The Irony of Hiroshima and N. Korea

[Ani_Ibi]

Karl Keating:

This presupposes that one’s task is to determine which way the war might have been ended with the fewest casualties. But that is a consequentialist way of arguing, not a Catholic way…

The Catholic way is to ask, "Among the ways we might proceed, which are moral, and which are not?

vern humphrey:

These questions, you realize, are very close.

So, among the ways we might proceed, which are moral and which are not?

Basically, answering Vern’s question is the next logical step. That’s why I started another thread.

OK, a lot has been posted on this current thread. Karl, could you please differentiate between consequentialist and ends-justifies-the-means thinking?

I do not see how one can separate consequences from methods. One chooses a method in order to get a certain consequence and one takes the good with the bad. However a good end does not justify evil means. I regard ends-justifies-the-means as a subset of consequentialist thinking. Correct me if I am wrong.

1) Do good means justify an evil end?

Scenario A:

The Americans intend to neutralize the Japanese military.

This intention is for the object of ending the Pacific War in August 1945.

The Americans decide that the only way to achieve this object is to bomb the Japanese military hub in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance.

However, the Japanese military hub is embedded in civilian populations.

Let us assume that ending the Pacific War is morally good.

Here are the moral questions:

2) Which conditions for ending the Pacific War are morally good?

a) unconditional Japanese surrender
b) conditional Japanese surrender
c) unconditional Allied surrender
d) conditional Allied surrender
e) mediated peace

The latter are the main consequences for ending the Pacific War. From each of these consequences, further consequences ensue. For each consequence there is a method to arrive at that consequence. The factor of method is not insignificant, as Karl points out.

3) What methods were morally good? And of those what methods were possible?

4) Was the August 1945 target date for ending the Pacific War morally good? And if so, then were there morally good methods for meeting this deadline? And if so, what were they? Implicit in the latter questions is the question Was delaying the end of the Pacific War morally good? And if so, then were there morally good methods for achieving the delay? And if so, what were they?

---

Scenario B:

In America you have a concept called ‘felony homicide.’ If a person dies as a direct result of a crime committed by another person, then that other person has committed homicide. In other words, that other person is legally responsible for the first person’s death.

The Japanese military commit unprovoked acts of war. They then take hostage the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by embedding themselves. In bringing the Japanese military to justice, some of those civilians lose their lives.

5) Who is legally responsible for the deaths of those civilians? In this scenario, is there a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility?

 

[PaulKorb]

Benedictus:

Edit: I agree with every word of Karl Keating’s E-Letter of last year on this topic.

Excellent read – thanks for the detective work.

 

[PaulKorb]

Karl Keating:

To my mind, for example, George Bush does not qualify as a political conservative, and Ronald Reagan qualified as one only marginally.

Karl, you are correct once again. Pat Buchanan would qualify as a political conservative, though, don’t you think?

 

[PaulKorb]

mlchance:

These points aside, the OP is still treading on ridiculously thin ice. Basically, his position boils down to this: Only someone who has never committed a particular sin can admonish others to avoid that sin. This is position is, in no uncertain times, a lie. It is the position of the rebellious sixteen-year-old who gets caught smoking and can only retort, “Well, you used to smoke!”

– Mark L. Chance.

No US President has ever condemned the bombings of Japan. It is pure hypocrisy to tell another not to sin when we do not believe that we have sinned.

It is also cowardly to call N. Korea out as an ‘axis of evil’ while we reward China, a country that persecutes Christians and requires forced abortions, with most favored trade status. Any country that wants respect from the US better have nukes.

 

[JimG]

1) Pull out of S. Korea (who doesn’t want us there anyway) and let the local powers deal with the North Koreans. (Ike said we should have pulled out – and that was 50 years ago!)

Pull out of South Korea? I figure it would take about a week for North Korean Army to overrun the South. Kim Jon Il has ruined the rest of the country but he still has the army.

Is that a good thing?

 

[PaulKorb]

JimG:

Pull out of South Korea? I figure it would take about a week for North Korean Army to overrun the South. Kim Jon Il has ruined the rest of the country but he still has the army.

Is that a good thing?

Jim, I see your point, but I think we may be overstaying our welcome.

