The atomic bomb and WWII

[catholictiger]

alright this is a very simple question.

First does the church have a position on dropping atomic weapons on countries.

Second do you think dropping the atomic bomb in Japan 2 of them was justified, noting the fact that Civilians estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 were killed because of this bomb. Around 200,000 instantaneous and others a slow horrific death. Was this mass killing to end the war justified?

 

[Church_Militant]

(Edited)

**2309 **The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
**
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.” 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.

 

[underacloud]

“the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”

Any estimates that I’ve seen of the number of likely lives lost had the war in the Pacific continued dwarfs the figures of those killed by the atomic bombs. The bombs saved many more lives than they cost.

I hope the world never sees atomic weaponry used again, but I’m very comfortable that it was used justly in WWII, and in keeping with the sections cited above.

 

[Art321]

“the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”

Any estimates that I’ve seen of the number of likely lives lost had the war in the Pacific continued dwarfs the figures of those killed by the atomic bombs. The bombs saved many more lives than they cost.

I hope the world never sees atomic weaponry used again, but I’m very comfortable that it was used justly in WWII, and in keeping with the sections cited above.

Personally, I STRONGLY disagree. It just doesn’t seem that in any way the bombs actually “saved” any lives. I have heard it said on how Truman believed that by using these bombs, 500,000 American troops would have survived the war although many have come to agree that this number is greatly exaggerated.

Although I do agree with you on the point that world must never use such weapons again.

 

[Georgia]

I think the Battle of Iwo Jima pretty much sealed the course of action chosen by President Truman. The idea was to bleed the United States military so intensely that invasion of the Japanese main islands would be unthinkable. The Japanese garrison had no intention of surrender at any point during the battle, no matter the practical realities. One of the goals was to show the United States the price that had to be paid for stepping on Japanese soil.

President Truman saw that bloodbath and believed that we would kill over a million people with the invasion. If he was right, far more people would have died if the United States invaded the main islands conventionally.

May God keep us from ever again facing such choices.

 

[markomalley]

alright this is a very simple question.

First does the church have a position on dropping atomic weapons on countries.

Second do you think dropping the atomic bomb in Japan 2 of them was justified, noting the fact that Civilians estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 were killed because of this bomb. Around 200,000 instantaneous and others a slow horrific death. Was this mass killing to end the war justified?

You can play the hindsight game all you want and it is still essentially meaningless.

I do not believe that they understood the radiological effects of the Bomb back then, as it had never been employed prior to those two times and it had only been tested once…only weeks before the first Bomb was employed.

So if you take away the radiological effects (which is what caused the “slow horrific death” part), then the employment of the Bomb was no more and no less problematic than the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg in the European theater.

Funny that I never hear any condemnation of those two attacks, both of which were explicitly designed to terrorize the civilian population. In both attacks, they employed incendiary bombing across wide areas with the intent to be to create firestorms that would suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere, condemning the population to death by suffocation followed by cremation.

But you don’t hear pointy-headed moralists decry those two attacks (Dresden and Hamburg) (not accusing the OP of being a pointy-headed moralist, I’m talking about the annual navel-gazing that happens)

My opinion is that if a President today was to authorize the employment of nuclear weapons in a strategic attack (i.e., against a city, not against a military force) today, it would be a gravely morally problematic…because the understanding of the weapons is far better than what was known then. But I don’t think it is fair to apply our level of knowledge retroactively.

 

[JRKH]

alright this is a very simple question.

Frankly - No it’s not…

First does the church have a position on dropping atomic weapons on countries.

The Church doesn’t have a position vis-a-vis specific weapons.
As shown in a post above she has teachings on “Just War” covers the matter in more general terms.

Second do you think dropping the atomic bomb in Japan 2 of them was justified, noting the fact that Civilians estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 were killed because of this bomb. Around 200,000 instantaneous and others a slow horrific death. Was this mass killing to end the war justified?

From what standpoint?
Purely theological?
Purely socioeconomic?
Purely American/allied?
Purely Japanese?
Purely…?

My point here is that there were a huge number of factors that went into the decision. Not all of them were “surface” or necessarily “immediate” but they were all there.
Lets look first at your comment (the most common) about the number of casualites. The Truth is that single bombing raids had already killed and maimed many more than the number killed in either one of the two Atomic bomb missions. Raids on Hamburg and Dresden in Germany. Raids on Tokyo in Japan. Granted, radiation was a new factor, but new factors are often common with new weapons. Many did die horribly years later. But so did people from injuries and burns sustained in conventional bombing raids. The only thing that changed with the atomic weapons was the “kill ratio” per bomb.

