Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[zz912]

The Americans have an official policy of allowing mothers to kill their unborn children. What is it, some millions of unborn children legally killed in the USA?

Are you arguing that Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? I would agree with that.

 

[Tomdstone]

So? It was used against a villainous, evil country that was murdering millions…

The fact that Japanese soldiers committed atrocities does not give the US any moral right to commit genocide against Japanese children and civilians by dropping an A-Bomb on them.
Is it morally justified to kill innocent children and non-combatant civilians for either one of the following reasons?

1. The soldiers in their country have committed atrocities in China.
2. By murdering these children and other non-combatant civilians, you will possibly reach a higher good?
   No, I don’t think so.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, Japan was not ready to surrender…

Not true.
Aside from being genocide, a war crime, a crime against humanity and immoral, - the dropping of the A-Bomb was not necessary because as Henry H. (“Hap”) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: “It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
Further, the Japanese had already offered to surrender on January 20, 1945 according to terms which were almost identical to the ones signed in September:
The terms included:
• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
• Surrender of designated war criminals.
Roosevelt received this 40 page memorandum outlining the terms of the conditional surrender of Japan. See: Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958

 

[Sarcelle]

The fact that Japanese soldiers committed atrocities does not give the US any moral right to commit genocide against Japanese children and civilians by dropping an A-Bomb on them.
Is it morally justified to kill innocent children and non-combatant civilians for either one of the following reasons?

1. The soldiers in their country have committed atrocities in China.
2. By murdering these children and other non-combatant civilians, you will possibly reach a higher good?
   No, I don’t think so.

So what should you recommend be done? Atrocities were not only committed in China but in other countries as well. Why are the non-Japanese civilians and POWs less deserving of protection than Japanese civilians? Japan was not willing to surrender even with the second atom bomb dropped if it weren’t for the intercession of the Emperor. A land invasion would cost more in lives lost, both for the Allies and the Japanese.

So you have two choices, the atom bomb or a land invasion.

This is water under the bridge anyway.

 

[Sarcelle]

The fact that Japanese soldiers committed atrocities does not give the US any moral right to commit genocide against Japanese children and civilians by dropping an A-Bomb on them.
Is it morally justified to kill innocent children and non-combatant civilians for either one of the following reasons?

1. The soldiers in their country have committed atrocities in China.
2. By murdering these children and other non-combatant civilians, you will possibly reach a higher good?
   No, I don’t think so.

But if nothing is done, more non-Japanese civilians would have been killed, most of them in horrific ways at the hands of the Japanese.

People die either way.

 

[Tomdstone]

So what should you recommend be done? .

Accept the surrender of Japan which was offered before the bomb was dropped. See #780.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is no doubt that Japan was in dire straits but the Allies had committed themselves to unconditional surrender by the Axis because of their experience with WWI. Historians generally agree that while Japan could not have continued the war as an industrial nation it could easily have fought to the death, as it had done on the islands, any invasion.

Yes, the Allies could have let Japan off the hook with a conditional surrender, as they might also have done with Nazi Germany which similarly wanted to negotiate a surrender, but the choice not to do so is not a war crime.

(If it were, then an aggressive nation could always launch a war and then, when it has reached the limits of its armed forces, it could sue for peace for the territory so far gained.)

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no doubt that Japan was in dire straits but the Allies had committed themselves to unconditional surrender by the Axis because of their experience with WWI. Historians generally agree that while Japan could not have continued the war as an industrial nation it could easily have fought to the death, as it had done on the islands, any invasion.

Yes, the Allies could have let Japan off the hook with a conditional surrender, as they might also have done with Nazi Germany which similarly wanted to negotiate a surrender, but the choice not to do so is not a war crime.

(If it were, then an aggressive nation could always launch a war and then, when it has reached the limits of its armed forces, it could sue for peace for the territory so far gained.)

