The Harry Truman dilemma

[mosher]

Okay, now where is the permissibility for a weapon that “VAPORIZES” the enemy in Catholic teaching?

Nowhere. You may think of every man, woman, and child of an opposing society as an enemy. That puts you firmly outside the Catholic doctrine of just warfare.

All of this talk is presuming that winning the war is the only goal. That is not Catholic teaching; “follow these rules, or else do whatever you want to win the war” is not a Catholic prinicple.

Exactly. There is also the issue of using only necessary and proportional force in this aspect alone the use of the bomb as it was used was not morally licit.

 

[didymus]

Of course he’s qualified. He’s 23 years old and still knows everything.

I was 23 once Jimmy Carter was President.

I think the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (plus the invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria by 1.5 million Soviet troops the same week) was the only thing that could shock the Japanese military into surrendering.

Now imagine that Truman had not authoised using the bombs. We would be here debating “was it moral for Truman to allow 5 million US and 20 million Japanese deaths during the invasion (just picking numbers here) when he had the means at hand to end the war right away?”

HST was also no doubt looking past simply defeating the Japanese. The USSR was our ally at the time and our deal with them was that once Hitler was defeated they would help us with Japan. If we invaded, they would have been there too. Korea would be all Communist and there might be a North and South Japan.

Lastly, the use of the bombs caused a change in the Japanese psyche, a rejection of militarism that a conventional loss would not have brought about.

I don’t know if one can say the use of the bombs was moral or not – but it was militarily and politically correct and certainly prevented a great deal of evil.

 

[wabrams]

Okay, now where is the permissibility for a weapon that “VAPORIZES” the enemy in Catholic teaching?

No different than putting a bullet in someone.

Nowhere. You may think of every man, woman, and child of an opposing society as an enemy. That puts you firmly outside the Catholic doctrine of just warfare.

It’s not something I thought up; it was reality in August 1945.

All of this talk is presuming that winning the war is the only goal. That is not Catholic teaching; “follow these rules, or else do whatever you want to win the war” is not a Catholic prinicple.

It’s also not Catholic principal to leave someone with the means to harm others again.

 

[estesbob]

So, what I understand you are saying is that the Catholic Church itself is an elitist organization, because they do quite obviously disagree with “your father’s opinion.”

Neither the Pope nor the Church condemend the Bombings at the time. You rest your whole case on your interpreation of a Church document issued 30 years after the fact and the enlightened opinion of your teachers and classmates.

 

[estesbob]

Exactly. There is also the issue of using only necessary and proportional force in this aspect alone the use of the bomb as it was used was not morally licit.

So why didnt the Church condemn the Bombings at the time??? If the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wong them so was the entire war-after all how can an ends that resulted from a means that meant killing people ever be justified under the proscriptions laid out in the thread???

 

[pro_universal]

No different than putting a bullet in someone.

This is completely false. It’s very different from shooting one person. It’s more like lining up the entire city, man, woman, and child, and shooting each one in the head.

That’s more like it.

It’s not something I thought up; it was reality in August 1945.

You missed the point. You cannot use an impermissible means to achieve any end, regardless of how good the end is.

It’s also not Catholic principal to leave someone with the means to harm others again.

See above. There’s no just war rule that says “if you can’t win the war without breaking these rules, then break them.”

 

[pro_universal]

So why didnt the Church condemn the Bombings at the time??? If the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wong them so was the entire war-after all how can an ends that resulted from a means that meant killing people ever be justified under the proscriptions laid out in the thread???

Think of the logic of what you’re saying here.

What if instead of dropping a bomb, we built some gas chambers and funneled every resident of Nagasaki and Hiroshima into the chambers, in order to “show the rest of Japan we meant business”?

Would that be morally justified too? If not, why not?

 

[wabrams]

This is completely false. It’s very different from shooting one person. It’s more like lining up the entire city, man, woman, and child, and shooting each one in the head.

That’s more like it.

You missed the point. You cannot use an impermissible means to achieve any end, regardless of how good the end is.

See above. There’s no just war rule that says “if you can’t win the war without breaking these rules, then break them.”

Think of the logic of what you’re saying here.

What if instead of dropping a bomb, we built some gas chambers and funneled every resident of Nagasaki and Hiroshima into the chambers, in order to “show the rest of Japan we meant business”?

Would that be morally justified too? If not, why not?

You’re starting to sound like a broken record; I’m sorry if the historical facts are getting in the way shaky arguement.

 

[estesbob]

Think of the logic of what you’re saying here.

What if instead of dropping a bomb, we built some gas chambers and funneled every resident of Nagasaki and Hiroshima into the chambers, in order to “show the rest of Japan we meant business”?

Would that be morally justified too? If not, why not?

