Nagasaki, Hiroshima: your Catholic alternatives to dropping the atomic bombs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Governing bodies have a moral obligation to secure a just and well ordered society and those in leadership positions - not individuals - have been entrusted with this responsibility by God. Allowing an imperialist nation to exist and conquer other nations at will is not conducive towards this end.
Click to expand...
1,950 years of Church theologians disagree with your interpretation of just war:
Click to expand...
what is your point with this line of argument? true, secular powers do have the responsiblity to fight war but it must be fought under strict conditions outlined in the catechism. as for the 1,950 years part, again, read the catechism.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
Click to expand...
 
Assuming no atomic bomb, lets say because they took 50 years to develop instead of 5 …

My alternative would be blockade, a solution that I realize would have resulted in millions of Japanese civilian deaths (whereas the actual solution took ‘only’ hundreds of thousands). But it also would have saved America lives. An invasion would have been a catastrophy for both sides. The Japanese had figured out with amazing accuracy what our invasion plans looked like and were building up to resist them. The invasion would likely have failed (because they were designed around a substantial numerical advantage that did not exist in the landing area) and. given the mood of the country after that much blood shed, we would probably have negotiated a conditional settlement allowing them to maintain the system that got them into the war in the first place. Not acceptable.
 
oat soda:
what is your point with this line of argument? true, secular powers do have the responsiblity to fight war but it must be fought under strict conditions outlined in the catechism. as for the 1,950 years part, again, read the catechism.
Click to expand...
The use of the atomic bombs were indiscriminate? That’s news to me…
 
40.png
quasimodo:
Assuming no atomic bomb, lets say because they took 50 years to develop instead of 5 …

My alternative would be blockade, a solution that I realize would have resulted in millions of Japanese civilian deaths (whereas the actual solution took ‘only’ hundreds of thousands). But it also would have saved America lives.
Click to expand...
The problem is, a blockade alone wouldn’t have done it.

A blockade is, on the blockader’s side, a truly indiscriminate weapon – because it seeks to starve a whole nation.

But on the other side it is counter-discriminate. The Japanese did what Saddam Hussain later did. They allowed the “common people” to starve and used what resources they had to feed and arm the military.
40.png
quasimodo:
An invasion would have been a catastrophy for both sides. The Japanese had figured out with amazing accuracy what our invasion plans looked like and were building up to resist them. The invasion would likely have failed (because they were designed around a substantial numerical advantage that did not exist in the landing area) and. given the mood of the country after that much blood shed, we would probably have negotiated a conditional settlement allowing them to maintain the system that got them into the war in the first place. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...
The invasion would have been bloody, but it would have not failed. The United States had a huge firepower advantage, numbers aside, and the ability to concentrate fires (something no other nation had at that time.)
 
40.png
mike182d:
The use of the atomic bombs were indiscriminate? That’s news to me…
Click to expand...
When the targeting point is a Catholic Church surrounded by civilain neighborhoods with limited military value…it is indiscriminate. Perhaps reasonable people can disagree over the real value of the military targets.

They dropped the bombs in the hopes that the war would end soon because of the sheer horror of the event, not because the value of the military target was high enough to warrant the use of atomic weapons or so high that their destruction would end the war decidedly sooner … that is indiscrminate (or however you spell it).
 
40.png
quasimodo:
When the targeting point is a Catholic Church surrounded by civilain neighborhoods with limited military value…it is indiscriminate. Perhaps reasonable people can disagree over the real value of the military targets
Click to expand...
The first British 1,000 plane raid was on Cologne. There were strict orders NOT to bomb the Cathedral.

Some squadron commanders ordered their “bomb-aimers” to use the cathedral as their aiming point – on the theory that whatever they hit, it wouldn’t be the building they were aiming at.
40.png
quasimodo:
They dropped the bombs in the hopes that the war would end soon because of the sheer horror of the event, not because the value of the military target was high enough to warrant the use of atomic weapons or so high that their destruction would end the war decidedly sooner … that is indiscrminate (or however you spell it).
Click to expand...
That’s your interpretation. They dropped the bombs to do the maximum damage to the Japanese ability to make war.
 
vern humphrey:
The problem is, a blockade alone wouldn’t have done it.

A blockade is, on the blockader’s side, a truly indiscriminate weapon – because it seeks to starve a whole nation.

But on the other side it is counter-discriminate. The Japanese did what Saddam Hussain later did. They allowed the “common people” to starve and used what resources they had to feed and arm the military.

