Should we have dropped Atomic bombs on Japan

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in RED

Actually I don’t disagree with you (much … and not your sentiments at all!)

CaptFun:

These points are where you go wrong. First, the targets were not strictly military; read the targeting documents and you’ll see that they ruled out strictly military targets in favor of civilian + military targets. Good info Ghosty. Though I did not say “strictly” military, just military … which they were (in both cases). Most of WWII was like that … the target was a ball bearing factory – bomb the town it’s in and try to get IT and your pilots and plane home hopefully. I DO think somewhere along the line that cities were hit that were without much military value … targets of opportunity spontaneously chosen during a run in some cases. I don’t doubt your documentation. I DO doubt that civilians were purposely targeted on their own somewhat … two major harbor towns full of enemy ships, some factories and war making material plants in direct line for what would be if necessary the optimal line for the invasion of Honshu and Kyushu (the south).

And the subsequent treatment of the Japanese as a “conquered” or at least “occupied” people later (with presumably the same US leadership) bears me out a bit. Although Mc Arthur was known to bitterly oppose the bombings and HE was in charge of the occupation so you could be right (per the bad motive) as well as right about the facts THAT civilians were not given much consideration (I put it this way rather than admitting they were deliberately targeted AS MUCH AS the militarily strategic targets were).

Second, ends never justify the means in Catholic moral teaching, Ironically the Japanese were trying to negotiate an armistice via the Vatican. The US had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican - and Truman, whose call it was - was not a Catholic.

and therefore the “fruits of peace” don’t enter into the equation. Not before hand no, yet by their fruits you shall know them might apply to THINGS as well as people.“It’'ll be better” wouldn’t have cut it with me. But I would have wanted the war to end as quickly and cleanly as possible. Viewed as a “battle” a commander would want his side to lose no one (which happened) and to cause the enemy to surrender and end the war (the highest purpose one could shoot for) – and THEN delivering a JUST PEACE which is ever so much better than a “just war” for the most part.

Third, there was no collateral damage because all of the damage was directly intended. Damage can mean end the opponents war making power. Since these were combination targets as most cities were in those days of “dumb bombs” civilian casualties were probably way down the list of things that were even thought about. I don’t think genocide was the idea. Nor indiscriminate depopulation as the goal.

Again, the targeting documents make this point very clear: they wanted to wipe out whole cities to demonstrate that the U.S. was able and willing to do so in order to psychologically terrorize the Japanese, and so that the full scope and power of the bombs could be demonstrated and observed. That may be true … “whole cities” is our point of contention maybe. A city is not a person or the people - had this unused before weapon knocked down the whole skyline of the two cities - while the civilians survived underground like Londoners in the blitz - I don’t think heads would have rolled or that the mission wasn’t accomplished. Race hatred or a blood lust of “kill them all” is probably not found in those plans - and I’d think it cynical to infer such myself (though it COULD have been true in some case or other - mostly I think it was get the job done and the thinking was more on the battle and not much about civilians at all).

This isn’t Monday-morning quarterbacking or conspiracy theory, it’s what the Targeting Committee itself said. No that’s your take, and you have seen the stuff. I don’t doubt the Committee had doomed the “cities” and by deduction that means the “civilians in them” too. Personally I don’t like even the soldiers to be killed frankly. Let alone the Rosie the riveter type civilians who are merely military support.

Peace and God bless! Thanks, you too. Thought provoking. And some of it we can’t know - like the hearts of men.

My recently departed Dad was 18-21 in the war (Europe). He’d take off his glasses because he didn’t want to see if he’d shot anyone while they ran along - hoping the enemy’d retreat, so they could get a night’s sleep.

But he did shoot. They liberated Dachau and 68,000 prisoners on April 29, 1945. The “Thunderbirds” were slated to go to Japan for the coming invasion. There A-bomb news came. They couldn’t process it. The 2nd A-bomb … and quickly … the war was over … they were going HOME! Alive! They cheered.