Per your restraints the whole war was unjust. If the Bombing were evil why didnt the Church condemn them at the time? In fact why have the never specifcially condemned them???

 

[pro_universal]

You’re starting to sound like a broken record; I’m sorry if the historical facts are getting in the way shaky arguement.

Wait, what “historical facts” are getting in my way?

Catholic teaching does not contain a proviso that says “you must win a war no matter what means you use.”

There is no historical fact that will change that. So I don’t really see what your claim is. I’m making a claim that moral teaching sets clear rules that do not change based on historical circumstances.

What are you trying to say?

 

[estesbob]

You’re starting to sound like a broken record; I’m sorry if the historical facts are getting in the way shaky arguement.

He keeps waiving the “ends dont justify the means” arund like the Sword of Excalibur". He has taken it to such absurd lengths that each and every shot fired in world war II had to be similary evil as, of course, the ends dont justify the means.

 

[pro_universal]

He keeps waiving the “ends dont justify the means” arund like the Sword of Excalibur". He has taken it to such absurd lengths that each and every shot fired in world war II had to be similary evil as, of course, the ends dont justify the means.

zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8621

The Church has condemend the atomic bombings.

Sorry, but shooting at individual combatants on a battlefield is not even remotely the same thing as dropping a bomb that wipes out an entire city. Not even close.

You do not have to conclude that shooting soldiers on the battlefield is bad to conclude that dropping a-bombs on a city is bad.

 

[wabrams]

Wait, what “historical facts” are getting in my way?

Catholic teaching does not contain a proviso that says “you must win a war no matter what means you use.”

There is no historical fact that will change that. So I don’t really see what your claim is. I’m making a claim that moral teaching sets clear rules that do not change based on historical circumstances.

What are you trying to say?

What I am trying to say is that debating with you is like debating with a brick wall.

 

[pro_universal]

What I am trying to say is that debating with you is like debating with a brick wall.

I’m glad to see that even though we disagree, we can still be charitable.

I was almost under the impression that most posters here would rather hurl personal insults than reasonably discuss an issue. I’m glad to see that the Pope’s words about reason and faith are being taken to heart.

 

[estesbob]

zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8621

The Church has condemend the atomic bombings.

Sorry, but shooting at individual combatants on a battlefield is not even remotely the same thing as dropping a bomb that wipes out an entire city. Not even close.

You do not have to conclude that shooting soldiers on the battlefield is bad to conclude that dropping a-bombs on a city is bad.

Where specifically?

Why didnt they condemn it when it happened?

Are people shot in the head any less dead than people killed by bombs?

 

[estesbob]

I’m glad to see that even though we disagree, we can still be charitable.

I was almost under the impression that most posters here would rather hurl personal insults than reasonably discuss an issue. I’m glad to see that the Pope’s words about reason and faith are being taken to heart.

I find it humorous since you quit the Church in disgust you now lecture us on your interpertation of of their teachings. Go figure…

 

[wabrams]

I’m glad to see that even though we disagree, we can still be charitable.

I was almost under the impression that most posters here would rather hurl personal insults than reasonably discuss an issue. I’m glad to see that the Pope’s words about reason and faith are being taken to heart.

I have yet to see you reasonably discuss this issue; all you have done is pontificate how you’re correct and the rest of us are wrong. We’ve presented historical facts that show how the bombs were not immoral and there were no other cpmpletely vialbe alternatives.

 

[pro_universal]

I find it humorous since you quit the Church in disgust you now lecture us on your interpertation of of their teachings. Go figure…

Some of the teachings are very good, there’s no denying that.

The cohesive set of rules for limiting warfare is one of the Church’s greatest contributions to the world. It’s a shame that some people, even Catholics, seem intent on undoing the norms that’ve been built over the last 2000 years.

 

[pro_universal]

I have yet to see you reasonably discuss this issue; all you have done is pontificate how you’re correct and the rest of us are wrong. We’ve presented historical facts that show how the bombs were not immoral and there were no other cpmpletely vialbe alternatives.

Having no viable alternative is not a justification for killing civilians in the just war tradition.

That’s your only argument that it was immoral. It is forbidden by Catholic teaching, and I’ve just posted to you an article that details the ways in which the Church has condemned the bombing.

You can present as many “facts”, as you like, but the fact is, the Catholic moral tradition condemns these bombings.

 

[wabrams]

Having no viable alternative is not a justification for killing civilians in the just war tradition.

That’s your only argument that it was immoral. It is forbidden by Catholic teaching, and I’ve just posted to you an article that details the ways in which the Church has condemned the bombing.

You can present as many “facts”, as you like, but the fact is, the Catholic moral tradition condemns these bombings.

There weren’t too many “civilians” in thise cities since both were heavily involved in industry. Second, I find it sketchy that someone many, many years after the fact all of the sudden decided it wasn’t the right thing to do.