The unification of Korea is really an internal disupte that should be left up to the Koreans. There simply is no U.S. security interest to justify sending another half-million-man army to Asia to fight a second Korean War … and certainly no reason why American soldiers should be first to die.

And I don’t think the North Koreans would quite as successful as you suggest. South Korea has an economy 20x that of North Korea, a population twice as large, a huge technological advantage, and access to U.S. weaponry which is far ahead of anything the North can produce or purchase. Seoul can provide for its own defense.

The rise of anti-Americanism in the South also tells us the U.S. occupation of 50+ years should now come to an end.

The regional powers can handle the N. Koreans, who I cannot imagine would want a war with the US.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

Jim, I see your point, but I think we may be overstaying our welcome.

The unification of Korea is really an internal disupte that should be left up to the Koreans. There simply is no U.S. security interest to justify sending another half-million-man army to Asia to fight a second Korean War … and certainly no reason why American soldiers should be first to die.

No democratically-elected Korean government has ever asked us to leave.

Nor would American troops be the first to die.

PaulKorb:

And I don’t think the North Koreans would quite as successful as you suggest. South Korea has an economy 20x that of North Korea, a population twice as large, a huge technological advantage, and access to U.S. weaponry which is far ahead of anything the North can produce or purchase. Seoul can provide for its own defense.

That’s no reason for us to set up conditions where the North might be tempted to try.

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

No democratically-elected Korean government has ever asked us to leave.

Nor would American troops be the first to die.

That’s no reason for us to set up conditions where the North might be tempted to try.

Certainly American troops would be among the first to die … I can’t see how that fact could be in dispute. Americans are there to fight a potential war and people die in wars.

The North Koreans do not want war with the US. The regional powers are more than capable of dealing with Kim Jung II.

The founding fathers warned us “not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Doing so gets us embroiled in wars that are none of our business.

We are a republic, not an empire, as this book explains far better than I am able to: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089526272X/002-7610563-8636010?v=glance .

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

Certainly American troops would be among the first to die … I can’t see how that fact could be in dispute. Americans are there to fight a potential war and people die in wars.

The American troops in question are the 2nd Infantry Division. I was Deputy Operations Officer for that vision in '80 and '81. The plans did not call for the Division to take the first casualties then, and most assuredly do not call for it now.

American troops would fight, but would not be the first to fight.

PaulKorb:

The North Koreans do not want war with the US. The regional powers are more than capable of dealing with Kim Jung II.

Notice the contradiction in what you said – the North Koreans do not want war with the US. The most capable method of dealing with the North Koreans is to keep the forces they do not want to fight in play.

PaulKorb:

The founding fathers warned us “not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Doing so gets us embroiled in wars that are none of our business.

The monsters came seeking us – overrunning one small nation after another.

PaulKorb:

We are a republic, not an empire, as this book explains far better than I am able to: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089526272X/002-7610563-8636010?v=glance .

We are indeed a republic – and if we want to stay one and independent, too, we must look to collective security.

 

[jasm]

PaulKorb:

And why should N. Korea give up it’s nuclear program? We have already demonstrated that if a country doesn’t have nukes and we don’t like them, we will invade and occupy that country (Iraq); whereas if they do have nukes and we don’t like them, we will give that country most favored trade status (China).

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

Why are you even living in the US???
Why would you want to live in a country you call “craven”?

Run! Go now…maybe you could relocate in N. Korea and help them with their nuclear program. Make sure and write from time to time and let us know how it’s going.

 

[PaulKorb]

jasm:

Why are you even living in the US???
Why would you want to live in a country you call “craven”?

Run! Go now…maybe you could relocate in N. Korea and help them with their nuclear program. Make sure and write from time to time and let us know how it’s going.

try to stay on point: our policy is craven for the reasons I explained … i did not call our country craven

your invitation to leave the country is unkind … i had expected better on a Catholic message board

 

[jasm]

PaulKorb:

… i had expected better on a Catholic message board

So did I Paul!:banghead:

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

try to stay on point: our policy is craven for the reasons I explained … i did not call our country craven

your invitation to leave the country is unkind … i had expected better on a Catholic message board

When you use language like that, two things naturally happen. First of all, others make the fair interpretation that you meant it to apply to the whole country. Second, you lose your moral athority to criticize other people for intemperate words.

