Yes.
But you said that the rules no longer apply:
I said:
That situation has come up in the past. Each time, we resisted (by various means) and we’re still here.
Who said there were? Certainly not I (and if you maintain otherwise, provide a quote). What do police or courts have to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
It makes the world fundamentally different in a way those who have not known war have difficulty understanding.
Your statement is factually wrong – the courts came into play after the war was over, not during the war. And it is the practice of the industry not to insure war losses.
If the events which took place during the war were not subject to law, then upon what basis were war criminals tried? The courts may not have met during the war, but their authority, and the authority of the laws by which they operate, did not cease just because war was declared.
during the war offered no protection. Only by winning the war and restoring the peace could we bring the courts into play.
Don’t give me this “holier than thou” run around. War is a desperate situation. Desperate situations demand desperate measures.
the bottom line is Jesus died for us voluntarily. he didn’t fight back, he gave himself completely to his Father for us. this is how we are to live our lives, through the cross, and this is the spirit we are to have. we are to lay our lives down for one another, not take another life for ours!!!
Which Bishop told Napolean “If we clergy haven’t been able to destroy the Church in 1800 years, what makes you think *you *can?”
I have no idea what this sentence means. I assume that, like I often do, you have fingers that sometimes type things on their own.
You can proposethat along with the alternative which you put forward.
Off the top of my head, I believe it would have been because Japan had been waging an undeclared war in Asia for decades killing 19 million people, it was evident that widespread starvation and disease was imminent among Japanese citizens that winter and that the Japanese were gearing up not only their ‘military’ but their ‘civilians’ to resist with vigour any invasion by the Allies, and in the face of all of this, they were not going to stop – repeat, not going to stop – until literally brought to their knees.
Note that Jesus only spoke of personal norms that were to be followed by individuals in relation to each other on a purely individual basis. He never set forth a political ideal or platform for the whole of society to be organized around - “Give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Your statement was that the rules do not exist. The fact that the courts could not meet until after the war only shows that the rules could not be immediately enforced, not that they did not exist. They exist, were broken, and upon that basis war criminals were brought to trial.
Don’t give me this “you weren’t there” run around. You want to throw objective moral norms out the window on the basis of war being a “desperate situation.” Moral law is the most relevant especially in desperate situations. We discuss it in times of peace so that it is instinctive in times of stress, when we do not have as much luxury for leisurely thought.
Guilty.
Point taken, and seconded. I’ll make a better attempt to stay on topic and urge others to do likewise.
At this point I’d actually be more interested in exploring the blockade. As far as conditional surrender, it’s my understanding, from previous posts by others, that a blockade would have ended in defeat for Japan, but that it would not have been an unconditional surrender. Depending on the conditions, I think that would be acceptable. If the only reason for insisting on an unconditional surrender was vengeance, then accepting a conditional surrender seems the better moral choice. But perhaps there were other, sounder reasons for seeking an unconditional surrender, or avoiding a conditional one?
Do you imagine that if we had lost the war, the Nazi and Japanese criminals would have been tried?
Don’t give me this " my imagination is better than anyone else’s practical experience" run around.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
When pretending to read my mind, please do me the courtesy of wearing a turban and gazing into a crystal ball.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Desperate situations call for desperate measures. In war, we must do things we would not ordinarily do, because they are forced upon us. As Clauzwitz pointed out, often the most humane thing – the decisive blow that ends the war – appears cruel when seen in isolation.
And we are as responsible for what we fail to do as for what we do.
And what, praytell, do you propose that folks do while they were not dropping the bombs and while – by the way – the Japanese were continuing to do … well what is it exactly that you think the Japanese were doing?
Somewhat of a bald claim. Do you have any supporting argumentation for your claim?
Please explain to us the Just War teaching and the legimate self defence teaching of the Catholic Church.