Moral dilemma: You are Truman. You have such a weapon. You did not build it or order it built. FDR did. IF you drop it … it could end the war. Stalin (who doesn’t have one) is acting like he wants to continue the present war in Europe some more. The GOP wants the kids in Europe to come home (for motives good or ill?).

IF you don’t drop the bombs do more of YOUR soldiers get killed in this war while you spare the enemy which is still poised to kill them when they invade?

HOW do you explain your decision to your countrymen and women if you DON’T do what you can to win and win fast while seemingly giving time to a hostile enemy?

Is a treason charge in your future? Glad I wasn’t Truman. What’s done is done.

If a black hearted planner had the worst possible motives for what was done … he’s probably dead himself now and undergoing justice possibly in the afterlife.

 

[ValPal]

You can’t commit an evil action for a good end. St. Paul mentions this in Scripture.

Intentionally targeting civilians is an evil action, and we know from the Targeting Committee that civilians were intentionally targeted by the atom bombs.

Therefore the atomic bombings were immoral.

Yet not dropping the bombs and the very distinct possibility of killing a much greater number of civilians is moral.

It’s interesting that these two options are viewed as two absolute separate decisions. They are not. One decision becomes the means, and the other becomes the end. If the end is knowing that one’s action will result in a greater number of deaths of the people you are reputedly trying to protect, how is the means that results in that end moral? That is inherently immoral in and of itself.

 

[stevegravy]

The atomic bomb is a city killer. So was conventional bombs; incendiaries, high explosives. The fact civilians die in either action is a secondary effect. The target is the city because of its productive capacity aiding the war effort. What makes nukes so scary is they do the job much quicker and efficient economically. At least that is what one economist argued.

IMHO neither type of bombing is justifiable by just war doctrine proportionality argument. However, nation states are amoral at best and act in their own best interest in survival situations. In short, a nation state goes to war today it is the nation state that is the target. The nation state must be punished so completely that it will take generations before the war fever is ever raised again. That is if you want some kind of permanent cessation of hostilities afterwards.

Some people think only soldiers and sailors fight. The modern nation state this is not true, the entire society gets involved making war supplies or supporting those who do. The modern military would not exist a week without the logistical supply train staffed by civilians. This tragedy is behind the hand wringing and something to remember when deciding if you want your country to go to war in the first place.

 

[bilop]

No. The ends do not justify the means, ever. You target the military, not the civilians.

Massacre of civilians is NEVER, ever justified. This coming from somebody who is extremely conservative. I used to be in favor of the bomb. But if I’m not to be a hypocrite, I can’t be.

Sure. And if the military, and their war industry is in the middle of cities, and the available technology means that you can’t hit one without hitting the other, what do you do?

If an enemy is hiding amongst civilians, it is licit to target that enemy, even though you know civilians will die.

The morality of the A-bombings revolves almost completely around the amount of military and military industrial targets in the two cities.

For example, if the Japanese Fleet was in Tokyo Bay, and we dropped an A-bomb to destroy the fleet. If that bomb caused a Tsunami that killed thousands of civilians, it would still be licit, b/c the main target was military.

Read the Catechism again. It is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians that is immoral, not a particular type of bomb.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

I will not dismiss everything Japan did, but like everything, it’s over inflated, I wasn’t there, but if you run the numbers of the chinese massacre by the Japanese in some cities and more dead then the total population of that cities. its like when iraqis claim a thousand babies are dying by the hands of american, you don’t really think its true do you?
even today china and japan are enemies going at it over small islands, of course they want to play up what happened. but tell me how many people were actually in china to see it other then chinese? I will admit stuff had to have happened, just as ussr lead poles ino the forest and killed them all…(army officers) and then claimed we have no idea what you are talking about.

but i dont forgive some things that are done in the name of war, and i am never going to agree that dropping the bomb was ok, as i will never agree that leaving us to the russians was ok.

Your position is completely inconsistent.

If the US had fought for Polish freedom (as I believe we should have) it would have involved mass casualties, including civilians, and probably the use of the A-Bomb vs. the Soviets.

