B
brian_custer
Guest
i don’t see the alt-history scenario you are postulating whatsover
What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- Status
B
brian_custer
Guest
i think we all know that that the a-bombs dropped over japan are toys compared to the nuclear weapons that exist today
thank God these weapons have never been used in war
thank God these weapons have never been used in war
P
pnewton
Guest
Just that you said there was not Church opinion on the bombings. If you meant “at that time,” as your response may suggest, then I apologize, except it never hurts to post Church teaching. I agree with you 100% that this all occurred later, which is why it is unjust to judge the subjective nature of the decision based on moral lessons that decision taught.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course not. It did not happen, just like the invasion of the mainland did not happen. No one saw that which did not happen.
B
brian_custer
Guest
but the ending of a savage, vicious global war DID happen due to the drop of two small (by modern standards) a-bombs
that is real history
that is real history
R
Rau
Guest
But such conclusion would be wrong if the action amounts to directly killing innocents. [Innocents are not the proper persons to experience our retributive Justice.]. The theology that recognizes such acts as immoral by virtue of their object has long existed. The a-bomb is just the tool du-jour. It’s use in populated areas is very likely always to be wrong in its object.
Can you explain the expression “total war”?
Last edited:
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
If Japan had the bombs, they could have bombed America city by city until they surrendered. Then America would not have been able to fight in a further 37 countries since WW2, and be responsible for another twenty million deaths.
When you win war with bombs, you keep the peace with bombs. We have to look to some remarkable people who strived to win through peaceful means, Ghandi and Mandela.
R
runningdude
Guest
Total War is directing war efforts against the entire population of the aggresor state on the theory that there is no truly “innocent” population, as it is the combined efforts and interests of the entire population drive the aggresor state’s actions. Thus the entire aggresor state population must be subdued to protect the defending state’s interests.
(The definition is of course self-justifying.)
That is not morally relevant, except perhaps to justify the United States in seeking unconditional surrender so that Japan would be precluded from developing nuclear weapons of its own.
G
GKMotley
Guest
You know anything about the site you linked to, for those assertions? Just curious.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Looking around the net shows a lot of interesting things about that site and group. Wiki has a specifiic entry on it.
Sort of like the Institute for Historical Review, with a broader scope.
Sort of like the Institute for Historical Review, with a broader scope.
P
pnewton
Guest
You are absolutely right. There is no moral dilemna at all for the consequentialist, or as I call it, hindsight philosophy.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t say that. The moral choice is just in another place.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would throw MLK in there as well for helping to turn the violence of racial strife into real progress through non-violent protest. However, these examples are about civil strife. I do not think they can be used as any example of how to respond to conflict with an aggressor nation. I am not saying that such a solution might be applied to that situation, but I cannot think of any and no of no parallels.
C
Curious11
Guest
Yeah, but try stopping Hitler with Ghandi and Mandela’s methods…
G
GKMotley
Guest
The mention of Gandhi, and also of alternate history SF in the thread, had me stacking my alternate history SF books, looking for something relevant to this observation, earlier today. I found 28 such books, but not the one I wanted. So I’ll do the story from memory. It assumes an Axis victory in WWII. Subsequent to Japanese incursions into the Indian Ocean (true) and Japanese victories in Burma, sweeping into India (nope), and Germans knocking the Soviet Union out of the war, and moving south and east to link up with the Japanese conquerors of India (not true, but a theoretical plan) we find the German leader of the Aryans (Field Marshall Model) confronting Gandhi. Who, when faced with the Nazi occupation, attempts the sort of peaceful dissent/non-aggressive pacifism and non- cooperation that actually contributed to the British leaving the place, 4 years later. Gandhi is familiar with the European’s ways, of course. He knows what Dyer did at Amritsar, 26 years before, so, knowing Brits, he surely knows Nazis. Nope. But shortly later, he did, and so did Nehru. And lots of other Indians. And the Germans began to remake the place in the image they desired. Unconstrained by anything other than superior power. Which was also the case in the real world.
Not the real world, an alternate one. But a real world lesson.
Not the real world, an alternate one. But a real world lesson.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Ghandi was the right man at the right time. Had he been born a German Jew, we would never had hear his name, if everything else he did was the same.
G
GKMotley
Guest
In the real world, yes.
A
adgloriam
Guest
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
- Status