In my view there were three things uppermost in Truman’s mind when he made the final decision.
First was cost in Allied lives. This was the biggest. At that time there wasn’t so much concern about Japanese lives, though I’ve no doubt he felt ending the war sooner would save Japanese lives as well. But overall - saving lives was the main thing.
Second was the Soviets. The Allies had been trying to get Russia into the war with Japan for years, but without success. At Potsdam (July 1945), after Germany’s surrender, the USSR committed to enter the war with Japan by the 1st of Sept. Truman, unlike Roosevelt, saw very quickly the dangers in the Soviet views and tactics of duplicity. He wanted no repeat of the partitioning and soviet high-handedness and deal breaking that he had already seen in Europe. Here was an opportunity to shock the Japanese into surrender before the Russians could gobble up much territory.
Third was the socio-economic cost. The War had already bankrupted Britian and Europe in general. It was costing the US many millions of dollars every day. American society had been disrupted with so many in the military and the entire economy geared toward war. Ending the war would mean getting back to some sort of normalcy. shifting back to civilian production etc. (No cars, no refridgerators, etc had been produced since 1941)

Were their alternatives to dropping the bombs? Certainly. Blockade is one often promoted. Yet blockades, while they can be effective, are notoriously leaky - and costly. In fact the fewer leaks, the higher the cost.
Another factor that is mentioned is that the Japanese (or at least many in) high command were actively seeking a way to end the war and save face. Their biggest concern was keeping the Emperor on the throne. However, it must be distinctly understood that, in the Japanese military, just becuase the High command wanted to find a peaceful solution, this does not mean that their underlings would permit it. Japanese military history is rife with examples of lower officers acting on their own, of assassinations of Generals and of Political officials. Even after the bombs were dropped and the decision made (by the Emperor) to surrender, there were officers concocting plots to prevent it.
So Japanese peace feelers were no guarantee that negotiations would or could proceed in an orderly fashion…Becides which, remeber that the US was in negotiations with Japan right up to the morning of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Do you really think that the Allies had Any confidence in Japan’s sincerity at the negotiating table?

Frankly - I could go on and on - but the bottom line is that, given the times, given the conditions, given the alternatives, yes dropping the Atomic Bombs was justified.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Catholictiger,

This topic has been discussed at some length here before. Here is a search result for “Atomic Bomb” that contains several previous threads…

These, along with the answers here should give you a number of things to consider.

Peace
James

 

[YankeeRC]

Personally, I STRONGLY disagree. It just doesn’t seem that in any way the bombs actually “saved” any lives. I have heard it said on how Truman believed that by using these bombs, 500,000 American troops would have survived the war although many have come to agree that this number is greatly exaggerated.

Although I do agree with you on the point that world must never use such weapons again.

I had read on the Battleship Massachussets museum that Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese homeland, was projected by MacArthur to have cost 1 million U.S. lives…both U.S. & Japanese armed forces and Japanese civilians defending the Japanese homeland casualties were conservatively estimated at 2 million.

Lacking precision warfare we have today, projections during WWII were usually way too low.

 

[catholictiger]

“the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”

Any estimates that I’ve seen of the number of likely lives lost had the war in the Pacific continued dwarfs the figures of those killed by the atomic bombs. The bombs saved many more lives than they cost.

I hope the world never sees atomic weaponry used again, but I’m very comfortable that it was used justly in WWII, and in keeping with the sections cited above.

there is another part to that question, all other means that could end it should to be ineffective or impractical

was the atomic bomb the best option we had?

 

[JRKH]

I had read on the Battleship Massachussets museum that Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese homeland, was projected by MacArthur to have cost 1 million U.S. lives…both U.S. & Japanese armed forces and Japanese civilians defending the Japanese homeland casualties were conservatively estimated at 2 million.

Lacking precision warfare we have today, projections during WWII were usually way too low.

Just to add to this above…
Looking at the last three “island” land campaigns (numbers obtained from Wikipedia) here are the KIA only numbers for Saipan (first “Japanese” territory invaded) Iwo Jima and Okinawa… (abbr: AM = Allied military, JM = Japanese military, JC Japanese civilian) (I apologize that I could not get the nunbers to post in columns.)

Campaign AM KIA JM KIA JC deaths
Saipan 2,949 29,000 22,000
Iwo Jima 6,812 17,800 0
Okinawa 12,513 95,000 40,000 Grand Total
Totals 22,274 141,800 62,000 226,074

Now these were relatively small “short” camgaigns. Let’s take a look at the liberation of a larger landmass, the Philipines.

