Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[bobcrawford]

True to some extent. In war, there are certain acts which are prohibited at least for civilized people: rape; torture and killing of prisoners; and the intentional killing of noncombatants including children and women. If rape, torture or mutilation shortens a war, is it moral for a commander to order it? I don’t think so. Is it OK to shoot defenseless women and children to end a war? How is dropping an atomic bomb on defenseless women and children any different from shooting them directly to end a war? I don;t see the justification in dropping an atomic bomb on a city resulting in defenseless women and children killed so that the war can be ended quickly.

If it was your son or daughter killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, or your son used for bayonet practice by the Japanese, or your sister or mother raped by the Japanese soldiers, or your brothers marched to their deaths in Bataan, or your father killed by a Japanese suicide bomber…well need I go on? The atrocities by the Japanese during WWII gave President Truman no option but to drop the atomic bomb. If killing 100,000 civilians saves the lives of 1 million plus Americans and who knows how many Japanese. Plus think of all the countless atrocities of the Japanese against the Chinese (whole other story) and Koreans. Stopping the war quickly with the bomb saved for more lives and thus it was justified and moral.

 

[Tomdstone]

If it was your son or daughter killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, or your son used for bayonet practice by the Japanese, or your sister or mother raped by the Japanese soldiers, or your brothers marched to their deaths in Bataan, or your father killed by a Japanese suicide bomber…well need I go on? The atrocities by the Japanese during WWII gave President Truman no option but to drop the atomic bomb. If killing 100,000 civilians saves the lives of 1 million plus Americans and who knows how many Japanese. Plus think of all the countless atrocities of the Japanese against the Chinese (whole other story) and Koreans. Stopping the war quickly with the bomb saved for more lives and thus it was justified and moral.

In war, there are standards of behavior to which civilized nations should adhere, even when fighting barbarians. If rape, torture and mutilation of 1000 civilians shortens a war, is it moral for a commander to order it?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

True to some extent. In war, there are certain acts which are prohibited at least for civilized people: rape; torture and killing of prisoners; and the intentional killing of noncombatants including children and women. If rape, torture or mutilation shortens a war, is it moral for a commander to order it? I don’t think so. Is it OK to shoot defenseless women and children to end a war? How is dropping an atomic bomb on defenseless women and children any different from shooting them directly to end a war? I don;t see the justification in dropping an atomic bomb on a city resulting in defenseless women and children killed so that the war can be ended quickly.

Atomic weapons are uniquely powerful instruments of war. Setting aside the second guessing of Truman (or was it the military industrial complex manipulating him?), it behooves a nation like the US to threaten retaliation against any earstwhile nuclear power. Categorically forsaking nuclear weapons would invite annihilation.

The nature of nuclear war is that while enemy nuclear and conventional forces are the primary target, especially in a first strike scenario, forsaking strikes at cities would likewise invite an attack.

But as I noted previously, while nuclear weapons are the most efficient indiscriminant killers, WWII was total war almost from the start, certainly after the Germans bombed London. (The Japanese were already bombing Chinese cities.)

You can’t sanitize war by eliminating nuclear weapons.

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually, Japan hesitated to surrender even after the first atomic bomb had been dropped.

Herbert Hoover quoted in: Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.
“…the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Herbert Hoover quoted in: Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.
“…the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.”

They should have offered an unconditional surrender as the Allies were demanding from both Germany and Japan. If they had there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

 

[Tomdstone]

They should have offered an unconditional surrender as the Allies were demanding from both Germany and Japan. If they had there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

According to the 1923 Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, the bombing of civilians is an illegitimate and illegal use of military power.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

According to the 1923 Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, the bombing of civilians is an illegitimate and illegal use of military power.

It didn’t start with the nuclear bombs. That draft “law” was ignored. But, hey, why not draft a law against all wars? Go arrest Peace Prize Winner Barak Hussain Obama for his war on the Islamic State.

 

[Tomdstone]

It didn’t start with the nuclear bombs. That draft “law” was ignored. But, hey, why not draft a law against all wars? Go arrest Peace Prize Winner Barak Hussain Obama for his war on the Islamic State.

It is not about President Obama. The following people have opposed dropping the atomic bomb on japan:
DWIGHT EISENHOWER
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
HERBERT HOOVER
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
JOSEPH GREW
JOHN McCLOY
RALPH BARD
LEWIS STRAUSS
PAUL NITZE
ALBERT EINSTEIN
LEO SZILARD
ELLIS ZACHARIAS
GENERAL CARL “TOOEY” SPAATZ
BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is not about President Obama. The following people have opposed dropping the atomic bomb on japan:

Good for them. But you have yet to explain why you are so obsessed with the atomic bombing of Japan while ignoring the devastation of cities and civilian populations by conventional bombs.

 

[Tomdstone]

Good for them. But you have yet to explain why you are so obsessed with the atomic bombing of Japan while ignoring the devastation of cities and civilian populations by conventional bombs.

