Good points!The bombing prevented approximately 20 million deaths – including civilian deaths – in the subsequent winter from exposure to the cold, starvation, and warfighting.
As I have explained before, even the two bombs did not stop the Japanese military. The Emperor actually – himself in person – surrendered three times. The military refused to surrender and attempted to assassinate the Emperor. Even after the official surrender, the military brutally tortured and murdered their Allied prisoners of war.
Oh and, if we had waited, then the Japanese would have had their own nuclear bombs. They were developing them at the University of Tokyo and in North Korea. They had already sent trial balloons over the American West Coast to set forest fires. But I have already said this.
- What do folks think the Japanese military would have done with their own nukes?
- How many hundreds of million of deaths would have been added to the 20 million predicted for the winter following H & N?
You don’t seriously believe what I highlighted, do you?Not if you make an effort to attack the weapons themselves, and in those days, no, they wouldn’t have all been civilians. Especially on the Ho Chi Minh trail or in a weapons manufacturing complex. Security concerns.
Yes, I do. If you know of a warehouse in a city that has weapons, you attack the warehouse, not the whole city.You don’t seriously believe what I highlighted, do you?
Ani:But I am repeating myself for no good reason. I have gone into all of this in great detail at the links I have given. I wonder if you have read those explanations. And mine are not the only explanations. Have you read them?
Pro_Universal:Yes, I do. If you know of a warehouse in a city that has weapons, you attack the warehouse, not the whole city.
If you know of a passenger train carrying weapons secretly, you try to hit only the car with the weapons.
Not that complicated, really, nor outrageous.
This is really off topic though. There is no question that the atomic bombs were aimed at wiping out whole cities, not at getting hidden targets.Pro_Universal:
And almost impossible, since in the real world most of the world’s “bad guys” Intermingle themselves and their weapons and munitions among civilians, and there won’t be a car on the train where the “bad guys’” and/or their weapons are separated from the rest of the people.
What does this have to do with Japan? Are you saying that the Japanese army didn’t use uniforms? Or what?What do you do then, Let the “bad guys” you refused to kill use the weapons you refused to take out slaughter the INNOCENT civilians YOU are responsible to protect? Because that’s exactly what will happen.
Human weapons are not accurate enough to destroy ONLY the one warehouse or the one railroad car.Yes, I do. If you know of a warehouse in a city that has weapons, you attack the warehouse, not the whole city.
If you know of a passenger train carrying weapons secretly, you try to hit only the car with the weapons.
Not that complicated, really, nor outrageous.
Not that complicated for folks withYes, I do. If you know of a warehouse in a city that has weapons, you attack the warehouse, not the whole city.
If you know of a passenger train carrying weapons secretly, you try to hit only the car with the weapons.
Not that complicated, really, nor outrageous.
It’s not off topic.This is really off topic though. There is no question that the atomic bombs were aimed at wiping out whole cities, not at getting hidden targets.
They are now. But they were not at the time of Truman.Human weapons are not accurate enough to destroy ONLY the one warehouse or the one railroad car.
So what?Human weapons are not accurate enough to destroy ONLY the one warehouse or the one railroad car.
What is your definition of “war”?So what?
If your only option is to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, or to use weapons that might not do the job, you choose failure.
There is no Catholic command to win wars. There is no such thing as a command to “do what it takes” to win any war, regardless of the cost.
Armed conflict between states, or between states and proto-states.What is your definition of “war”?
The arguments in this thread have had no real Catholic basis and concentrates on “the end justify the means”. Catholic teaching will be ignored in favor of secular rationalization.So what?
If your only option is to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, or to use weapons that might not do the job, you choose failure.
There is no Catholic command to win wars. There is no such thing as a command to “do what it takes” to win any war, regardless of the cost.
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
The only (and extremely non-catholic) Logic used is explicitly condemned in the Catechism1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
I imagine to de-humanize the enemy makes them easier to kill. They are no longer Men, Women and children, they are the enemy we must kill them before they get us.1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
Good post.The arguments in this thread have had no real Catholic basis and concentrates on “the end justify the means”. Catholic teaching will be ignored in favor of secular rationalization.
CCC
The only (and extremely non-catholic) Logic used is explicitly condemned in the Catechism
I imagine to de-humanize the enemy makes them easier to kill. They are no longer Men, Women and children, they are the enemy we must kill them before they get us.
Yes. These are bad also. So, you hold that because they did bad things it’s okay for us to do bad things? I guess I missed that part of moral theology.Lets hear a little condemnation from all you bleeding hearts about the Batan Death March, The Rape Of Nanking, December 7th, etc.
Bleeding heart?I know what my uncle, my sister in law’s father, an older cousin and several guys I know who were on ships awaiting the word to start the invasion and one guy who was a POW in Japan at the time thought. Not a one of them thought Harry was anything but a hero.
Lets hear a little condemnation from all you bleeding hearts about the Batan Death March, The Rape Of Nanking, December 7th, etc.