AM KIA JM KIA
Philipines 14,000 336,000

Some interesting things to note in the above…

1. 
   *]The Philipines were not “Sacred Soil” and the population was not particularly pro Japanese. Yet look how long it took and the number of Casualites.
   *]Saipan was the first “Pre-war” Japanese territory invaded by the US and look at the number of civilian casualites.
   *]The numbers in the three island campaigns easily equal the number the OP quotes for the atomic bomb deaths.
   *]The numbers from the Philipines easily demonstrates that a protracted land campaign on the Japanese home islands would result in fatalities alone far exceeding the deaths from the Atom bomb. This doesn’t even take into account the additional numbers of wounded which, for the Americans, tended to run about 4 wounded to one killed (rough estimate)
   
   These then were facts - cold hard figures of dead people. The Japanese showed no inclination of buckling. The use of Kamakazes more and more frequently and in larger numbers gave the commanders great concern. Reistance was not weaker, but was stiffer the closer we got to Japan istelf.
   
   The Japanese, even though there were some weak peace feelers, were still broadcasting defiance to the last and we had just seen this very thing - refusal to surrender - played out in Germany.
   Add to that the fact that the Japanese track record in negotiations didn’t give anyone much confidence in their sincerity.
   
   The facts and figures speak for themselves…
   
   Peace
   James

 

[JRKH]

there is another part to that question, all other means that could end it should to be ineffective or impractical

was the atomic bomb the best option we had?

The best option was “Reason”…Do you think that the Japanese mindset during WW II was reasonable?

Given the overall situation, yes the Atomic Bombs were the best option.
The Allies were on the Japanese doorstep - No surrender
The Japanese cities had been devastated by Allied Air - No surrender
They had no Navy or merchant marine to speak of - No surrender
They were already hungry and low on oil reserves and facing starvation - No surrender

Were they “reasonable”?

Peace
James

 

[BillP]

Only part of the issue was the projected casualties from the Invasion of Japan. Based on operations in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, including kamikaze attacks on the naval forces, US casualties (total KIA and WIA) were exceed 1,000,000 for the two invasions (“Olympic” to invade the island of Kyushu and “Coronet” to invade Honshu). This figure **does not include **Japanese military or civilian casualties.

The secondary consideration was the average monthly mortality among civilians/POWs etc in areas controlled by the Japanese. One author, Richard Franks, in his book Downfall, estimates that ancillary civilian casualties exceeded 20,000 per month!

Finally, we have to look at the alternatives available to the Allies in the summer of 1945. Any result short of total removal of Japan’s potential to wage war was politically unacceptable for good reason.

This left three options; invade, blockade, or atomic bombardment.

Invasion, as we have seen, was expected to result in 1,000,000 US casualties and untold millions of Japanese ones (mostly civilian)

Blockade by air and submarine would have also resulted in millions of Japanese deaths by starvation and exposure over the winter of 1945-46. During the summer of 1945 US airpower destroyed the rail ferries that moved goods and cargo between the Japanese islands. Since Japan’s coal and agricultural resources are located on islands different from the islands inhabited by the bulk of her population, they wouldn’t have been able to feed their people or even keep them from freeezing to death in the winter. Result? more millions of Japanese civilian casualties.

So Truman et al could either drop the Atom bombs and kill a couple of 100,000 Japanese

or

order a blockade that would result in millions of Japanese deaths from starvation and exposure

or

order an invasion that would kill millions of Japanese and incurr 1,000,000 Allied casualties.

In the meantime, 20,000 Chinese, Malay, Sumatran, Korean etc civilians and Allied POWs are dying each month under the Japanese regime.

What would YOU have done?

 

[manualman]

I read somewhere that after the surrender of Japan, US forces arrived to occupy and found the country’s transportation and planning system utterly destroyed. Approaching the winter season, the county had nothing close to what was needed to feed and shelter its population until spring. The assertion made was that it was only massive import of US humanitarian aid that prevented famine and the deaths of millions. If true, needless to say that NOT ending the war quickly would have meant that aid would not have come through and that even more civilians would have died than did those in H & N.

It’s not an easy thing to evaluate. May God have mercy on us all so that nobody must face such a choice again.

 

[JRKH]

I read somewhere that after the surrender of Japan, US forces arrived to occupy and found the country’s transportation and planning system utterly destroyed. Approaching the winter season, the county had nothing close to what was needed to feed and shelter its population until spring. The assertion made was that it was only massive import of US humanitarian aid that prevented famine and the deaths of millions. If true, needless to say that NOT ending the war quickly would have meant that aid would not have come through and that even more civilians would have died than did those in H & N.

It’s not an easy thing to evaluate. May God have mercy on us all so that nobody must face such a choice again.

I would say that this is quite true. The Japanese home islands had already been effectively cut off from the outside world for months. Japan was highly dependant on outside sources for both fuel and food. What fuel there was, was being hoarded by the Military for the anticipated Allied invasions. What food there might have been would have been isolated by the continuous disruption to transportation by allied air attacks and the lack of fuel for transport.

Peace
James