Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[GKC]

The answer is yes, but I’m not speaking from within the magisterium..

There is a very long thread, somewhere down the list (700 or so posts, IIRC), in which the topic is exhaustively laid out. The decision to use the bombs is an historical hobby of mine (bought another book on the subject 2 days ago) and I’m all over that thread. I certainly recommend anyone interested in the matter to thumb through that thread. But I’m not going to do it again.

Bottom line (and this is a proprotionalist/consequentialist argument) we saved roughy 90% of probable casulaties, over any other form of actions, by using the bombs. And this includes both Japanese and non-Japanese. Good.

For the best historical explication, I recommend Frank’s DOWNFALL and Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT. They (and others) are really useful, to counter the historical revisionism I see is appearing here, as it did in the other thread. Otherwise, have fun. Or PM me for more reading.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I wonder how many people who post on this very site would never have been born because there fathers , grand fathers or great grand fathers, would have never made it home because of a forced entry.

I’m sure that there are many sinful actions committed by all of our ancestors, without which none of us would have been born. The most obvious example would be conception resulting from rape. Does it follow that rape is OK? This is not a reasonable argument.

"If the invasion had gone through,

Just where do you find me saying that the invasion of Japan would have been the right thing to do? I’d be inclined to think that an invasion would also have been wrong, for precisely the reasons you gave.

How could the President and the Generals prosecuting the war have explained to at least a half million more gold star families that; Oh, well, sure we had the bomb, but we didn’t use it because we have an argument concerning the morals of ending the war by using all the weapons in the arsenal. “Sorry about that, but we just felt that our obligation to the enemy and there families was more important than your son, your husband, your brother, but take comfort that you loved one died to save the enemy. You can be proud!”

You are making an excellent case for Christian pacifism–perhaps for Christian noninvolvement with civil government. I’m not entirely convinced. I think a just war may just barely be possible, and I do think that Christians can be involved in the peaceful functions of government. But clearly Christians are called to die for their enemies. That, I would hope, is beyond dispute?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

the enemy does not always wear uniforms.

Agreed. But by definition the enemy does carry weapons.

If you broaden the definition of “combatant” to anyone who is helping with the war effort, you are justifying murder. Your argument is an argument for pacifism. And as such I think it’s a strong one. But if you are seriously suggesting that it is OK to kill people whose actions contribute to an enemy war effort, then what you are saying goes beyond the bounds not only of Christian ethics but of basic human decency. It is evil, period.

There are only two circumstances in which it can possibly be right to take human life:

1. A situation in which someone is actively trying to kill you or someone you are trying to defend (this would include enemy combatants); or
2. A situation in which someone has directly taken innocent life in the past, and there is good reason to believe that they will do so again if they are not killed. Since this second case is less imminent, there needs to be a legal trial before such a person is killed.

you cannot cannot cannot stand aloof and make pronoucements about like just war without understanding any of the factual background. in 940, combatants wore armor and carried swords, noncombatants were peasants with pitchforks.

That’s a silly claim. In 940 as in 1940, someone had to make the weapons, supply food to the soldiers, etc. Yes, the mechanisms were much more complex in 1940, but I don’t see that the basic issue is any different. You’re just scrambling desperately for some way to muddy the moral waters.

Let’s extend your argument. If it is right to kill anyone whose actions are making it possible for the enemy to kill, then it would be right, if we had a time machine, to go back in time and kill the mothers of our enemies, so that our enemies would never be born (a la Terminator). Are you really willing to argue this?

Your position is a completely amoral one, and is unworthy of a virtuous pagan, much less a Christian.

Edwin

 

[Wirraway]

…But clearly Christians are called to die for their enemies. That, I would hope, is beyond dispute?

Edwin

please, feel free to die for your enemies. do not ask me to sacrifice my family for that cause.

the juxtaposition of the phrases “Christians are called to die for their enemies” and “Pacific War, August 1945”, is a total disconnect from any sense of reality, common sense, or justice in any iteration of the concept.

