The Harry Truman dilemma

[Ham1]

The bombings were a Just end to a just war-it really is a simple as that.

Yes. Just as many believe that contraception is moral if you have a good reason. Abortion is just fine if a woman was raped. And homosexual acts are okay as long as the couple is committed and “in love”. Because according to you sometimes acts that the Church calls intrinsically evil aren’t evil at all.

Obviously, you are free to hold your position but please realize that it is not in keeping with faithful Catholic moral theology. It is perfectly aligned with the famous dissenting theologians.

I implore you to read Veritatis Splendor - particularly the sections on proportionalism and the object of the moral act.

 

[estesbob]

Yes. Just as many believe that contraception is moral if you have a good reason. Abortion is just fine if a woman was raped. And homosexual acts are okay as long as the couple is committed and “in love”. Because according to you sometimes acts that the Church calls intrinsically evil aren’t evil at all.

Obviously, you are free to hold your position but please realize that it is not in keeping with faithful Catholic moral theology. It is perfectly aligned with the famous dissenting theologians.

I implore you to read Veritatis Splendor - particularly the sections on proportionalism and the object of the moral act.

I have read it. Of course it was written 60 years after the issue at hand and does not repudiate Just War Doctrine. We are discussing the Just end to a just war. Nothing to do with abortion, or contraception, or homosexual behavior. much to do with the Just ending of a Just war fought to stop evil from spreading thoughout the earth.

 

[Ham1]

I have read it. Of course it was written 60 years after the issue at hand and does not repudiate Just War Doctrine. We are discussing the Just end to a just war. Nothing to do with abortion, or contraception, or homosexual behavior. much to do with the Just ending of a Just war fought to stop evil from spreading thoughout the earth.

The 60 year difference does not matter. Intrinsically evil acts don’t change. Bombing civilians (just like abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts) is, was, and always will be intrinsically evil. As such, it can never be done. No matter how many lives it may save or what horrible things have been wrought by the enemy. It is simply not a moral choice, ever.

You seem to miss that you can’t logically hold your position without also admitting that sometimes abortion, contraception and homosexual acts are justified, but you won’t because you know that is utterly inconsistent with Church teaching. Just repeating “just end to a just war” is silly and meaningless.

Unless you want to demonstrate how “bombing civilians” is not intrinsically evil, then there is really nothing further to discuss. The Church teaches that it is and you reject that teaching.

I get that this is a difficult emotional issue for many. It’s hard to look at what the Japanese did to us and not feel like they got what was coming to them. But the facts are plain and the Church’s teaching is clear. I’m sorry that this is one issue to which you just cannot bring yourself to submit.

 

[Durendin]

Much as many feel this distasteful, but it comes down the question of how much evil do you have to do in order to do good?

Some feel that no good comes out of evil acts, but when evils such as war are brought apon you, there are little avenues left to you but to either capitulate or respond in kind. What “good” can you do when faced with a genocidal foe? Other than offer yourself up for butchering, not much. You are left with the alternative of doing “evil” to protect yourself, the weak and the vunerable.

In the case of the Truman dilemma, he did the right thing in bringing a war to a quick close rather than let it drag on. In the case of destroying a city, there’s plenty of precedent for doing that in the OT, but not much debate of the morality of such acts.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The 60 year difference does not matter. .

The 60-year difference DOES matter because those people today who criticize what took place in 1945 appear to believe that there no discussions of morality back in 1945.

The 2006 criticisms need to consider the discussions that did take place and to consider the intentions of the people who actually made and participated in the decision to drop the bomb.

 

[Ghosty]

We are talking collateral deaths here. No one was murdered in cold blood. Thank God you are not the final arbitor of whether it is more moral for 1 child to die as collateral damage or for 1 million men to die.

There is a difference between justifiable collateral damage and immoral collateral damage. I already stated that I accept the reality of collateral damage, and I will say now that to rule out war because of any and all collateral damage is not only absurd, it’s arguable immoral itself (as defense of the innocent is a positive moral principle, so war is sometimes absolutely necessary).

A targeted strike in which there is accidental collateral damage is just a matter of war. To use a weapon that is known to cause grievious collateral damage when other moral options are available (and full invasion IS a legitimate moral option) is immoral. In this case, the death of a soldier is not equivalent to the death of a child, even a “child of the enemy”.

You are right that I’m not the judge of such things, God is, and the Holy Spirit has spoken through Ecumenical Council. If it were up to me, I would say that killing a single child to save a million is perfectly legitimate, but as a Catholic I can not make that argument, especially in the case of such city-devastators as nukes. It’s quite simply not an option for Catholics.

