the end is to end the war, the means to bring about this act has an evil act know as dropping two atomic bombs which killed upwards of a quarter of a million people with in a month or so. The bomb didn’t discriminate against combatants and non combatants. the church preaches against the killing of non combatants, because a large nuclear bomb cannot discriminate against combatants and non combatants it can NEVER be used to kill in ANY circumstances.
It seems clear to me that dropping the bombs on Japan was morally evil, the principle of double effect can’t apply because you are using an evil means to bring about an end. You would never kill your neighbor just so you could feed yourself, killing innocent human beings to end a war can’t be justified either.
G
GKC
Guest
I wish you luck. I never intrude in a discussion of what the RCC teaches on the moral issues on this subject. But, on occasion, the moral discussion can include asserted facts, possibly accurate, possibly not so. And that tends to get me into it.
And I obviously did open the thread again. I am hopeless.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
What post?didn’t you say that you wouldn’t open it after tonight. So as long as you don’t see this post you are in good shape
Truth be told, I make that pledge every time I see the topic. And then I ignore it.
GKC
S
stevegravy
Guest
Having seen this issue debated ad nausium I will contribute my two cents and then bow out. Dropping bombs on cities is a morally neutral act. Why….
1 Militaries exist to blow things up and kill people. It is easier to blow up and destroy fields, mines, factories, trucks, trains, boats and all the paraphernalia that creeps up and makes a war effort possible than it is to kill soldiers. Best way to defeat an opponent in war is to take away their ability to resist. Starving unarmed men do not make good fighters.
2 Power to sustain a military effort requires millions of able-bodied people working in the logistical train from mines and farm fields through processing factories and finishing plants to trucks, trains, and boats. All are legitimate military targets because at every step of the way there is someone or thing involved in getting the troops what they need to win.
3 Cities exist because that is where the work is. If there wasn’t work in the cities nobody would be there. In time of total war between nation states, that usually requires almost the entire force is directed to support the war effort. And that means the military and the civilians working at supporting the fighting. The logistical supply line runs from the front line, where large amounts of metal is being hurled at a very fast rate at somebodies son, all the way back to the mine and farm fields where the food and weapons of war start.
Nobody said it is pretty it is just the way it is. This whole romantic thing of differentiating between combat and non-combatants is hog wash in a modern state where virtually the entire adult population will be involved in the war effort either at the pointy end of the spear or making spear shafts and pointy ends.
Ergo to forthwith I say bombing a city is morally neutral unless you are just into the wiping out of the indigenous population.
Atom bombs just makes it easier.
1 Militaries exist to blow things up and kill people. It is easier to blow up and destroy fields, mines, factories, trucks, trains, boats and all the paraphernalia that creeps up and makes a war effort possible than it is to kill soldiers. Best way to defeat an opponent in war is to take away their ability to resist. Starving unarmed men do not make good fighters.
2 Power to sustain a military effort requires millions of able-bodied people working in the logistical train from mines and farm fields through processing factories and finishing plants to trucks, trains, and boats. All are legitimate military targets because at every step of the way there is someone or thing involved in getting the troops what they need to win.
3 Cities exist because that is where the work is. If there wasn’t work in the cities nobody would be there. In time of total war between nation states, that usually requires almost the entire force is directed to support the war effort. And that means the military and the civilians working at supporting the fighting. The logistical supply line runs from the front line, where large amounts of metal is being hurled at a very fast rate at somebodies son, all the way back to the mine and farm fields where the food and weapons of war start.
Nobody said it is pretty it is just the way it is. This whole romantic thing of differentiating between combat and non-combatants is hog wash in a modern state where virtually the entire adult population will be involved in the war effort either at the pointy end of the spear or making spear shafts and pointy ends.
Ergo to forthwith I say bombing a city is morally neutral unless you are just into the wiping out of the indigenous population.
Atom bombs just makes it easier.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The above is true for the secular ethics of war, it is not true for the Church’s actual teachings of war.Having seen this issue debated ad nausium I will contribute my two cents and then bow out. Dropping bombs on cities is a morally neutral act. Why….