You can’t say killing Japanese civilians to free China is wrong, but killing Russian civilians to free Poland is OK.

God Bless

 

[ValPal]

Read the Catechism again. It is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians that is immoral, not a particular type of bomb.

The problem with this statement is that there is a well known justified example of indiscriminate murder of innocents right in the Bible: The slaughter of the Caananites.

 

[bilop]

The problem with this statement is that there is a well known justified example of indiscriminate murder of innocents right in the Bible: The slaughter of the Caananites.

And the teaching of the Church is that such a thing today is immoral.

We need to be careful interpreting the OT, its form of writing is very different than the NT, and only the teachings on faith and morals are inspired, not the history.

God Bless

 

[ValPal]

And the teaching of the Church is that such a thing today is immoral.

The Church does not teach that orders from God are immoral. It cannot therefore be immoral, now or forever.

 

[JimG]

I expect that all the arguments from previous threads will be repeated here, so anyone interested might just wish to go back to a previous thread to see all of what was posted. That’s particularly important to GKC’s posts, since I don’t think he intends to keep posting the same historical data again and again. Here’s one thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=585517

The Church says that it is not permissible to target civilians, and I don’t argue with the Church.

At the same time, I’m certain that the use of the two atomic bombs resulted in hundreds of thousands fewer deaths than any other method of bringing the war to an end.

So I suppose the question that must be asked, from a practical standpoint of someone directing a war, is this-- (and keeping in mind that HST was not Catholic): Is it permissible in this particular situation to use the means which will cause far fewer deaths? If the answer is no, and Truman had therefore decided against use of the (2) bombs, he would then have to proceed with the use of either hundreds of thousands of other conventional bombs, or continue with plans for a land invasion. The casualties would be far greater.

 

[bilop]

The Church does not teach that orders from God are immoral. It cannot therefore be immoral, now or forever.

The age of public revelation is over. God does not issue orders except through his Church.

No private revelation is binding on anyone.

God Bless

 

[Ghosty]

Yet not dropping the bombs and the very distinct possibility of killing a much greater number of civilians is moral.

If civilians died because their own government threw them at the enemy, or refused to back down and let them starve, then the sin is on that government and not the invaders/blockaders.

It’s interesting that these two options are viewed as two absolute separate decisions. They are not. One decision becomes the means, and the other becomes the end. If the end is knowing that one’s action will result in a greater number of deaths of the people you are reputedly trying to protect, how is the means that results in that end moral? That is inherently immoral in and of itself.

If the goal of not dropping the bombs is the death of more people then that action would be immoral. If the goal of not dropping the bombs is to not kill thousands of innocent people then not dropping them is moral. You’re confusing knowing the consequences with willing the consequences in this analysis.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

The problem with this statement is that there is a well known justified example of indiscriminate murder of innocents right in the Bible: The slaughter of the Caananites.

We can’t pretend to understand God’s judgement on this matter, nor can we say that the people were innocent.

What we can say is that God gave no such direction about the Japanese.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bilop]

If civilians died because their own government threw them at the enemy, or refused to back down and let them starve, then the sin is on that government and not the invaders/blockaders.

If the goal of not dropping the bombs is the death of more people then that action would be immoral. If the goal of not dropping the bombs is to not kill thousands of innocent people then not dropping them is moral. You’re confusing knowing the consequences with willing the consequences in this analysis.

Peace and God bless!

Right, but the goal of dropping the bombs is NOT to kill innocent people. The goal is to destroy important military and industrial targets, with a uniquely powerful weapon, so that the enemy will see their inability to resist. The fact that civilians will die could be an unitended consequence.

 

[Ghosty]

Right, but the goal of dropping the bombs is NOT to kill innocent people. The goal is to destroy important military and industrial targets, with a uniquely powerful weapon, so that the enemy will see their inability to resist. The fact that civilians will die could be an unitended consequence.

It was not unintended at all, hence the statement by the Targeting Committee that they were not considering targeting strictly military targets. They intentionally targeted large urban areas, and Kyoto, for example, was highlighted because of the education level of the population (they would appreciate what was done to them).

