What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[omgriley]

Neither did the United States. What in the world are you talking about???

I’m taking about the deaths resulting from the bombing of Nagasaki, Iwo Jima, and firebombing of Tokyo —all of which were civilian targets.

 

[omgriley]

Fine. But please, tell me what your alternative would be, and then argue why it’s better

I don’t need to provide alternatives to mass murder in order to condemn mass murder. That would be equivalent to a person who cannot provide an alternative to a rapist about to sexually assault a women. Their lack of alternatives does not allow the evil act to be carried out.

Besides, it’s above my pay grade to decide what should be done militarily, and strategically. However, I can say that murder is always wrong.

With that said, the many competent authorities at the time have all stated that Japan was on the brink of surrender as it was. We didn’t need an alternative.

 

[omgriley]

No, we won’t. I deal in history, you in the RCC definition of morality. Which you may find someone to discuss with you. It won’t be me. Take notice. History or nothing. Nothing is fine by me.

Is it not a historical fact that the United States targeted innocent civilians with the atomic bomb? The answer is yes. I simply take it a step further in assessing the moral value of such an act.

 

[GKMotley]

How about Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, Kawasaki?

 

[Curious11]

That would be equivalent to a person who cannot provide an alternative to a rapist about to sexually assault a women

Except raping a woman wouldn’t have ended WWII, so it’s not equivalent.

If you fail to provide an alternative that is better, what does it really mean to condemn the bombings? Frankly it looks like the perfect cop out. It’s an easy and judgemental answer to a situation I would wish nobody finds themselves in ever

 

[GKMotley]

Fine by me. I don’t. Keep to history.

We targeted the atomic bombs to affect the will of the relevant Japanese authorities. Had we not been able to do so, expeditiously, we could and would have continued conventional bombings, aimed at the same end. LeMay would have had, by 1945, roughly a 60% increase in B-29s alone, targeting the 2nd tier of Japanese cities, those with a population of at least 30,000. Which was a target population, in the 180 cities, of over 5 million. And we would have continued the interdiction of transportation systems, blockading of the Asian mainland from supplying foodstuffs to the Home Islands, through mining, and a few other things. All the while the overall death toll in the theater continued.

 

[Elf01]

I hope so too.

However, you need to understand some principles of Catholic morality. It is not permissible for a human to do evil so that good may come of it even if it seems that a worse evil will happen.

The direct targeting of civilians in a war situation is evil, even if options that do not directly target them are unavailable or are likely to lead to even more deaths.

 

[GKMotley]

Tihs is indeed as I read it.

 

[Curious11]

Right. But which course of action was not “evil”?

1. Appeasing Japan: that would set a horrible precedent that it can do whatever it wants with no consequences. Which led us into WWII in the first place.
2. Invading Japan, conventional bombing and naval blockade. Implies willingly entering a country by force, willingly starving the population and willingly killing all those who resist. And this knowing full well the USSR will also invade and half the country will end up in communist slavery.
3. Negotiated surrender: that would imply giving Japan concessions, failing to properly punish war criminals and allowing a dangerous regime to continue and maybe one day rebuild and attack again

What’s someone to do when there is no action that is not intrinsically evil? What does the Church say about that?

 

[omgriley]

Well i should remind you that we’re having a discussion on the morality of the bombing on a Catholic lay forum. So I’m sorry if your only interested in the historical facts, but you’re going to find more than that here.

 

[omgriley]

What’s someone to do when there is no action that is not intrinsically evil? What does the Church say about that?

As Elf01 pointed out to you: Evil may never be done, even if good may come of it. Period.

Appeasing Japan: that would set a horrible precedent that it can do whatever it wants with no consequences. Which led us into WWII in the first place

“Appeasing”? “No consequences”?? Are you serious? Whole cities were being obliterated. Japan received anything but appeasement.

Invading Japan, conventional bombing and naval blockade

You may be unaware, but the US was already engaged in conventional bombing and had set up an extremely sophisticated naval blockades.

Negotiated surrender: that would imply giving Japan concession

In what world would a negotiated surrender be a bad thing? It would end the war, save lives, and defeat Japan.

 

[Curious11]

As Elf01 pointed out to you: Evil may never be done, even if good may come of it. Period

What if every option out there is evil?

In what world would a negotiated surrender be a bad thing? It would end the war, save lives, and defeat Japan.

It would mean the reckless and crazy kamikaze government would have remained in power. No justice would have been served for the victims of Japanese atrocities, and it carried the risk, therefore, of future war occurring again because the government was not toppled and the crazy military junta was still in power. How can you trust a government that one day simply decides to attack Pearl Harbour?

 

[Curious11]

“Appeasing”? “No consequences”?? Are you serious? Whole cities were being obliterated. Japan received anything but appeasement.

I was saying what would have happened if the US had hypothetically chosen to follow a policy of appeasement.

You may be unaware, but the US was already engaged in conventional bombing and had set up an extremely sophisticated naval blockades.