There was little difference between the surrender which Japan had offered in January, and the one which was forced on Japan after the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands more. There really was no excuse for the genocide against the Japanese civilians, especially the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who did nothing wrong. I don;t see how it is justified to murder children and innocent civilians to end a war. Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There was little difference between the surrender which Japan had offered in January, and the one which was forced on Japan after the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands more. There really was no excuse for the genocide against the Japanese civilians, especially the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who did nothing wrong. I don;t see how it is justified to murder children and innocent civilians to end a war. Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent.

If I understand you correctly, what difference there may have been between what Japan offered before the atomic bombs were dropped and what the Allies ultimately accepted afterwards is a red herring.

If you believe that killing children and innocent civilians to end a war is unjustified (is genocide) then what does it matter?

Now, of course, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not aimed at killing children or even innocent civilians but rather at reducing industrial cities, which, as I noted before, was a pattern of war established long before then. Are you claiming that all attacks on industrial targets, that necessarily entailed killing civilians, were unjustified?

 

[Darryl1958]

The US and UK made a serious mistake in overthrowing Mossadegh, a democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953. AFAIK, this was done because of the oil industry.

The pace of ME politics is much faster than leaving that to be a deciding factor in anything.
It is of symbolic importance only, a sort of ‘Remember the Alamo’ moment for Iranians.

The oppressive regime of Iran looms much larger over Iranians than 1953 ever will.

 

[Tomdstone]

If I understand you correctly, what difference there may have been between what Japan offered before the atomic bombs were dropped and what the Allies ultimately accepted afterwards is a red herring.

If you believe that killing children and innocent civilians to end a war is unjustified (is genocide) then what does it matter?

Now, of course, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not aimed at killing children or even innocent civilians but rather at reducing industrial cities, which, as I noted before, was a pattern of war established long before then. Are you claiming that all attacks on industrial targets, that necessarily entailed killing civilians, were unjustified?

1. Japan was ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped and therefore it was not necessary to drop the atomic bomb.
2. 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. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 80 §3]
3. Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.
   catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

1. 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. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 80 §3]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the dropping of the atomic bomb. This is, if taken at face value, a condemnation of total warfare that occured throughout WWII.

Of course, these were not indiscriinate attacks on whole cities but attacks upon production centers which were, usually, in cities.

Is it the official Catholic position that the strategic bombing pf Nazi Germany was immoral?

Most weapons are indiscriminate by nature. An artillery barrage is an indiscriminate attack upon a wide area. If the enemy is occupying a city then, most often, the city is destroyed and many civilians are indiscriminately killed in the process.

Even modern guided weapons that can p(name removed by moderator)oint a car for destruction kill all occupants, women and children included, along with the target of the attack.

War is hell.

 

[Tomdstone]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the dropping of the atomic bomb. This is, if taken at face value, a condemnation of total warfare that occured throughout WWII.

Of course, these were not indiscriinate attacks on whole cities but attacks upon production centers which were, usually, in cities.

Is it the official Catholic position that the strategic bombing pf Nazi Germany was immoral?

Most weapons are indiscriminate by nature. An artillery barrage is an indiscriminate attack upon a wide area. If the enemy is occupying a city then, most often, the city is destroyed and many civilians are indiscriminately killed in the process.

Even modern guided weapons that can p(name removed by moderator)oint a car for destruction kill all occupants, women and children included, along with the target of the attack.

War is hell.

Do you agree or disagree that
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. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 80 §3]?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

 

[justsomeguy085]

American police should not use their weapons to beat and kill innocent unarmed black children and American soldiers should not have dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent children.

LMAO says the person who probably lives in quiet suburbia! Get your eyes off the media and look at the real world. Step into my shoes before making such ridiculous IGNORANT comments. Like Mr. T says “educate your self fool!”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Do you agree or disagree that
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. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 80 §3]?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

I suspect such vague language can be read to imply that the war against Nazi Germany was immoral. Which is why I posed the questions that I did.