Peace and God bless!

 

[estesbob]

The 60-year difference DOES matter because those people today who criticize what took place in 1945 appear to believe that there no discussions of morality back in 1945.

The 2006 criticisms need to consider the discussions that did take place and to consider the intentions of the people who actually made and participated in the decision to drop the bomb.

I acutally agree with Current Catholic teaching about the immorality of using nuclear weapons to bomb cities. My disagreement is with those who use this teaching to condemn the bombings that ended World war II-a condemantion the Church is VERY careful not to make.

Thing were quite different in 1945-we were in the midst of a war war to deafeat massive evil . Millions of people would die if the war was completed using conventinal means. Plus the prolonged tme it woulod take to end it conventinally would have allowed the Soviet Union to occupy large Chuks of Asia and japan. It was a moral imrative the war be ended quickly.

The Bombs used were realtively small compared to the ones availabe in 1968 when the Church first condmend their use. By 1968 Nuclear weapons had reached the point where 100s of millions of people could be killed in a few hours. that is why the Church, rightly, condemned their future use. That was not the situation in 1945. The Church did not at the time nor has it since condemnded those bombings.

 

[Ghosty]

Thing were quite different in 1945-we were in the midst of a war war to deafeat massive evil . Millions of people would die if the war was completed using conventinal means. Plus the prolonged tme it woulod take to end it conventinally would have allowed the Soviet Union to occupy large Chuks of Asia and japan. It was a moral imrative the war be ended quickly.

None of this amounts to a change in the matter from the perspective of Gaudium et Spes. There are no “conditions” that allow for gravely immoral actions. The only thing that can be said is that Catholics from 1945 had no Ecumenical decision to go off of on the matter (though many Catholics certainly opposed the decision at the time, and before Vatican II, on the same grounds that VII laid out Ecumenically).

If nukes are condemned now by Ecumenical Council, they were evil then as well (though culpability is another matter entirely). Furthermore, the arguments made to justify the actions then could just as easily apply today, so if it was moral then, it would be moral today, and this is false.

It can be hard to look at something which seems to have produced good results and call it evil, but that is something we as Catholics must be ready, willing, and able to do. We are not pragmatists, and we have no obligation to be. We do have an obligation to God and His Magisterium.

Peace and God bless!

 

[estesbob]

None of this amounts to a change in the matter from the perspective of Gaudium et Spes. There are no “conditions” that allow for gravely immoral actions. The only thing that can be said is that Catholics from 1945 had no Ecumenical decision to go off of on the matter (though many Catholics certainly opposed the decision at the time, and before Vatican II, on the same grounds that VII laid out Ecumenically).

If nukes are condemned now by Ecumenical Council, they were evil then as well (though culpability is another matter entirely). Furthermore, the arguments made to justify the actions then could just as easily apply today, so if it was moral then, it would be moral today, and this is false.

It can be hard to look at something which seems to have produced good results and call it evil, but that is something we as Catholics must be ready, willing, and able to do. We are not pragmatists, and we have no obligation to be. We do have an obligation to God and His Magisterium.

Peace and God bless!

All you have to do is point us to any condmenation of the bombings that ended World War II by the Church and the deabte is over. The reality is that the Church was very careful not do so.

 

[pro_universal]

All you have to do is point us to any condmenation of the bombings that ended World War II by the Church and the deabte is over. The reality is that the Church was very careful not do so.

The church has condemned the bombings. I posted one article arleady. Here’s one from the parent site to this forum:

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

The law of double-effect would not have applied to the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil and though it is arguable that in the long run more lives were saved than lost, the second condition was violated because the death of innocents was used as a means to achieve the good of the war’s end.

Here’s the US conference of Catholic Bishops:

nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2004/04-149.shtml

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 59 years ago this month remain as “permanent reminders” of the horrors of “total war” and the continuing need for nuclear disarmament, said the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in a statement released today to mark the anniversary of the bombings.

“The permanent graves of Hiroshima and Nagasaki compel us to declare once again our rejection of total war and our commitment to the advance of Christ’s peace in the furthest reaches of the globe,” said Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville (IL).

And finally, comments of the Holy Father:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html

It is no longer a simple, ingenuous and dangerous utopia. It is the new Law of mankind which goes forward, and which arms Peace with a formidable principle: “You are all brethren” (Mt 23:8). If the consciousness of universal brotherhood truly penetrates into the hearts of men, will they still need to arm themselves to the point of becoming blind and fanatic killers of their brethren who in themselves are innocent, and of perpetrating, as a contribution to Peace, butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945? And in fact has not our own time had an example of what can be done by a weak man, Gandhi - armed only with the principle of non-violence - to vindicate for a Nation of hundreds of millions of human beings the freedom and dignity of a new People?