1 Militaries exist to blow things up and kill people. It is easier to blow up and destroy fields, mines, factories, trucks, trains, boats and all the paraphernalia that creeps up and makes a war effort possible than it is to kill soldiers. Best way to defeat an opponent in war is to take away their ability to resist. Starving unarmed men do not make good fighters.
2 Power to sustain a military effort requires millions of able-bodied people working in the logistical train from mines and farm fields through processing factories and finishing plants to trucks, trains, and boats. All are legitimate military targets because at every step of the way there is someone or thing involved in getting the troops what they need to win.
3 Cities exist because that is where the work is. If there wasn’t work in the cities nobody would be there. In time of total war between nation states, that usually requires almost the entire force is directed to support the war effort. And that means the military and the civilians working at supporting the fighting. The logistical supply line runs from the front line, where large amounts of metal is being hurled at a very fast rate at somebodies son, all the way back to the mine and farm fields where the food and weapons of war start.
Nobody said it is pretty it is just the way it is. This whole romantic thing of differentiating between combat and non-combatants is hog wash in a modern state where virtually the entire adult population will be involved in the war effort either at the pointy end of the spear or making spear shafts and pointy ends.
Ergo to forthwith I say bombing a city is morally neutral unless you are just into the wiping out of the indigenous population.
Atom bombs just makes it easier.
R
Reep
Guest
Much that you say is true, but I who is this lesson for? If the U.S. cuts defense spending in half, it still outspends everyone else. Does that make us weak? Does it provoke others to attack? Or does our meddling in others’ business all over the globe provoke them?
Does the weakness of Costa Rica provoke attacks? Of Iceland?
Sorry but I am not in denial about why I enjoy my God-given free will, but I believe my freedoms are in far more jeopardy from my own government than from overseas terrorists who would never give me a thought if were weren’t bombing/droning their countries. Those servicemen who operate those machine do not make me safer. They make me a target.
E
epan
Guest
Of course, the standard retort, and forgive me if it seems trite. But I think the question is obvious, how would one have stopped Hitler with pacifism?
Some wars are just. Most are not. Now that I am no longer affiliated with the US military, I may speak freely.
I signed up with the USMC to go to Iraq, and found that while the war was not just (we were lied to), I felt an obligation to fix what we had broken, and to continue the fight for that. I went back to school, having chosen a profession that does no harm, and does good, regardless of the context in which it is practiced. I returned to combat in that role.
I’m now a bum, deciding what to do next. All of this is a disclaimer, so you know where my opinions are derived.
There are just wars. But, they are rare. WW2 was just. Desert Storm was just. Loss of life was minimized in Desert Storm, but loss was massive in WW2, and order was restored. Until Gen. MacArthur went rogue, Korea was just. His ego cost at least 20 thousand US lives, and perhaps one million Korean and Chinese lives. With Desert Storm, the Iraqi gov’t was contained reasonably well, at little cost. Operation Iraqi Freedom was not just. It was a war to make Halliburton and other richer, and to rally support around a failing presidency, at incredible cost. Besides the human loss and suffering, and the direct monetary costs, the deficit spending was an important factor in the collapse of the US economy, according to some prominent economists, which caused additional suffering in the US and worldwide.
So, the bottom line for me, is that there is a very definite place for the use of force in international relations, but those times are rare.
I would also not want to be the one to be making those decisions. In my opinion, the history of the Republican presidents is that they engage militarily precipitously, and that the Democratic presidents engage too slowly.
As for Syria, it is hard to know the best course (as it usually is). I pray for the best resolution with the least loss of live and liberty.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Actually, the loosening of lending practices (enacted during the Clinton administration) is what caused banks and lending institutions to loan large amounts of money to people who could never hope to pay it back. It was manifested in the housing market where the price of housing rose 71% between 2000 and 2007. When the bubble burst and billions were lost, the markets reacted. It was hardly a “collapse of the US economy.”
I can appreciate your service but it is absurd to say that Operation Iraqi Freedom was “to make Halliburton and other richer, and to rally support around a failing presidency.” President Bush is hardly the monster you and others try to make him.
M
Matilda_Bennett
Guest
Please remember that discussions of particular political figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
- Status