I’d love to hear any Christian pacifist explain that to a gold star mother. since that’s not likely, I’d be happy to show your comments to my Dad (USN for the duration), who lost his brother (USA) in early '42, why pacifism in WW2 was a good idea.

then I’ll let you know what he says.

 

[YipYupYep]

But clearly Christians are called to die for their enemies. That, I would hope, is beyond dispute?
Edwin

I have quoted you, here is another quote for you buddy. This is real life. People facing the fire: "Now, I want you to remember that no bas#%d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b&%ard die for his country. Gen. G. S. Patton

There is just no other way. None! Not if you want to come home.

I am no hawk, or some sort of war monger, but really, what planet do you live on? Its so easy to sit in your home office up in the cheap seats some where and bang out that kind of stuff. Here you are, a free person, writing in the English language.

Really, you dishonor the men and women who went off into harms way and sacrificed so much. There are just not enough words.

 

[Wirraway]

… But if you are seriously suggesting that it is OK to kill people whose actions contribute to an enemy war effort, then what you are saying goes beyond the bounds not only of Christian ethics but of basic human decency. It is evil, period.

let’s go over the numbers, for the third or tenth time. the imperial japanese army killed 200,000 chinese a month for eight years because hundreds of japanese civilians supported every japanese soldier in the field. the difference between making the rifle and pulling its trigger is what? explain that one again.

… That’s a silly claim. “in 940, combatants wore armor and carried swords, noncombatants were peasants with pitchforks”]In 940 as in 1940, someone had to make the weapons, supply food to the soldiers, etc. Yes, the mechanisms were much more complex in 1940, but I don’t see that the basic issue is any different. You’re just scrambling desperately for some way to muddy the moral waters.

what you don’t understand you call silly. the world of 940, peasant levies and warlords who fought between harvests, was different by orders of magnitude from the world of 1940, where every aspect of a modern industrial state like Japan was organized for a full war effort. the differences are far, far more than mere complexity.

… Let’s extend your argument. If it is right to kill anyone whose actions are making it possible for the enemy to kill, then it would be right, if we had a time machine, to go back in time and kill the mothers of our enemies, so that our enemies would never be born (a la Terminator). Are you really willing to argue this?

let’s not extend the argument. you could have made a slippery slope argument worthy of discussion, but no, you divert into fantasy that negates the challenge. what if I hired the Cloverfield monster to terminate the Terminator, or killed the grandfather of Clovis, so we’d be Arians and not having this discussion?

… Your position is a completely amoral one, and is unworthy of a virtuous pagan, much less a Christian.

Edwin

thanks, I don’t want to be your kind of Catholic anyway.

BTW, Dad is still awaiting your explanation of why, under the tenants of christian pacificism, it was a good thing that his brother died for the Japanese in '42. he’s eager to understand your position and to explain his.

 

[Contarini]

please, feel free to die for your enemies. do not ask me to sacrifice my family for that cause.

I don’t. If you don’t want to be a Christian, that is your problem. It’s difficult. I’m not a very good one. I wouldn’t sacrifice my family for my principles either. Shucks, that’s one of the main reasons I’m not a Catholic (both because it it would cause discord within my family, and because I would probably lose my job and cause great uncertainty and distress for my wife and daughter). I am not saying that I would find it easy to die for my enemies.

the juxtaposition of the phrases “Christians are called to die for their enemies” and “Pacific War, August 1945”, is a total disconnect from any sense of reality, common sense, or justice in any iteration of the concept.

No, I’ll tell you what’s divorced from any sense of reality. And that’s the idea that a *pro-war *position is somehow easier to explain to the relatives of those who die in war than an anti-war position is. I assume that anyone who supports just war does so because they believe some things are worth dying for. If you don’t believe that, then why would you support any war at all? And if you do believe that, and are a Christian, then obviously one of the things you believe are worth dying for ought to be the love of enemies, since that’s one of the most basic Christian principles there is.

I agree that we should not ask other people (who have not chosen to make a commitment to this) to die for Christian principles. But we most certainly should not ask other people to die for something infinitely *less *than Christian principles. Such as the nation. If Christ isn’t worth dying for, why are the United States worth dying for?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have quoted you, here is another quote for you buddy. This is real life. People facing the fire: "Now, I want you to remember that no bas#%d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b&%ard die for his country. Gen. G. S. Patton

Again, that is an excellent argument for pacifism. Are you a pacifist? If not, why not?