The chuch has condemned all use of atomic weapons. That includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn’t become morally impermissible over time; they always were.

 

[estesbob]

The church has condemned the bombings. I posted one article arleady. Here’s one from the parent site to this forum:

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Here’s the US conference of Catholic Bishops:

nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2004/04-149.shtml

And finally, comments of the Holy Father:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html

The chuch has condemned all use of atomic weapons**. That includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki. **They didn’t become morally impermissible over time; they always were.

Then why do none of your referenceses mention them? And why are they 25 to 60 years after the fact? all your statments were issued in response to the new generation of atomic bombs that were developed and AFTER MAD became international policy.

It really is quite simple-All you have to do if give us a Church document that condemns the manner in which the war with Japan was bought to an end.

 

[estesbob]

The church has condemned the bombings. I posted one article arleady. Here’s one from the parent site to this forum:

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Here’s the US conference of Catholic Bishops:

nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2004/04-149.shtml

And finally, comments of the Holy Father:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html

The chuch has condemned all use of atomic weapons. That includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn’t become morally impermissible over time; they always were.

I stand corrected.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Fifty years from now, I can’t wait to see what is going to be condemned retroactively.

 

[Pondero]

Catholic theology does prohibit the intentional killing of civilians. SO, unless there is proof that this was only a strategic strike against a military installation, then it is an intrinsically evil act and not justified.

By the way, this is probably one of the only immoral acts of war ever done by the US. Most other countries did them all the time. I don’t condemn the US at all. But I do condemn this specific act even though I am sure it was done with the best of intentions. Truman did this to save lives but unfortunately, the end does not justify the means.

I think it is morally wrong to deliberately target innocent civilians for death, even if the end is great, the shortening of the war. Such action is always morally wrong, and that was known to St. Thomas Aquinas and others, you don’t have to mention - Gaudium et Spes as someone did in a later post to prove that.

 

[CRW]

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.

As a 30 year veteran, I think in 1945 I would have dropped the bomb with the information available. After all, the fire bombs dropped on the Japan cities killed more then the two A bombs.

Today I think I would had dropped the bomb in a location that would lessen the damage and death. If necessary I would do the same with the second bomb, holding off invasion until a surrender. I think one question that needs to be address, with the condition of the Japan Navy, Army and Air Force, how much damage could they do? In the end however, if necessary, I would drop the bomb if all else failed.

 

[JimG]

Just trying to catch up on some CAF reading, including this thread.

In doing so, several thoughts come to mind.

I’m thinking how remarkably small the Hiroshima bomb was by modern standards—about a 15 kiloton yield for the Hiroshima bomb, and 21 kilotons for Nagasaki. The bridge in Hiroshima which served as a targeting point for the bombardier actually survived the blast.

Allied Forces during WW-II dropped up to 4 or 5 kilotons of conventional weapons on Japanese cities during air attacks. Should these raids be condemned as well, or is the difference between 5 KT and 15 KT significant enough to condemn the bigger bomb but not the lesser? What if we had dropped a 5KT nuke?

Communication in those days was not like today; it took awhile—days?–for Japanese commanders to even realize that this attack had been different from previous bombing raids. I doubt that a “demonstration” drop in a barren area would have had much effect.

I believe that the U.S. had only 3 nuclear weapons at the time. One had been used for testing, the other two were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allies dropped leaflets to warn of continuing attacks with these weapons if Japan didn’t surrenender, but that was a bluff because additional bombs were not available.

During the cold war, our smallest ICBM warhead had a yield of about 1.2 megatons, with far better accuracy. We possessed, and presumably still do, ICBM’s with yields of up to 20 megatons. Many Catholics and other Christians served—and still do—on nuclear missile crews. The doctrine of deterrence meant that the weapons worked and would be used against an enemy in the event of an attack, and the crews were willing to use them. For Catholics, should the mere fact of serving on a nuclear missile crew have been a matter for daily confession or resignation from the military?

During the cold war, I recall that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had made a statement on the issue, giving a limited approval to the doctrine of deterrence, which acknowledged that the doctrine, to be effective, must include a willingness to use the weapons.