It wasn’t a matter of “let’s get as many Japanese as we can”, but rather “let’s show them what our bombs can do against a dense population center”. That is targeting civilians, specifically as a means to the end of psychological terror against the Japanese government. Again, this is all laid out by the Targeting Committee.

Peace and God bless!

 

[austenbosten]

Rebuttals in RED

Read criteria #1: Targets had to be in a large urban area. This means civilians by definition, and it was criteria #1 for targeting the bomb.

Well can you name me large industrial and military centers out in the middle of nowhere? There are reasons large urban centers are bombed. If you want to cripple the US, you bomb New York not Holdrege, Nebraska…why because there are more financial centers, factories, and military centers in NYC than Nebraska.

Tokyo was ruled out for initial use because Tokyo had already been essentially destroyed, and they wanted to provide a full demonstration of the destructive power of the bomb. They wanted a fresh city that hadn’t suffered much damage yet.

Well let’s be rational and logical and not emotional. Tokyo was done, destroyed. You have spent years and years and billions upon billions developing a new weapon. You have fought 4-years of a bloody war with Japan (and Germany). The most recent battle was the Battle of Okinawa which was so fierce, destructive and bloody that it compelled the US to find a way, any way to end the war without sacrificing another American life. Now you have these 2 bombs and only 1 chance to get it right. You have a chance of ending the war in a matter of days and saving millions of lives…do you take the decision lightly or do you study hard and long?

The Memo’s prove they didn’t take it lightly and they were not going to drop these bombs on just anywhere, especially a rice paddy…for it would be wasteful. They even thought about nuking the Imperial Palace but decided against it, simply because it had no military value.

In the targeting documents we find this little nugget which contradicts your assertion:

From the first bolded portion we see that widespread destruction and psychological terror were a significant, if not the most significant, factor in determining placement of the bombs.

You are reading too much into it. Yes psychological effect was of a great importance; but you fallaciously ignore the bullet point in your own quote just under the bolded. If “psychological terror” – as you put it, was of the most importance, than why not bomb Kyoto?

From the second bolded section we see that strictly military targets were ruled out unless they were in the midst of an urban (read: civilian) area. They intentionally targeted urban areas, and did not at all seek to minimize the devastation, but rather maximize it (hence them talking about the amplifying effects of the terrain around Hiroshima).

Urban does not mean civilian when regarding war. It means economic and military value. Urban areas have factories, munitions depots, banks, businesses, communication lines, transportation hubs…No sane military commander bombs a city just because there are people there. Also you blatantly construe your own quote. The decision to place the bomb in an urban area was not about “maximizing its effectiveness” but merely ensuring the bomb is not wasted. Remember this was 1945 and there were no “smart bombs” despite technological advances like the Norden bombsight. Getting your bomb to drop on its target was still a crapshoot…and when you only have 1 bomb and one chance…you are not going to risk wasting it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ValPal]

If the goal of not dropping the bombs is to not kill thousands of innocent people then not dropping them is moral.

I personally believe that this is a perversion of the “ends.” If the goal of dropping bombs is not to kill tens of thousands, yet you still know it will do so, it’s simply an attempt to justify the death of tens of thousands of people.

 

[ValPal]

We can’t pretend to understand God’s judgement on this matter,

We can’t pretend it didn’t happen and doesn’t apply to other situations either.

nor can we say that the people were innocent.

What do babies do to become worthy of slaughter? I’ve yet to see the explanation on that one.

What we can say is that God gave no such direction about the Japanese.

How do we know? God typically doesn’t stand on a podium and announce to everyone through a PA system his orders. Why is it not possible that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were actually Divine punishment?

 

[Ghosty]

Well can you name me large industrial and military centers out in the middle of nowhere? There are reasons large urban centers are bombed. If you want to cripple the US, you bomb New York not Holdrege, Nebraska…why because there are more financial centers, factories, and military centers in NYC than Nebraska.