 

[jasm]

vern humphrey:

When you use language like that, two things naturally happen. First of all, others make the fair interpretation that you meant it to apply to the whole country. Second, you lose your moral athority to criticize other people for intemperate words.

I agree 100%

You know Paul, I thought about it and my invitation to you was unkind. I apologize. I was offended by the “our policy is craven” statement you made. As the ‘morals make the man’ so to do the ‘policies make the country’. I don’t want to live in Iraq because of their policies regarding women, among other things. To me, regardless of your intention…when you state the policy is craven, it’s the same as saying the country is.

---

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

The American troops in question are the 2nd Infantry Division. I was Deputy Operations Officer for that vision in '80 and '81. …

Notice the contradiction in what you said – the North Koreans do not want war with the US. The most capable method of dealing with the North Koreans is to keep the forces they do not want to fight in play.

Vern, you should be proud of your service and we owe you and our armed forces a debt of gratitude. I simply believe that since the Korean War - and the Cold War - ended quite some time ago, it is time to bring the boys home.

As for your suggestion that the presence of the US serves as a deterent, you are absolutely correct. But if the purpose of our military is to protect US interests, and the North Koreans do not want war with us, then our presence there satisfies no vital security interest.

 

[PaulKorb]

jasm:

I agree 100%

You know Paul, I thought about it and my invitation to you was unkind. I apologize. I was offended by the “our policy is craven” statement you made. As the ‘morals make the man’ so to do the ‘policies make the country’. I don’t want to live in Iraq because of their policies regarding women, among other things. To me, regardless of your intention…when you state the policy is craven, it’s the same as saying the country is.

---

Jasm, thank you for the apology. Love of country – or a man --motivates criticism; it does not forbid it.

 

[john_doran]

Ani Ibi:

OK, a lot has been posted on this current thread. Karl, could you please differentiate between consequentialist and ends-justifies-the-means thinking?

well, consequentialist moral theories take the moral value of an action to be equivalent to the (moral) value of the consequences of that action. i’m not sure what you mean by “ends-justifies-the-means thinking”, but it sounds like a synonym for consequentialism or utilitarianism.

1) Do good means justify an evil end?

there are no such things as morally “evil ends” - there are only morally evil means.

that is to say, intentions are the proper subject of moral properties, not actions or states of affairs.

 

[Jabronie]

PaulKorb:

Anyone else catch the irony here ? 60 years after the US killed a quarter of a million people – and still counting – with an atomic bomb, we are desperately trying to get N. Korea to denounce these weapons of mass destruction.

What moral authority do we have to tell other countries they can’t have nukes, when we are the only country that has ever used them?

And why should N. Korea give up it’s nuclear program? We have already demonstrated that if a country doesn’t have nukes and we don’t like them, we will invade and occupy that country (Iraq); whereas if they do have nukes and we don’t like them, we will give that country most favored trade status (China).

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

Everyone, I believe we just found out Howard Dean’s pen name.

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

When you use language like that, two things naturally happen. First of all, others make the fair interpretation that you meant it to apply to the whole country. Second, you lose your moral athority to criticize other people for intemperate words.

I did not personally attack anyone. I called our policy craven because it is craven. Like a schoolyard bully, we are happy to pick on the little guys, but when it comes to taking on someone our own size, we cower.

When Beijing targets nuclear missiles on us, we call China our ‘strategic partner’. When Chinese Communists trample on the human rights of a billion people, they are rewarded with a $162 billion trade surplus. This is craven appeasement, and no one on this board has been able to dispute this – because they can’t. All they can do is engage in personal attacks and insinuate that we are somehow only allowed to criticize others, but not ourselves.

America’s founding fathers were brave people. Reagan had the courage to rightly call the Soviet Union an evil empire. Both were rewarded with victories that changed the course of history – for the better.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

Vern, you should be proud of your service and we owe you and our armed forces a debt of gratitude. I simply believe that since the Korean War - and the Cold War - ended quite some time ago, it is time to bring the boys home.

As for your suggestion that the presence of the US serves as a deterent, you are absolutely correct. But if the purpose of our military is to protect US interests, and the North Koreans do not want war with us, then our presence there satisfies no vital security interest.

That doesn’t make sense – it is our presence there that keeps the North Koreans from going to war. If the US were to pull out, the Kok San Armored Division would be over the border within months.