I am no hawk, or some sort of war monger, but really, what planet do you live on? Its so easy to sit in your home office up in the cheap seats some where and bang out that kind of stuff. Here you are, a free person, writing in the English language.

None of this constitutes an argument. It’s an argumentum ad hominem–one of the oldest and lowest forms of logical fallacy there is. And I remain mystified by why it’s somehow inappropriate for a civilian not in harm’s way to *oppose *war, but perfectly honorable for such a person to support war. This is completely illogical. If I am not being put in danger by the war myself, it is surely wrong for me to engage in rah-rah-rah flag-waving about the glories of war. But it is surely quite right and honorable for me to question whether I ought to ask young men and women to kill and die for me. Yet somehow, in nationalistic rhetoric, this gets twisted around. It’s OK for me to send other people off to be killed allegedly on my behalf, as long as I tell them that their sacrifice is worthwhile. At this point we are clearly dealing with something like a religion and not with any kind of pragmatic, rational analysis. I have no objection to religion, but I see no reason to trade in Christianity for the brutal and parochial religion of nationalism.

Really, you dishonor the men and women who went off into harms way and sacrificed so much. There are just not enough words.

What you are implicitly telling me is that your religion is nationalism, and you are willing to sacrifice other people to it. (You may be willing to sacrifice yourself to it as well, for all I know–and I respect you if that is the case.) Well, it isn’t my religion. My religion is Christianity. If I’m going to die for a religion, or ask others to die for it, it’s going to be Christianity and not the United States or the British Empire or anything of that sort.

The ancient pagans didn’t like it when Christians questioned their sacrifices either.

Edwin

 

[Wirraway]

…
No, I’ll tell you what’s divorced from any sense of reality. And that’s the idea that a *pro-war *position is somehow easier to explain to the relatives of those who die in war than an anti-war position is. I assume that anyone who supports just war does so because they believe some things are worth dying for. If you don’t believe that, then why would you support any war at all? And if you do believe that, and are a Christian, then obviously one of the things you believe are worth dying for ought to be the love of enemies, since that’s one of the most basic Christian principles there is.

my grandmother never needed an explanation for the war that took the life of her son, neither did my Dad need his brother’s death explained (he’s here, I asked him). neither was anti-war, I think “pro war” is an oversimplification. they did their moral duty.

Dad did not love his enemies and would definitely not have died for them. Uncle’s opinion of the Japanese who killed him is unknowable, but its a fair inference that wasn’t in a loving mood. I didn’t serve in wartime, but my opinion aligns with family. So none of us are good Christians.

…I agree that we should not ask other people (who have not chosen to make a commitment to this) to die for Christian principles. But we most certainly should not ask other people to die for something infinitely *less *than Christian principles. Such as the nation. If Christ isn’t worth dying for, why are the United States worth dying for?

Edwin

yeah, well, nobody asked us. we all volunteered to defend the United States and none of us volunteered to die for our enemies.

throw the armed forces a bone now and then, there are people who died to preserve your right to indulge in pacificist fantasy.

 

[Contarini]

let’s go over the numbers, for the third or tenth time. the imperial japanese army killed 200,000 chinese a month for eight years because hundreds of japanese civilians supported every japanese soldier in the field. the difference between making the rifle and pulling its trigger is what?

It’s the difference between doing an act and doing something that enables another to do the act The difference should be obvious. That’s not to say that the makers of rifles were free from guilt, but they were not in fact actively engaged in killing people. Therefore, they are noncombatants.

what you don’t understand you call silly. the world of 940, peasant levies and warlords who fought between harvests, was different by orders of magnitude from the world of 1940, where every aspect of a modern industrial state like Japan was organized for a full war effort. the differences are far, far more than mere complexity.