The invasion would have been bloody, but it would have not failed. The United States had a huge firepower advantage, numbers aside, and the ability to concentrate fires (something no other nation had at that time.)
Click to expand...
Conventional wisdom says you need a 3 or 4 to 1 numerical superiority for an invasion of this sort to be successful. Recent scholarship has found that the Japanese had figured out where they were going to land and had equal if not superior numbers in the landing zone. The invasion would surely have failed without a significant numerical advantage.

I realize that blockades are indiscriminate but the decision to starve the civilian population is not with the invader…it is with the government. (weak I know … I don’t like my solution but it is mine)
 
vern humphrey:
The first British 1,000 plane raid was on Cologne. There were strict orders NOT to bomb the Cathedral.

Some squadron commanders ordered their “bomb-aimers” to use the cathedral as their aiming point – on the theory that whatever they hit, it wouldn’t be the building they were aiming at.

That’s your interpretation. They dropped the bombs to do the maximum damage to the Japanese ability to make war.
Click to expand...
There is no way that the military value of those neighborhoods warranted Atomic weapons. I have never seen anybody try to build a case for that before.
 
40.png
quasimodo:
Conventional wisdom says you need a 3 or 4 to 1 numerical superiority for an invasion of this sort to be successful. Recent scholarship has found that the Japanese had figured out where they were going to land and had equal if not superior numbers in the landing zone. The invasion would surely have failed without a significant numerical advantage.
Click to expand...
The numbers are not calculated merely by counting boots on the beach. A Marine with an M1 rifle is not equivallent to a sailor firing a 16" gun, or a pilot in an F4U Corsair dropping napalm. Nor is a little girl with a sharpened piece of bamboo equal to that Marine.

We had the firepower, they didn’t.

In addition, the Japanese tactics were based on a die-in-place approach. This (as on Iwo Jima and on Okinawa) was indeed a stubborn and bloody situation, but we could take advantage of it by taking bite-sized out of the Japanese defenses, throwing overwhelming force against those pieces, while defenders not far away were helpless to intervene.

The Marines had actually re-organized at the squad level for Iwo Jima, with three specialized fire teams in each squad – the pin-up team, the break-in team, and the assault team. Each team had different weapons, training and tasks in dealing with Japanese fortifications.
40.png
quasimodo:
I realize that blockades are indiscriminate but the decision to starve the civilian population is not with the invader…it is with the government. (weak I know … I don’t like my solution but it is mine)
Click to expand...
And the same rule holds with the bomber – it is the government which places military installations and war plants in cities that bears the responsibility for resulting loss of life.
 
40.png
quasimodo:
There is no way that the military value of those neighborhoods warranted Atomic weapons. I have never seen anybody try to build a case for that before.
Click to expand...
Is it your theory the Japanese said, “That didn’t hurt” and carried on with the war?

The fact that surrender followed the attacks by days indicates that the military value of the attacks was exactly as intended – and they brought the war to an end.
 
40.png
quasimodo:
When the targeting point is a Catholic Church surrounded by civilain neighborhoods with limited military value…it is indiscriminate. Perhaps reasonable people can disagree over the real value of the military targets.
Click to expand...
As I have mentioned on other threads, 90% of the civilians in Nagasaki were employed by arms-manufacturing plants owned by Mitsubishi, making torpedoes and small arms; and all the plants in the city were running at full production on the morning of August 9th, churning out more weapons to kill more Americans with. It’s not exactly like Nagasaki was a nice little Japanese town out of a Japanese version of It’s a Wonderful Life.

As I have also mentioned on other threads, churches and residential districts were not the aiming point; however, the target was clouded over, and the crew had to make the decision to either drop the bomb using radar, or go back to Tinian and try to land with a live atomic bomb in the bomb bay. The decision was made to drop by radar, and due to the cloud cover, they missed their AP by two miles. Thus, they hit the residential district instead of the industrial park, but they still convinced the Japanese to give up, which was the main purpose to begin with.
 
The Japanese did not join the Geneva Convention and waged war according to the Code of Bushido, the fatalistic creed of all out warfare as practiced by the Samurai.

How does one defeat the practitioners of the Code of Bushido using a Catholic understanding of a just war?
 
2314"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
oat soda:
what is your point with this line of argument?
Click to expand...
I believe people are making their points.
oat soda:
true, secular powers do have the responsiblity to fight war but it must be fought under strict conditions outlined in the catechism. as for the 1,950 years part, again, read the catechism.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that those who disagree with you have not read the catechism. Does it not occur to you that your interpretation of ‘indiscriminate’ differs from the interpretation set out by other people? And what do you have to say about double effect? Have you read it? Have you read the discussion on double effect? Do you understand it?

The point is, oat soda, that discussing something with people does not mean tossing out a quote in the assumption that people hear it the way you mean it. Even if they do hear it the way you mean it, then they disagree pure and simple. So you say one thing, and other people say another thing. Any effort to reach common ground? If not, why not? How is this supposed to go? Impasse? Or one of us just gives up? Waddupwidat?