I was saying what would have happened if the US had hypothetically chosen to follow a policy of naval blockade and conventional bombing and invasion only, rather than using nuclear weapons

 

[GKMotley]

No doubt. Remember that I’ve been doing this for around 14 years, on line, on a number of boards. I explain what I do, Some folk understand, others don’t. If I see no history, I have no reason to comment. If I see dubious, doubtful, debatable attempts to introduce “and anyway” history (Anyway, the Japanese were X, the Americans were Y, which means Z), I do comment, based on my focus on the topic for around 25 years. IF I see accurate history, I may comment. It’s rare, but I appreciate it.

The subject, from a RC teaching viewpoint, is simple, and the relevant history is not, and is not…relevant. It would seem to me that it would thus be simple to keep to the teachings of the RCC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Trying, via google/internet, to bolster that rather simple calculus, by reference to history, especially when that history is little comprehended, if at all, is more a sign of lack of faith in the basic teaching, which would not be affected whatever the actual history might be. Opinion.

Be that as it may, I do history. As best I can. Note Bene.

 

[GKMotley]

As Pershing said, in disgust, after the negotiated end to WWI, in 25 years, we’re going to have to do it all over again. Which point was well in the minds of the generation conducting that doing it all over again.

 

[Elf01]

None of them seem intrinsically evil to me.

Which led us into WWII in the first place.

I think that the desire to punish Germany after WW1 had a lot to do with Hitler getting into power.

Invading Japan, conventional bombing and naval blockade. Implies willingly entering a country by force, willingly starving the population and willingly killing all those who resist. And this knowing full well the USSR will also invade and half the country will end up in communist slavery.

Horrible consequences, but note I said, even if more die using non intrinsically evil means. Deaths in a just war are not intrinsically evil and the civilians are not being directly targeted.

Negotiated surrender: that would imply giving Japan concessions, failing to properly punish war criminals and allowing a dangerous regime to continue and maybe one day rebuild and attack again

The best option imo. While unlikely the regime change and punishments may have been achieved and if not I doubt Japan was in any state to launch attacks for a while. Also the results of more recent forced regime changes have been disastrous. Thank God that did not happen with Japan.

 

[Curious11]

I think that the desire to punish Germany after WW1 had a lot to do with Hitler getting into power.

Yeah well if Germany had been coherent, they would have understood the Treaty of Versailles (which wasn’t as harsh as people thought), given how they had treated Russia in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

The best option imo. While unlikely the regime change and punishments may have been achieved and if not I doubt Japan was in any state to launch attacks for a while.

How about not launching attacks forever? You must understand, “a while” is not good enough, after 2 world wars and the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. If you cut off a psychopathic killer’s arm but you don’t put him in prison, what are you really solving?

None of them seem intrinsically evil to me.

How is landing in a country with the intention of using lethal force and destruction of every living being that gets in the way to force the surrender of that country any less evil?

 

[omgriley]

What if every option out there is evil?

A hypothetical situation wherein all possible means to achieving a goal are evil would logically forbid any action at all. This is hypothetical though, and in no way resembles the situation in WW2. What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy of:

1. Drop the nuke and murder hundreds of thousands innocents, thereby ending the war or;
2. Don’t drop the nuke and continue the war for an unforeseen and indeterminable amount of time.

I’ve alreay told you that Japan was making efforts to surrender, prior to 1945 which would have prevented a ground invasion, soviet involvement, and nuclear bombs. Your choice is to ignore that.

It would mean the reckless and crazy kamikaze government would have remained in power. No justice would have been served for the victims of Japanese atrocities, and it carried the risk, therefore, of future war occurring again because the government was not toppled and the crazy military junta was still in power. How can you trust a government that one day simply decides to attack Pearl Harbour?

This is just total nonsense. The government Japan as of 1945 would not have remained. You’re simply substituting a lack of an understanding of the relevant facts in favor of nationalistic pride. By the winter of 1944 the United States had more than served justice in Japan. They were being pumbled daily. By the spring the country was on the verge of collapse. Employing nuclear devastation to “end the war” was not justice; it was revenge. There was nothing noble or just or right about it.

 

[GKMotley]

No one in Japan was making any attempt to surrender, prior to the dropping of the bombs. That is historically fallacious. If you think otherwise, name them. And name who had the only legal authority to authorize a surrender. That is, who or what group, under what conditions, could actually surrender.

I see no sign you have the slightest grasp of the relevant facts. There was not the slightest hint that the existing power structure would not have remained at least as long as the second part of DOWNFALL. There was no rebellion, no lack of military control of the government, no mutinies, no planned coups. no dissidents, no resistance. Until, of course, the day before the reading of the Imperial Rescript. See JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY, among others.

 

[AlNg]

Can a Catholic ever believe the ends can justify the means with regards to America’s use of the atomic bomb on Japan. The answer remains an unquestionable NO.

Of course you are absolutely right on this. But in addition to what you have said I think that those arguing wrongly in favor of the bomb should think about the precedent that has been set by the Americans. The technology to develop and manufacture an atomic bomb is out there and already many small countries such as Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are said to have the means to produce such a bomb. What is to prevent some small fanatical terrorist group from either getting or developing their own atomic bomb and using it on some pretext or another such as that its use will save many lives or if it hadn’t been used many more people would be killed, or that they are fighting against a barbaric enemy, etc.