VATICAN - Pope: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a permanent warning to humanity. An end to war! [AN]

[Catholic_Press]

After the Angelus prayer, Francis remembers the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Japan: “One voice should rise from every land: no to war, no to violence and yes to dialogue and peace.” Before the Marian prayer, he reflects on the dynamics of faith, which is a relationship between man and Christ.

More…

 

[Theo520]

If you consider “The Long Peace” then you can argue it has already worked.

This interactive video on The Fallen of WW2 puts it all in perspective.
fallen.io/ww2/

 

[meltzerboy]

After the Angelus prayer, Francis remembers the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Japan: “One voice should rise from every land: no to war, no to violence and yes to dialogue and peace.” Before the Marian prayer, he reflects on the dynamics of faith, which is a relationship between man and Christ.

More…

War should always be a last resort after all other methods of diplomacy and sanctions have failed. It should never be a first resort, as too many hawkish politicians believe. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although they may have brought the War to a close and saved more American and Japanese lives in the long term, and although Truman may have had little choice (politically) in using the bomb, is still, in my view, a war crime. It resulted in the intentional murder of far too many civilians and is an illustration of the ends justifying the means. This philosophy is not consistent with the notion of a just war according to my perspective.

 

[Ridgerunner]

War should always be a last resort after all other methods of diplomacy and sanctions have failed. It should never be a first resort, as too many hawkish politicians believe. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although they may have brought the War to a close and saved more American and Japanese lives in the long term, and although Truman may have had little choice (politically) in using the bomb, is still, in my view, a war crime. It resulted in the intentional murder of far too many civilians and is an illustration of the ends justifying the means. This philosophy is not consistent with the notion of a just war according to my perspective.

Virtually everything would be a “war crime” if one takes it far enough. How about the Allied blockade of Germany during WWI? People starved, went without medicines. War damage to Germany in WWII was immense, with many civilian deaths and suffering. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo alone than did in either of the atomic bombings. How many civilians died due to Sherman’s march to the sea or Grant’s siege of Vicksburg? In the latter, civilians were reduced to eating rats, and there weren’t enough rats to go around.

 

[Latias]

Virtually everything would be a “war crime” if one takes it far enough. How about the Allied blockade of Germany during WWI? People starved, went without medicines. War damage to Germany in WWII was immense, with many civilian deaths and suffering. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo alone than did in either of the atomic bombings. How many civilians died due to Sherman’s march to the sea or Grant’s siege of Vicksburg? In the latter, civilians were reduced to eating rats, and there weren’t enough rats to go around.

What you said could be the basis of a form of moral relativism (which many implicitly subscribe to).

Almost any action could be justified if it could achieve some desired strategic or political objective, such as facilitating the end of a war or imposing sanctions on an adversary. Madeline Albright said that the excessive deaths (hundreds of thousands) due to sanctions in Iraq were “worth it”. I think many cold warriors truly believed the lives of communists were worthless (as opposed to it being a political slogan that “the only good commie is a dead commie”).

There were many victims of anti-communism, but they are entirely neglected in the historical and political discourse in the United States. Heck, even the victims of Pol Pot or Mengistu of Ethiopia (who can be reasonably seen as the victims of “communist” regimes, although “victims of communism” is more controversial) have only a picayune of recognition compared to the “Holodomor” or “terror famine” because of the political imperative to vilify Stalin and his legacy in establishing a strong socialist state. The case for the Holodomor is dubious, since Russia historically experienced periodic famines, were suffering under a domestic insurgency of the Kulaks, and it was a pan-Soviet famine that affected Siberia. It is innuendo to suggest that Stalin had some premeditated, malicious plan to starve the Ukrainians with an artificial famine. Implicating the deaths for the famine on Stalin is a way to get a few more million deaths that can be ascribe to Stalin. It is a sinister way of conflating Stalin with Hitler, by given him his own “holocaust”.

 

[francisca]

Virtually everything would be a “war crime” if one takes it far enough. How about the Allied blockade of Germany during WWI? People starved, went without medicines. War damage to Germany in WWII was immense, with many civilian deaths and suffering. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo alone than did in either of the atomic bombings. How many civilians died due to Sherman’s march to the sea or Grant’s siege of Vicksburg? In the latter, civilians were reduced to eating rats, and there weren’t enough rats to go around.

People starved and facility wrecked are not necessarily war crime.

War crime happens only when the troops (people with weapons) kill/ victimize unarmned civilians purposefully.

 

[francisca]

Almost any action could be justified if it could achieve some desired strategic or political objective,

This is relativism in itself.

ISIS use this reasoning too.

such as facilitating the end of a war or imposing sanctions on an adversary.

If the purpose is “good”, then the means can be justified. I agree.
Question is “good” for who?
Our christian believe is “life, love, peace” for the people.
As long as it is oriented toward life and peace then it should be good.
But again, “whose life and whose peace?”

Hence the question of The Law & Justice.

Madeline Albright said that the excessive deaths (hundreds of thousands) due to sanctions in Iraq were “worth it”. I think many cold warriors truly believed the lives of communists were worthless (as opposed to it being a political slogan that “the only good commie is a dead commie”).

In the end, all parties in war are only trying to win, with whatever reasonings or even unreasonable reasonings.

There were many victims of anti-communism, but they are entirely neglected in the historical and political discourse in the United States. Heck, even the victims of Pol Pot or Mengistu of Ethiopia (who can be reasonably seen as the victims of “communist” regimes, although “victims of communism” is more controversial) have only a picayune of recognition compared to the “Holodomor” or “terror famine” because of the political imperative to vilify Stalin and his legacy in establishing a strong socialist state. The case for the Holodomor is dubious, since Russia historically experienced periodic famines, were suffering under a domestic insurgency of the Kulaks, and it was a pan-Soviet famine that affected Siberia. It is innuendo to suggest that Stalin had some premeditated, malicious plan to starve the Ukrainians with an artificial famine. Implicating the deaths for the famine on Stalin is a way to get a few more million deaths that can be ascribe to Stalin. It is a sinister way of conflating Stalin with Hitler, by given him his own “holocaust”.

We do have international law and justice systems that is definitive and clear about war crime and many other things about war. There is some grey area of ethic discussions about many things. As human beings we all have conscience, we know that victimize people’s life and peace is wrong regardless “ideology/ political view”. It’s not a question of ethic, it’s not relative.

The practice sometimes become grey when we begin to discuss “who started what” which basically an action of one party to another and vice versa in history. A place which have long history of war, prone to civil war, is where generational disputes has taken place for hundreds of years. Then another group of “cold war” people start to complicate the matters this last century. Geopolitical of cold war was about weapon placements. The remnants of cold war is about weapon trade, and nothing else.