I’m not interested in debating vague generalities that cannot be applied to the real world.

 

[justsomeguy085]

I’m just making the point that we don’t need guns because cavemen existed without them.

There are many things in life we think we need that we don’t - another point.

Also, if one was to throw, with some practice, a spear at a small animal, it would kill it. This being an animal big enough to provide food for a few days. So maybe the point here is that if we think we need guns to kill animals then maybe the animals we hunt are not meant to be hunted.

Another point - the only reason people are good at shooting is because they practice. In the early World Wars, there were sharp shooters, with rickety guns compared to now, who were good because they always practiced. So the same could be said for spear-throwers! If people practiced all the time then they would know where to aim. I’m sure those indigenous people in areas of the world who still live primitively are pretty good at aiming.

But the point is, that these people love their environments. They respect creation. They kill because they have to, to survive. Not because they want to get a quick-fix rush to the head.

So you’re logic is hunting is evil? Even though it was vital for the survival of the human race until the last 150 years? Then you basically say if one must hunt you should do it like before the time of guns? So use arrow? Knife? club? rock? All weapons that pretty much fail to kill an animal instantly thus causing unnecessary suffering for the animal. Hhmm do you read your comments before you post?

Have you ever seen an African tribe kill an elephant with spears? I have and I can tell you it ain’t pretty. It takes numerous spears to bring down an elephant and the poor thing suffers.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, Japan was not ready to surrender.

Let’s look at what some of the people who were there in 1945 had to say:
General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.”
General Curtis LeMay, who headed the Strategic Air Command : “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”
Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman:
“It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

According to Eisenhower: “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

 

[zz912]

Let’s look at what some of the people who were there in 1945 had to say:
General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.”
General Curtis LeMay, who headed the Strategic Air Command : “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”
Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman:
“It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

According to Eisenhower: “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

That’s why it took TWO. Because they were so ready to surrender.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We no longer raise boys to be men. We no longer teach them from a young age that they must not tolerate others preying on the weak and the vulnerable. We teach them that aggression is always and everywhere bad, to look for authority figures to set things right, and thus the single-best thing they can do in a crisis is find someone to tell. We raise people to be sheep, to delegate their bodily security — and the bodily security of their friends and neighbors — to that “rare breed,” the sheepdog.

nationalreview.com/article/421227/kevin-sutherland-murder-man-duty-defend-weak-vulnerable

 

[bobcrawford]

Arm manufacturers not only build weapons with the intent to kill, but profit from their sale. While there’s nothing wrong with protecting one’s nation or family, do you really think it should be a multi-billion dollar business?

ISIS rose to power specifically because the “Just War” doctrine wasn’t followed. Remember, one of the required elements is that the war cannot result in a greater evil, but that’s just what happened. The removal of Saddam Hussein under the Bush administration and later our support (albeit indirectly) of the Syrian rebels. Many modern wars, at least concerning Western involvement in them, directly lead to the rise of groups like ISIS.

Yes, the majority of people do not want to work for nothing. The stockholders also want to make money from their investments. Just because a company and its people manufacturer weapons of ANY type does not mean it has to be a non-profit business. Profits create jobs. Profits help retirees with income. Profit is good, not a bad thing.

We would not have to have a weapons industry if all countries and their leaders acted as rational human beings. As it is now, most Muslims would kill Christians if given the opportunity. Iran has a hate America day. Iran has publicly stated they want to wipe Israel off the map. They are killing Christians because of their faith.

We’ve seen what Nazi Germany can do. We’ve seen what people in our own country can do in killing children. We need weapons to defend our country and even individuals need to defend themselves against threats on their lives.

There is nothing wrong with weapons manufacturing and manufacturing them for profit. The Pope comes from a failed Socialist country. Instead of learning from the failure, he promotes it.

I for one am getting tired of people saying it’s a translation error. The reality of it is, it’s not a translation error. This is what he really thinks.