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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two things caused the surrender. The bombs, and the fact that the Soviets had removed the only idea Togo had come up with to soften the surrender, by declaring war. The impact of that declaration was only in the theoretical stage, militarily, when the Emperor directed that the Potsdam Declaration be accepted, after the rigged gozen kaigen, 9-10 Aug, but diplomatically, it closed a door. And the bombs closed another one, the plan to cause such a blood-bath in the invasion, using the ketshu-go plan, that the Allies would accept a negotiated surrender. This was the integral and protean Japanese concept of the kantai kessen, the decisive battle, that always loomed before the Japanese eyes.

Truman never explicitly said that, as to the Emperor. Neither did the message that was sent, following the assumption that Japan stated, as to the impact of surrendering , on the Emperor’s role. Which question came only after the bombs, and the Soviets. Until then, the war faction held the field.

We didn’t wish to “save” the Japanese from the Soviets (who did show a fine talent for death and destruction, and other things, in that part of Europe they crossed, to Berlin. We wanted to ensure that Japan didn’t become like that part of Europe, part of the Soviet’s new empire. it didn’t.

There was no chance that we would maintain a sole monopoly on the bomb. And your scriptural interpretation as to inevitable nuclear apocalypse, lies primarily between your ears.

You are a very slow learner. But then, so were the Japanese at the time.
 
Last edited:
You know, that last para is pretty much what I have been saying. For years.
 
GKMotley said:
There was no chance that we would maintain a sole monopoly on the bomb. And your scriptural interpretation as to inevitable nuclear apocalypse, lies primarily between your ears.

You are a very slow learner. But then, so were the Japanese at the time.
Click to expand...
The USA had at least a five year lead on the USSR in nuclear weapons development, but the A-bombing of Japan motivated Stalin to redouble his efforts while in the USA the project languished. It is not proven that, with its 5 year lead, the USA could not have eliminated the USSR’s nuclear program if it had refrained from using its new weapon prematurely.

Scripture, which we all believe in, is quite clear about a coming disaster of fire, and that fire can only be global nuclear war since YHWH promised in Genesis 8:21 that He would never again cause a world-wide catastrophe. I really don’t think that a lot of “interpretation” is required here.

The “slow learner” that you speak of is all of us, all mankind. We have been given, over and over again, our Creator’s primary laws: to love and trust in Him and to love our neighbors. But instead of following these laws, we indulge ourselves in the human propensity towards violence by building massive nuclear weapons systems. So we have to learn the hard way, which will be that we will have to suffer the ravages of global nuclear war. After which our Creator will again say to us, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and the survivors will look up and reply, “Oh, you were serious about that?”
 
The Soviets had a full throttle program, from 1941. it’s why Beria was in charge of cracking the whip.

I do love your prescription for a preventative, prophylactic preemptive strike, sanctioned by the Church, no doubt. After a dedicated program to built more W-4s, more Silverplate model B-29s, get rid of Kenney. Going to take time, to try to put the genie back into the bottle so no one can get it out again. Reminds me of William F. Buckley, on the Chi-coms, in the 50s.Would your attack stress counter-force, or counter-value?

No, only in your head. Like Harold Camping and his ilk.
 
Last edited:
You are in hand-to-hand combat in a fight to the death.

And you are worried that you might land a low blow on the enemy who is working to kill you?
 
MonteRCMS said:
I always ask people: what would YOU have done. And they just stammer and sputter.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn’t ask too many people? How many did you ask? There have been many alternative scenarios presented. One, for example, would have been to drop the bomb over a nearby ocean and let it explode there. Then wait to see the reaction from the Japanese leadership.
 
GKMotley said:
The Soviets had a full throttle program, from 1941. it’s why Beria was in charge of cracking the whip.
Click to expand...
Not according to WIKI which reports:
  1. After learning of the A-bombings of Japan. . .the (a-bomb) program was aggressively persued, mainly though intelligence gathering.
  2. In April of 1942 Flyovov sent two letters to Stalin warning him of the consequences of the development of the atomic bomb . . .“the results will be so overriding that it won’t be necessary to determine who is to blame for the fact that this work has been neglected in our country.”
  3. The situation dramatically changed when the USSR learned of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Wiki reports that it was in late 1945 when the Soviet politburo took control of the atomic bomb development and only then was Beria placed in charge.

Even with this drastically accelerated intelligence gathering and development it still was not until August 1949 that the USSR could detonate an atomic bomb.

The conclusion is that the USA had many years head start in nuclear weapons technology over the USSR, and, had it not wasted its advantage on Japan, Flyovov’s fears about the “overriding results” of Soviet neglect could have been realized. The USA certainly had the means, but lacked the foresight, the will, and the leadership necessary to continue as the world’s sole nuclear armed state.
 
Last edited:
In real life, that was one of the alternatives.

The Japanese would have laughed the United States out of the war.
 
I don’t routinely disparage wiki, and that is as likely as my memory that Beria took over the control of the program in 1943. It wasn’t the bombing of the cities that made the Soviets increase their pace. It was Trinity. Followed in less than a year by Crossroads, That there was a bomb and what it did, could not be hidden, if we were to have one at all. And in 1945, American estimates of how long it would take the Soviets to develop the bomb ranged from 5-10 years. Five was correct. What was incorrect is your assumption that we could have either coerced the Soviets into stopping their programs, or destroyed their capability to continue them, either as a theoretical possibility or a practical one. What would you suggest they bomb? And what would you suggest be used? When? And who would have suggested such a policy? To prevent any sufficiently developed nation from acquiring the bomb would have meant somehow suppressing. the technical information developed prior to the use of the weapons. We could not have done so indefinitely. And we could not have functioned as nuclear overlords of the world, threatening and attacking any nation pursuing atomic weapons. When the genie was out, it was out.