 

[pro_universal]

Should these raids be condemned as well, or is the difference between 5 KT and 15 KT significant enough to condemn the bigger bomb but not the lesser? What if we had dropped a 5KT nuke?

Absolutley, they should be condemned. The teaching is explicit: All indiscriminate attacks on civilians are a crime against God.

I doubt that a “demonstration” drop in a barren area would have had much effect.

The reasoning for condemning the atomic bomb has nothing to do with its effectiveness.

During the cold war, I recall that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had made a statement on the issue, giving a limited approval to the doctrine of deterrence, which acknowledged that the doctrine, to be effective, must include a willingness to use the weapons.

I read statements to that effect also, all of which made clear that threat of use, but not actual use, was permissible only to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

If, theoretically, the Russians had decided to launch all their missiles anyway…it would’ve been immoral to respond in kind. It wouldn’t have saved America (missiles already flying would’ve wiped it out), and it would’ve destroyed the rest of the world too.

 

[wabrams]

I read statements to that effect also, all of which made clear that threat of use, but not actual use, was permissible only to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

What good is a threat if you can’t back it up?

 

[JimG]

If, theoretically, the Russians had decided to launch all their missiles anyway…it would’ve been immoral to respond in kind. It wouldn’t have saved America (missiles already flying would’ve wiped it out), and it would’ve destroyed the rest of the world too.

If a threat of deterrence is to be effective, it must be credible, and to be credible, the threat of retaliation must be intended to be actually executed.

I think it was that position of credible deterrence that the NCCB statement was intended to support, at least in a limited way. If the bishops intended to prohibit the actual use of nuclear weapons, I don’t see how they could have supported deterrence as a policy, since a policy which will not be executed can not be credible, or act as a deterrent.

I still wonder if any priest or bishop has ever forbade a military person from serving in a nuclear weapons unit.

There was a case a few years ago where a priest supported a member of a 2-person minuteman missile launch control crew in his protest against serving alone with a woman. Yet there was no mention that he might be prohibited from serving on the crew at all in view of its mission to launch nuclear weapons if needed.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

During the cold war, our smallest ICBM warhead had a yield of about 1.2 megatons, with far better accuracy. We possessed, and presumably still do, ICBM’s with yields of up to 20 megatons. Many Catholics and other Christians served—and still do—on nuclear missile crews. The doctrine of deterrence meant that the weapons worked and would be used against an enemy in the event of an attack, and the crews were willing to use them. For Catholics, should the mere fact of serving on a nuclear missile crew have been a matter for daily confession or resignation from the military?

Jim:

I believe your figures in re bombing raids from WW II are correct, and would have been esp. true in cases of multiple raids on the same city later in the war (The Firebombings of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo among others). In the last 2 cases, the firebombings caused more casualties than the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were intended to end the war by shocking the Japanese militerists and Emperor Hirohito into reality.

Some here have claimed the church condemned the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the only thing I’ve seen has been the condemnation of the notion that nations could morally fight a nuclear war or that they could use these weapons in a limited nuclear war.

I do believe, however, that you are mistaken about the standard yields of the ICBM’s. Although both the USSR and the USA possessed weapons of immense power (some as much as 100 MT), the standard yield for the warhead of a Trident II/Minuteman III Missle was 235 KT while the standard yield for the Soviet counterpart was 385 KT.

I understand the warhead on the Atlas Missile, which was a much less accurate missile than these, did have the yield of 1.2 MT, but it was replaced by the Minuteman Missile System which was more accurate.

What gave the USA and USSR the ability to destroy the face of the earth was that we had nearly 20,000 of these combined, including a 450-500 of the kind you described which were designed to destroy “Hardened Targets” (Cheyanne Mountain, for example), along with at least 25,000 more “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” with yields from 1 KT to 25 KT.

I still believe those who are judging Truman’s decision need to look at the totality of the situation in August, 1945 before making a judgment. I believe that, if they do, they’ll find that Truman didn’t have any “Good Options”, that, not bombing the Japanese and the War comes to a conclusion within a couple a months without a MASSIVE amount of suffering was NOT an available decision.

I’ve posted at length as to what his available decisions actually were and what intelligence he had on his desk. The second, that the Japanese had built at least one Atomic bomb in a facility near the Chosen Resevior in present day North Korea, and possibly two.

Which targets do you think the Japanese would have hit if they would have been able to find a way to deliver these monsters? And, the dozens of Plague Bombs once they found a way to make the fleas survive the trip to America? And, the 1,000’s of jet and rocket propelled Kamikazis aimed at the fleet, along with the occasional massive Typhoon?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael