The Harry Truman dilemma

[ribozyme]

This is a rather interesting dilemma, but would you drop Little Boy on Hiroshima and Fat Man on Nagaski, or would you refrain from the use of atomic weapons and continue with the invasion of the Japanese homeland (Operation Downfall).

Remember that the Japanese will not surrender easily. They are willing to fight to the death. If they choice to fight, the causalities on both sides will be high (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfall)

Regarding this dilemma, I do not know the “correct” answer. I am interested in what Catholic Moral Theology has to say about this dilemma, and what does it recommend. I am interested also in what secular moral systems will prescribe. This is a complex decision, and one should not be upset that Truman made his decision. Both choices are unpleasant and I will not criticize anyone for choicing any option.

 

[EBSSTF4]

I am sure people will come in on both sides of this issue. Without quoting the catechism, or scripture I am going to put my two cents in. I have my degree in history, and a lot of time was always spent on this subject when we studied WWII (and a theology class i took). My thought has been that this was basically the biggest nuclear weapons test in history. While the war in Japan was greatly shortened, The Bomb could have just as easily been dropped on one of the many islands crawling with enemy troops. It would of taken a little longer for Japan to figure out what was happening, and the war may have been extended a little, but thousands of innocent lives could have been saved.

 

[JimG]

I think this was discussed in a previous thread at some great length, with many opinions on both sides of the issue.

Briefly, I believe that Catholic moral theology would prohibit the targeting of non-combatants.

Yet, I can understand Truman’s reasons. It’s quite possible that dropping the bombs, by bringing the war to a quick end, may have resulted in fewer casualties on both sides than would have been the case with an invasion. Still, the end does not justify the means.

On the other hand, both the Allies and the Axis powers did in fact target non-combatants during the course of the war. The Allied fire-bombing of Dresden comes to mind. Its purpose was apparently to demoralize the population.*

Truman, to the end of his life, seemed never to have any second thoughts about this decision.

And, I can imagine the uproar that would have ensued if, after a bloody and costly invasion of the Japanese mainland, it was discovered by the press that Truman had possessed this weapon and not used it.

*PS—I really have my doubts as to whether WW-II could have been fought and won had there been the continuous war coverage by TV that is the case today. People got the war news from newspapers and newsreels and it was heavily censored by the military.

 

[JimG]

PPS: For an account of the events surrounding the Hiroshima bomb written from a very personal level, read Shockwave by Stephen Walker.

 

[Blackbog]

Out of the two, I would choose to continue with Operation Downfall.

First, I must say I am not a military historian, or a historian at all for that matter, so I am not very familiar with the situation in the Pacific at the end of the War. My immediate inclination is to say that neither is acceptable and that diplomacy and sanctions are preferable. In fact, during the War I would have been reluctant to get involved in Europe, even after Pearl Harbor. However, for the sake of argument, I will give history the benefit of the doubt and assume that the U.S. knew what they were doing, and that the only reasonable course of action is to either pursue option A or B.

As for why I would say go ahead with Operation Downfall, I think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman and have forever tainted the reputation of the United States. The bombings collectively resulted in approximately 150,000 immediate deaths of mostly innocent civilians, and of course poisoned the land with radiation for years to come, adding a countless number to the toll of dead and suffering. I understand the casualty estimate for Operation Downfall was in the millions, but I think that the nuclear alternative was morally unacceptable.

Again, I think I would be likely to pursue neither of the two options.

EDIT: As a poster mentioned above, using atomic weapons on military targets may have been the best option, and definitely would have been preferable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[JimG]

As a poster mentioned above, using atomic weapons on military targets may have been the best option, and definitely would have been preferable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Actually, I think that both Hiroshima & Nagasaki were considered military targets. Of course, the entire cities were military targets, which still would not have met the requirements of the moral law. From what I understand, U.S. planes had already been bombing Japanese cities, which were quite susceptible even to conventional bombs, because the buildings were highly flammable.

 

[mystified]

Thomas Merton commented on this in a slim book, “The Original Child Bomb”. He suggests that there was a lot that the suddenly-new President didn’t know about the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

 

[mosher]

This is a rather interesting dilemma, but would you drop Little Boy on Hiroshima and Fat Man on Nagaski, or would you refrain from the use of atomic weapons and continue with the invasion of the Japanese homeland (Operation Downfall).

Remember that the Japanese will not surrender easily. They are willing to fight to the death. If they choice to fight, the causalities on both sides will be high (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfall)

Regarding this dilemma, I do not know the “correct” answer. I am interested in what Catholic Moral Theology has to say about this dilemma, and what does it recommend. I am interested also in what secular moral systems will prescribe. This is a complex decision, and one should not be upset that Truman made his decision. Both choices are unpleasant and I will not criticize anyone for choicing any option.

While the two cities contained military targets the bombing and locations of bombing did not have primary military targets in mind. The targets where chosen for maximum casualties and a show of extreme force to bring the Empire to its knees (so to speak). With this in mind it is never acceptable to deliberately will the death of non-combatants. As such it was not the using of the Nuclear bombs that was immoral but rather the way in which they were used and thus while it was possible that in the long run it saved lives it was not a moral act as one cannot directly intend an evil act to bring about a greater good.

 

[geezerbob]

The terms “innocent civilians” and “non-combatants” keep being used here. During WWII, they could only be applied to children because the entire civilian population was working to support the war effort. Farmers and factory workers were all feeding the military machine on both sides, so differentiating between “innocent civiians” and those working for the military becomes impossible. Here in the US, all car production stopped and the factories were used to make military vehicles, from Jeeps to tanks to airplanes. The efforts of the logger and the worker in the plywood mill were the initial steps in the production of landing craft and PT boats. The cotton farmer and the textile worker were producing canvas tops for trucks and uniforms for the soldiers. The entire agricultural and industrial production of the warring countries thus became part of the war effort and removed those engaged in them from the “innocent civilian” category.

It’s so easy to read a history book and then make moral pronouncements on the morality of what happened. It’s quite another thing to live with all the rationing and shortages, three or four families crammed into one house, the blue stars in the windows tearfully being replaced by gold stars, and the hundreds of thousands of dreaded telegrams that always meant more windows with gold stars. The mood of the US in 1945 was that anything that would end the war and bring the troops home was a good thing.

Before trying to argue the morality of what happened sixty something years ago, try to talk to some old people before they all die out and find out how things really were back then. History books just can’t do justice to the realities of life in the forties.

 

[AnthonyM2]

The terms “innocent civilians” and “non-combatants” keep being used here. During WWII, they could only be applied to children because the entire civilian population was working to support the war effort. Farmers and factory workers were all feeding the military machine on both sides, so differentiating between “innocent civiians” and those working for the military becomes impossible. Here in the US, all car production stopped and the factories were used to make military vehicles, from Jeeps to tanks to airplanes. The efforts of the logger and the worker in the plywood mill were the initial steps in the production of landing craft and PT boats. The cotton farmer and the textile worker were producing canvas tops for trucks and uniforms for the soldiers. The entire agricultural and industrial production of the warring countries thus became part of the war effort and removed those engaged in them from the “innocent civilian” category.

It’s so easy to read a history book and then make moral pronouncements on the morality of what happened. It’s quite another thing to live with all the rationing and shortages, three or four families crammed into one house, the blue stars in the windows tearfully being replaced by gold stars, and the hundreds of thousands of dreaded telegrams that always meant more windows with gold stars. The mood of the US in 1945 was that anything that would end the war and bring the troops home was a good thing.

Before trying to argue the morality of what happened sixty something years ago, try to talk to some old people before they all die out and find out how things really were back then. History books just can’t do justice to the realities of life in the forties.

Well said! I have to agree, it was a different mentality in those days. It was more clear cut, right and wrong. The enemy was the enemy and had to be defeated at all costs for God and country and safety of home and family.

My own father was in the U.S. Navy during WWII and luckliy did not see major action, but if the war had dragged on, who knows, I might not be here today.

 

[phantom]

Well said! I have to agree, it was a different mentality in those days. It was more clear cut, right and wrong. The enemy was the enemy and had to be defeated at all costs for God and country and safety of home and family.

My own father was in the U.S. Navy during WWII and luckliy did not see major action, but if the war had dragged on, who knows, I might not be here today.

Dittos, Anthony. My father was in WWII. When Truman dropped the bomb he had already been liberated from a German prison camp and was preparing to be shipped to the Pacific to fight there. He always said Truman did the right thing. I’ll trust his judgement. I think it was a very tough call that gets right to the very questions of faith in the Gospel of Jesus and service to our fellow man. I think we have to make every effort to avoid war, but fight to win if we are in it.

 

[corvidae]

My problem with the dropping of the bombs is this.

WE demanded unconditional surrender from THEM. We wanted them to surrender and let us set whatever terms we wanted.

One of the things that they wanted most was for their emporer not to be blamed for everything and to remain in power. We basically said no way.
Then we dropped the bombs, and when the empire was on its knees, saying do whatever you want, we said, you can keep your emporer.

It seems that the dropping of the bombs was more a display of U.S. power to the world than a life saving device.

A lone Raven

 

[Blackbog]

“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." Gaudium et Spes, no. 80

Anyone who defends Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a screw loose in my opinion.

 

[JimG]

Before trying to argue the morality of what happened sixty something years ago, try to talk to some old people before they all die out and find out how things really were back then. History books just can’t do justice to the realities of life in the forties.

Some years back while working for the VA, I stopped by a retirement party for a guy who had served in WW-II in the Pacific. Nobody was expecting it, but it gave a little speech about his WW-II experiences. He was captured, and ended up in the Bataan death march. Unlike many, he survived, and spent his remaining time in a Japanese prison camp. It was while he was a POW that the bomb dropped. He had nothing but praise for Truman. So I have to say I agree it’s easy to make judgments when you are not in the situation.

 

[wabrams]

“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." Gaudium et Spes, no. 80

Anyone who defends Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a screw loose in my opinion.

Since your first post on this thread was in regards to your lack of knowledge about history, especially the history of WW2, I’d say your not qualified to make that statement.

 

[wabrams]

My problem with the dropping of the bombs is this.

WE demanded unconditional surrender from THEM. We wanted them to surrender and let us set whatever terms we wanted.

One of the things that they wanted most was for their emporer not to be blamed for everything and to remain in power. We basically said no way.
Then we dropped the bombs, and when the empire was on its knees, saying do whatever you want, we said, you can keep your emporer.

It seems that the dropping of the bombs was more a display of U.S. power to the world than a life saving device.

A lone Raven

God forbid we try to have an unconditional surrender so they couldn’t restart their war machine. I guess with hindsight being 20/20, a couple of more Nanking’s wouldn’t be so bad if we had just given the Japanese what they wanted?

 

[JimG]

Another factor in Truman’s decision may have been that ending the war quickly would prevent the USSR from joining the war in the Pacific, which they were at that point in a position to do. Had the Russians joined in the Pacific war, no doubt the war would have ended, but then the USSR would have demanded an interest in the occupation of Japan, an possibly a partition–as happened in Europe–and as later happened in Korea.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think Truman did the correct thing based on available common knowledge. There are people who claim Truman knew more and should not have dropped the bomb. Truman’s situation was considerable different than others who often site these extreme situations. Japan attacked the U.S. and many other Pacific countries. Japan’s aggression was clear. Japan refused peace talks. Thus Japan chose to fight to the last man and would not consider any other “reasonable” options. Truman would have to send 100,000 plus men to their death to overcome Japan in conventional tactics. Some say Truman would have to be willing to commit to losses as high as one million men. From the Catholic perspective as I understand it the aggression, and the intervention to reduce total losses of life, the requirement of a moral base* standard appear met.

• Japan was ruthless to many of the small Pacific countries they concurred even during the occupation phase.

 

[Blackbog]

Since your first post on this thread was in regards to your lack of knowledge about history, especially the history of WW2, I’d say your not qualified to make that statement.

Qualified enough.

 

[wabrams]

Qualified enough.

You’ve yet to demonstrate that.