There were plenty of military bases that could have been bombed and wiped out, but the documents are clear that the targets must be nestled within an urban area. They did not say “we can only find urban-located military targets”, but rather “the targets should be in an urban area”. These areas were not targeted in spite of being urban centers, they were targeted because they were urban centers, and the documents make this explicit.

Well let’s be rational and logical and not emotional. Tokyo was done, destroyed. You have spent years and years and billions upon billions developing a new weapon. You have fought 4-years of a bloody war with Japan (and Germany). The most recent battle was the Battle of Okinawa which was so fierce, destructive and bloody that it compelled the US to find a way, any way to end the war without sacrificing another American life. Now you have these 2 bombs and only 1 chance to get it right. You have a chance of ending the war in a matter of days and saving millions of lives…do you take the decision lightly or do you study hard and long?

The Memo’s prove they didn’t take it lightly and they were not going to drop these bombs on just anywhere, especially a rice paddy…for it would be wasteful. They even thought about nuking the Imperial Palace but decided against it, simply because it had no military value.

I’ve never claimed that they didn’t think things through, I’m saying that their decision was morally wrong.

You are reading too much into it. Yes psychological effect was of a great importance; but you fallaciously ignore the bullet point in your own quote just under the bolded. If “psychological terror” – as you put it, was of the most importance, than why not bomb Kyoto?

Kyoto was actually the originally decided upon target, but Stimson took it off the list for personal reasons. It was chosen again, and he again took it off for personal reasons. Stimson had been to Kyoto as a child and didn’t want to see it destroyed right off, but it was the priority target initially.

Urban does not mean civilian when regarding war. It means economic and military value. Urban areas have factories, munitions depots, banks, businesses, communication lines, transportation hubs…No sane military commander bombs a city just because there are people there. Also you blatantly construe your own quote. The decision to place the bomb in an urban area was not about “maximizing its effectiveness” but merely ensuring the bomb is not wasted. Remember this was 1945 and there were no “smart bombs” despite technological advances like the Norden bombsight. Getting your bomb to drop on its target was still a crapshoot…and when you only have 1 bomb and one chance…you are not going to risk wasting it.

Re-read what I said: I said that Hiroshima was targeted because the terrain would maximize the destructive potential of the bomb. What’s more, urban means civilian in peacetime and in war, and wanton destruction of civilian property is morally forbidden. The fact remains that urban, civilian territory was intentionally targeted precisely because it was well-developed and populated, not in spite of it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

We can’t pretend it didn’t happen and doesn’t apply to other situations either.

It applies only to situations in which God says to do it. Unless you can point out where that happened in WWII, it’s irrelevant.

What do babies do to become worthy of slaughter? I’ve yet to see the explanation on that one.

What do babies do to be worthy of cancer, or trisomy-18, or being eaten by wild dogs? God has a hand in all of these things happening to babies, and I don’t have the perspective to judge as He judges. I think that looking at it from the perspective “what did they do to deserve it” is the wrong way to approach the issue.

How do we know? God typically doesn’t stand on a podium and announce to everyone through a PA system his orders. Why is it not possible that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were actually Divine punishment?

When God brings Divine punishment on a population He does indeed “stand on a podium and announce it”, as He did with the Caananites. Regardless, the question isn’t whether or not God used the bombings as Divine punishment, but whether or not the people who ordered the bombings acted morally. They were not working on God’s orders, and therefore we have to evaluate their choices from the perspective of natural moral law, and by that assessment their actions were immoral.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ValPal]

Regardless, the question isn’t whether or not God used the bombings as Divine punishment, but whether or not the people who ordered the bombings acted morally.

I’ll admit I might be wrong on the matter.

However, God gave me a brain and the reasoning to go along with it. When given the choice of an “immoral” act that kills a lot of people, and a “moral” act that kills even more people (regardless of intent), choosing that latter is utterly repugnant to my conscience. If believing that killing less people is immoral, regardless of intent, I’m sticking with my conscience and I’ll let God sort it out.