By the way this chit chat about the morality of dropping the bombs is not the topic of this thread. Do you not understand that? Do people not understand that the morality of dropping the bombs is not the topic of this thread? How many times do I have to set that out in black and white for you to understand that the premise of this thread is that the atomic bombs are not to be used – therefore give what alternative plan of action you propose for whatever end you want. Why is there a paucity of thought-out alternatives on this thread? Do you have any thought-out alternatives to dropping the bomb? Well, then assuming you do, let’s hear them.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
The Japanese did not join the Geneva Convention and waged war according to the Code of Bushido, the fatalistic creed of all out warfare as practiced by the Samurai.

How does one defeat the practitioners of the Code of Bushido using a Catholic understanding of a just war?
Click to expand...
Notice that this post is number 73 in this thread, and no one has answered the original challenge, to propose an acceptable alternative.

Many posts, when pursued to their ultimate basis seem to say when you face a sufficiently evil enemy, it’s your duty to surrender.

That can’t be right!
 
Truman was Right !Also Christianity is not a Suicide pact ! It was the lack of will to knock some tin pot dictator on his Back side. That has caused the death rates of the 20th century. Turning the other cheek with Hitler realy worked, what 32 million dead . Even with he Serbs in the 90"s if Euope had just done something.
Japan conducted a barabric war against any country she fought.In Nanking she murdered 350,000 people,after the city surrendered.
She killed prisoners of war by the thousands.
I am a strange person I think an American is just as valuable as any foreigner.
Liberals always cry about dead foreigners, dead Americans never seem to bother them.
 
40.png
Darrel:
If I were Harry without nukes I would.
Click to expand...
Harry-without-nukes sounds like a postmodern film noir. 🙂
40.png
Darrel:
  1. Execute a long term carpet bombing campaign while the huge landing force was gathering off the coast. (incindiary bombs on the cities)
  2. When the airforce stated that the pre-bombing was complete I would invade with millions of troops.
  3. We would have lost a million troops but we would have won the war.
  4. I like the nuke option better.
-D
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to give this some thought. Your prize:

dragonrealmz.com/images/K050_Large%20Unicorn_13-33cms.jpg
 
vern humphrey:
Notice that this post is number 73 in this thread, and no one has answered the original challenge, to propose an acceptable alternative.

Many posts, when pursued to their ultimate basis seem to say when you face a sufficiently evil enemy, it’s your duty to surrender.

That can’t be right!
Click to expand...
Since we don’t have nukes, we launch a program to invent the transistor, make computer networks and encrypted radios so we can communicate reliably and freely while we corrupt their attempts. Knock out their air power with brute force, except of course our communictions gives us an advantage. Then we simply bomb each of their major highways, and go in leisurely city by city. In each city we go door to door, and give them each a bible and a web connection and URL to CAF.

As long as we’re assuming we can rewrite history, I figgered I’d rewrite some too. I was lousy in history in school because I didn’t care about it and now I wish had I cared more then.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Since we don’t have nukes, we launch a program to invent the transistor, make computer networks and encrypted radios so we can communicate reliably and freely while we corrupt their attempts. Knock out their air power with brute force, except of course our communictions gives us an advantage. Then we simply bomb each of their major highways, and go in leisurely city by city. In each city we go door to door, and give them each a bible and a web connection and URL to CAF.

As long as we’re assuming we can rewrite history, I figgered I’d rewrite some too. I was lousy in history in school because I didn’t care about it and now I wish had I cared more then.

Alan
Click to expand...
Why don’t we invent the Wayback Machine, go back to the 1850s, and transform them into a democracy?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
What am I, chopped liver? WAAAY back in post 34 I wrote:

“In the absense of nukes, I guess I would have continued to destroy Japan’s transportation and industrial facilities, kept up diplomatic pressure for surrender and prepared for a dreaded invasion in optimal weather - basically the Allied backup plan if the nukes didn’t work.”

OK, I’ll elaborate. Industrial capacity is zero if you can’t get raw materials and energy to your factories. Bomb transportation. Bomb energy production. Bomb harbors. Sink shipping. Bomb the factories too.

Any conditional surrender that allowed the Japanese regime to remain in place would doom future generations of Americans to fight it all over again. No good. The leadership responsible for the atrocious Japanese behavior HAD to be removed. People don’t realize that the Japanese leadership was every bit as horrific as the Nazis ever were.

This could, in theory, be done without ever INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians specifically. But my modest knowledge of history says that MANY more human beings would have died horribly. I just can’t yet conclude that is what should have been done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top