On another tack, why do you think that we might not have attacked the Soviet Union after Joe-1, and before they had a practical delivery system, or a functional stockpile of weapons. We had roughly 300 W4s in 1949. The Soviets had none. We could have, by your thinking, attacked at that point. And then the Brits, 3 years later. And so on. We could have had the use of the weapons on Japan, and the club over the Soviets. Best of both worlds.
 
Yep, it was certainly suggested, and rejected. Several citations might be made, but I need some coffee. So, only one story.

A young physicist who had declined to work for the Manhattan project, on moral principles, was in Japan about 15 years after the war, on an unrelated physics project. He talked with a number of Japanese scientists, who happened to have been working in various military areas during the war. Curious, he asked what sort of a demonstration would have been necessary to convince the Japanese war leaders that they should give up, short of dropping the bomb on a target, expecting a response of “Off shore high altitude burst” or something like that. All he spoke with were quite puzzled, at the question, and his failure to appreciate the nature of the war, as Japan saw it, and how the country was run. Wilson concluded that any such concept of the utility of a demonstration reflected a gross misunderstanding, by Westerners, of the Japanese mind. The story is in Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, chap. 4, “Why No Warning or Demonstration?”, a thorough discussion of the topic…

And, of course, the bomb was demonstrated. About 1900 feet above and 800 feet south east of the Aioi bridge. Quite effectively demonstrated what it would do. It didn’t change the war leaders’ minds.
 
Last edited:
You make some good points, TY. The USA would have had to use the A-bomb on the USSR in order to prevent the Soviets from developing their own nuclear weapon. It’s perhaps understandable that the USA was unwilling to do this. Hindsight, as I have said, is a wonderful thing, and it is hard to fault our former leaders for not being able to see into the future. But looking into the past we are able to see that the USA missed its chance to avoid the present conundrum of the standoff between two heavily armed nuclear superpowers. But there is still a way out of this mess if only our country can find the will to take that road: unilateral nuclear disarmament.
 
We disagree on several points, but that is a more …reasonable assertion of your position, IMO. Which I’m beginning to take a strange liking for. We could have dropped the bombs on Japan, and subsequently on the Soviet Union, though it would have been a difficult thing to do, given the logistics of the thing. As I said somewhere, this reminds me of when Buckley was advocating taking out the Chi-coms nascent nuclear program for the same reason.
 
Last edited:
Being a son and a nephew of WW2 vets I have always thought it was completely justified to have dropped both atomic bombs. I would even say grateful as I may not have been born if the war had continued.
For the past few years my rigid opinion has turned 180. This doesnt mean I would judge Truman in any way. Thats an exclusive task for God alone. At first I could not reconcile the Church’s stance with the " the succesful " outcome. So I read some different perspectives on it, not just from a Catholic point of view, but a historical one as well. The tipping point for me is the book HIROSHIMA NAGASAKI by Paul Han. The sticking point to me is the absolute demand of Unconditional Surrender by the White House. The war could have ended months earlier had we negotiated a peace that included the preservation of the emperor, a small price to pay for the many thousands of lives saved.The immense political pressure at home to end the war contributed to this this decision too. There were many more factors too. Russia, and the Cold War which was already starting to take form. Please take a look at this article from REAL CLEAR POLITICS We Didn't Have to Drop the Bomb | RealClearPolitics
One other thing that needs to be talked about is the after effects of radiation sickness. A slow and tortues death that made the devestated areas a labratory for scientists. I know, I know I love America too and keep praying for her.

Johndw
 
AlNg said:
I guess you didn’t ask too many people? How many did you ask? There have been many alternative scenarios presented.
Click to expand...
I think I gave three above. Of course, there will be nay-sayers. I have to shake my head at those who think they have such insight. Even Truman did not know what would happen with the decision he made. That is why there was third bomb and plans to ramp up production if more were needed.
 
The sort of stuff in Kucinich’s article has been addressed throughout this thread, and the Lord knows how many other ones I been in over the last 14 years. References are in the thread above, for many such, Eisenhower in particular. Folks who discover the internet on this topic are more impressed than folk who have dealt in books on the subject, for 24 years. I suggest Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, esp. chap. 2, HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY: THE MYTHS OF REVISIONISM, ed./ Maddox, esp. his chap 1, and his WEAPONS FOR VICTORY: THE HIROSHIMA DECISION, esp. chap. 7. And add in Kort (ed) THE COLUMBIA GUIDE TO HIROSHIMA AND THE BOMB, part II, esp. key question #1.

TO balance Ham, do read the best single book on what happened and why, Frank’s DOWNFALL: THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE…
 
Last edited:
Undead_rat:

A question: have you ever actually been in actual real hands on combat … life and death … dead people all over the place … if even in a support role … totally isolated and disconnected remote from the internet?
 
Thanks for asking. I was in the US Navy for 4 years as a hospital corpsman: 1964-1968.
I spent the majority of my post training time with the 3rd Marine Division: 3rd Batt/ 4th Marines, 3rd Recon Batt. & 3rd Shore Party Batt.
Does that answer your question?
 
The topic has been discussed in depth for years, but so far no one has actually come up with a better suggestion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top