Then explain how this is so. What you just said implies to me that in fact the difference is one of degree and not of kind. If you have an argument for why it’s a difference of kind, please provide that argument.

let’s not extend the argument. you could have made a slippery slope argument worthy of discussion, but no, you divert into fantasy that negates the challenge.

It’s a perfectly logical argument. There’s no reason that logical arguments have to be drawn from things that are scientifically possible. But if sci-fi seems too frivolous to you, here’s another way of approaching the same thing. Suppose we are engaged in a chronic conflict with a vicious enemy, a conflict that has gone on for generations and will go on for generations more. Would it be legitimate to kill the women and girls of the enemy nation, on the grounds that by bearing sons who will grow up to fight us they are combatants and thus fair game? This is not fantasy. It is the reason for many historical atrocities (though in the past it was more common to kidnap and rape the women). I fail to see how, by your logic, this would be illegitimate. You might argue that it would be preferable to bring the war to an end quickly, and this of course is why you think the use of atomic weapons may be legitimate. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any moral difference between these two measures.

So tell me–would it be legitimate to massacre women and children with swords and spears, or is it only OK if you do it from a distance with large bombs, so you don’t have to look into the eyes of your victims?

thanks, I don’t want to be your kind of Catholic anyway.

I am not in communion with Rome.

BTW, Dad is still awaiting your explanation of why, under the tenants of christian pacificism, it was a good thing that his brother died for the Japanese in '42. he’s eager to understand your position and to explain his.

I would like to understand his position. Does he think that it’s a good thing that his brother died in '42? If he does, then just what is he objecting to? Is the point that it’s good to die for your country but not for your enemies?

According to Christian pacifism, it was certainly not a good thing that his brother died in '42. Why are you bringing pacifism into it? If the U.S. had taken a pacifist policy, it would not have sent off several million young men to be killed. The position I have been defending is a just war position, and you may be right that this is untenable, because the limitations on just war are such that it is cruel and unfair to one’s own soldiers. But this is an argument for pacifism, not against it.

If your father thinks that the death of his brother ought to have been avoidable, then why is he not a pacifist? If he believes that it is worthwhile to die for one’s country, then why (if he’s a Christian) is it not worthwhile to die for Christ?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

my grandmother never needed an explanation for the war that took the life of her son, neither did my Dad need his brother’s death explained

But why not? Why is it so unquestionable that it’s OK to die for your country, but somehow inappropriate on a Christian board to suggest that we might be expected to die for Christ? (Dying for your enemies is, of course, one way of dying for Christ–since this is exactly what Christ did, and He asked us to follow in His footsteps.)

they did their moral duty.

By the standards of secular nationalism, yes. And I respect that very much. I have a great regard for pagan virtue, and dying for your country is a pagan virtue. It may be a Christian virtue too, if it is subsumed under the category of loving your neighbor. But Jesus made it very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that our enemies are our neighbors just as much as our friends are.

Dad did not love his enemies and would definitely not have died for them. Uncle’s opinion of the Japanese who killed him is unknowable, but its a fair inference that wasn’t in a loving mood. I didn’t serve in wartime, but my opinion aligns with family. So none of us are good Christians.

Neither am I. But this is a Christian board, so it is surely appropriate to point out what the Christian standard is. I did not make it up. And what I don’t understand is why someone would refuse to die for Christian principles, and then be perfectly willing to die for some other set of principles. But I believe in freedom of religion. If you want to die for something else, go ahead. Just don’t put this forward as orthodox Christianity.

yeah, well, nobody asked us. we all volunteered to defend the United States and none of us volunteered to die for our enemies.

Very true. But Christ does ask us to volunteer to die for our enemies.

And of course “defend the United States” is not as simple as it sounds. Had the U.S. pursued a purely isolationist policy, no war would have been necessary in order to defend the U.S. I’m not suggesting that this was the most moral policy to pursue. But if in fact all your family signed on for was to defend the United States in the strict sense of the phrase (i.e., to defend their neighbors and fellow-citizens from being killed or plundered or otherwise harmed by other nations), then WWII was more than you had any reason to bargain for. If what you mean by “defend the U.S.” is “defend U.S. interests,” or “defend the allies of the U.S.,” or “defend U.S. colonial possessions,” or “defend the principles for which the U.S. stands,” then it’s a different story. But at that point, again, I just don’t see why dying for all those things is so much better than dying for Christ.