Because in Japan the USA dropped the bomb on the areas which had great numbers of civilians, not troops or military targets. When U.S. military forces dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 275,000 men, women, and children were killed. About 95% of the people killed by the blast were civilians. The lucky children in Hiroshima were those who died immediately at the time of the blast, while the unlucky children were the survivors who developed horrible radiation sickness and died in terrible agony and suffering a while later.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because in Japan the USA dropped the bomb on the areas which had great numbers of civilians, not troops or military targets. When U.S. military forces dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 275,000 men, women, and children were killed. About 95% of the people killed by the blast were civilians. The lucky children in Hiroshima were those who died immediately at the time of the blast, while the unlucky children were the survivors who developed horrible radiation sickness and died in terrible agony and suffering a while later.

That does not distinguish the conventional and atomic bombings of WWII.

Read this, for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids

 

[Tomdstone]

That does not distinguish the conventional and atomic bombings of WWII.

Read this, for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids

Just as it is wrong to rape and torture and mutilate civilians to end a war, any type of bombing which targets civilians is wrong IMHO. As I have already said according to the 1923 Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, the bombing of civilians is an illegitimate and illegal use of military power.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Just as it is wrong to rape and torture and mutilate civilians to end a war, any type of bombing which targets civilians is wrong IMHO. As I have already said according to the 1923 Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, the bombing of civilians is an illegitimate and illegal use of military power.

I’ll take that as an acknowledement that the atomic bombings were not unique in targeting civilian targets.

Now we can second guess the entire strategic bombing campaigns of WWII on the basis of “draft rules”.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ll take that as an acknowledement that the atomic bombings were not unique in targeting civilian targets.

Now we can second guess the entire strategic bombing campaigns of WWII on the basis of “draft rules”.

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this 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.”
William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
According to Paul Nitze: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this 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.”
William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
According to Paul Nitze: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

Back to your obsession with atomic bombs, I see. Whatever.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ll take that as an acknowledement that the atomic bombings were not unique in targeting civilian targets.

They were unique in some ways. There were thousands of children who died from the atomic explosion and pressure waves which caused severe internal bleeding. And there were other children who died from the flying debris which caused fatal shrapnel type wounds. Of course, the ones who died right away were the lucky ones. Unfortunately thousands of the children who survived began to suffer vomiting, skin rashes, falling hair and their skin began to peel off, as a result of the high radiation dose. The internal organs of some of these children began to break down slowly and they will begin to bleed painfully throughout the body as a horrible and hideous death comes slowly and with miserable pain, agony and suffering. And of course, still more of these children can look forward to a sickening and prolonged difficult and painful death from cancer and leukemia.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

They were unique in some ways. There were thousands of children who died from the atomic explosion and pressure waves which caused severe internal bleeding. And there were other children who died from the flying debris which caused fatal shrapnel type wounds. Of course, the ones who died right away were the lucky ones. Unfortunately thousands of the children who survived began to suffer vomiting, skin rashes, falling hair and their skin began to peel off, as a result of the high radiation dose. The internal organs of some of these children began to break down slowly and they will begin to bleed painfully throughout the body as a horrible and hideous death comes slowly and with miserable pain, agony and suffering. And of course, still more of these children can look forward to a sickening and prolonged difficult and painful death from cancer and leukemia.

Compared to conventional bombings and firebombings, the differences are subtle.

 

[Tomdstone]

Compared to conventional bombings and firebombings, the differences are subtle.

We have seen the justification of the use of the a-bomb because it saved many lives. So is it true that now it is considered OK to kill children to attain some political end? For example, on 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked President Bill Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright: “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it."
So there you have it.

 

[graciew]

Yes I know there are Catholic cantons, but I wasn’t aware that the Swiss guard was only recruited from those cantons. I suppose there was a period when they had to sort out who was who during the 16th century, as all the cantons were originally Catholic.

Now isn’t this interesting, Pope Francis dismissed the head of the Swiss Guard for being too ‘authoritarian’.

Pope Francis, according to Vatican sources, is unhappy at the Swiss officer’s excessively strict military discipline imposed on his non-commissioned officers and men…The Pope has a relaxed relationship with his security staff, knows most of them by name, and often accepts only reluctantly the advice of those who warn him of possible dangers to his life from lax security arrangements

That is consistent with the attitude to weapons.

SOURCE: bbc.com/news/world-europe-30320800

What you are quoting is gossip. Quote what Pope Francis actually said to be credible.
Basic reading comprehension.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We have seen the justification of the use of the a-bomb because it saved many lives. So is it true that now it is considered OK to kill children to attain some political end? For example, on 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked President Bill Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright: “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it."
So there you have it.

As did the conventional strategic bombing campaigns which similarly killed civilians (in far greater numbers though without the sexy mushroom cloud that attracts so much attention). In fact, of course, it is ok to kill children in war provided that they are not the intended targets. And, yes, even the relatively peaceful instrument of economic sanctions can result in the deaths of children.