Edwin

 

[Wirraway]

Edwin, sorry I missed your affiliation. You make a number of points that need a carefully considered response that is not off the cuff, but as I’m under deadline and risking getting flayed alive if I miss it, I’ll respond later today.

 

[fisheaters]

the exact same results could have been accomplished by two firebomb raids on Hiroshima (the Strategic Bombing Survey estimated 200 B-29s would have had the same effect as the one atomic bomb, so, two big raids), and on Nagasaki with a 100 B-29s. Happy with that?

because if you are, the war would have dragged on through August, September, October and maybe November, with cities like Hiroshima being levelled every week.

Correct, Curtis LeMay stated he was prepared to drop over 150,000 tons of napalm before Japan finally surrendered (thats nearly tens times the amount previously used by the B-29 over Japan).

 

[fisheaters]

The bombs were not justified and evil. Japan was already in peace negotiations with the U.S. Also we gave no warning to Japan that we had such bombs. We just did it to show we could.

We did give warning to the Japanese civilians to get out:

Leaflets Dropped on Cities in Japan
Leaflets printed with this message were dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb c. August 6, 1945.

To the Japanese People,

America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possesion of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent of in explosive powers to what two thousand of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the emporer to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan. You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Attention Japanese people. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

 

[Valke2]

i dont know his reaction, but i think it was justified. 2 attacks several hundred thousand dead(granted mostly civillian), however that probably saved millions of lives on both sides. and as we were defending against an agressor(they did start the war) more force is justified.

Why does it seem so much easier to justify nuking civilians than to justify an abortion?

 

[Wirraway]

Why does it seem so much easier to justify nuking civilians than to justify an abortion?

who are you asking? and where on this thread do you find proponents of the use of atomic weapons stating approval of abortion?

 

[GKC]

Correct, Curtis LeMay stated he was prepared to drop over 150,000 tons of napalm before Japan finally surrendered (thats nearly tens times the amount previously used by the B-29 over Japan).

An opportunity to post facts I haven’t yet, the only reason I’ll add anything to this thread.

The ramp-up of Lemay’s forces, under Spaatz, would result, by Dec 1945, in there being over 50% more B-29s available than as of 1 Aug, from 1002 aircraft, to 1648, as a result of the transfer and re-equipping of 8th AF. This would not consider the small RAF heavy bomber commitment or the use of some (tired ) B-17 and B-24 units, for a few things, nor does it include the tactical air forces or naval bombardment. The planned bomb loads for the period of Sep-Dec were a varying mix of HE and IC, with HE increasing, IC decreasing. The added aircarft would theoretically give Lemay the ability to drop as much tonnage in less than three months, as was dropped from Nov 1944 to August 1945, over 150,000 tons. And the aircraft were markedly more efficient, in accuracy, range and bomb load. Accuaracy was paticualrly increased through the use of electronic gudance systems and by replacing the standard AN/APQ-13 radar with the APQ-7.

In practice, the crew fatique factor would probably have limited the tonnage dropped, from the theoretical maximum, but it would still have been a vast increase over what was done in the 6-8 months prior to Aug (and the actual B-29 production capacity was even more than was assumed would be able to be delivered and manned).

And it would have been done. Save for the use of the atomic bombs. Two bombs. Two planes. End of war.

Good.

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

[Wonders: how would those who consider themselves to be Christian pacifists … how would they have fared had they lived in Japan or in Nazi Germany during WW2?]

 

[YipYupYep]

We did give warning to the Japanese civilians to get out: Leaflets Dropped on Cities in Japan
Leaflets printed with this message were dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb c. August 6, 1945.

I have never heard that one. Where did you read it?

 

[YipYupYep]

We did give warning to the Japanese civilians to get out:

Leaflets Dropped on Cities in Japan
Leaflets printed with this message were dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb c. August 6, 1945.

I never heard that one. Where did you read it?