C
Curious11
Guest
The US was never gonna exercise that right if it handnt been attacked first. It’s not like the US one day got bored and got into WWII to show everyone who’s the baddest in town
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I can’t bring myself to call America a template of modern peaceful democracy. They seem to have fought in endless wars since WW2, and millions have died.Also, like a Fuehrer, a divine Emperor, on an imperial throne, was not in accord with a template of modern, peaceful democracy. Which we were going to establish.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Ah, but we looked so promising in 1945.
For one thing, I was born. Good omen.
For one thing, I was born. Good omen.
C
Curious11
Guest
The US saved Europe from Nazism and later Communism. I agree it’s not perfect but give it some credit. The world is a better place thanks to some things the US has done and still does
G
GKMotley
Guest
The target of the bombs, in the eyes of those who authorized their use, was neither the people (civilian or military), nor the infrastructure or the military capability or its support structures. It was the will of the relevant Japanese authorities, those who directly controlled the surrender decision. We had destroyed comparable people/stuff over 8-9 months of strategic bombing,using 250-300-350 increasing numbers of B-sans. This was shock and awe. One plane, one bomb, one city. It worked. In 4 days.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Sure we did. You may have noticed that, in addition, we did so.
E
Elf01
Guest
And that to me is what makes it immoral.It was the will of the relevant Japanese authorities, those who directly controlled the surrender decision.
Last edited:
O
omgriley
Guest
Murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent human being --something all reasonable and sane people will agree is always wrong. Therefore, the United States murdered 300,000 innocent human beings. Furthermore, there is no credibility to the claim that the atomic bomb saved “millions of lives.”Murder is your term. Kill is mine. And the answer is a proportionalist/consequentialist one: to avoid killing more, for lack of doing so. 300,000 is a high figure for the period usually used to gauge (uncertainly) the total directly killed in the bombings. Which was roughly what would have occurred, absent the bombings, in all areas of the Pacific theater, in roughly a month. Parsimony in death, not profligacy
Well seeing as the Church is the competent authority on morality, when She says evil cannot be done that good may come of it, She is speaking infallibly.As to what a RC may believe, that would be (IMO) what the Church teaches on the subject, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Not something I deal in, in the 14 years of relating history on line, on the topic.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Ok by me. Consider it moral/immoral as you will. My subject is the history.
O
omgriley
Guest
Baloney. The United States was not targeting some abstract “will of the Japanese” to fight the war. The US targeted and eviscerated an unarmed, defenseless, and innocent civilian population --among said population were 12 of their own airmen!The target of the bombs, in the eyes of those who authorized their use, was neither the people (civilian or military), nor the infrastructure or the military capability or its support structures. It was the will of the relevant Japanese authorities, those who directly controlled the surrender decision. We had destroyed comparable people/stuff over 8-9 months of strategic bombing,using 250-300-350 increasing numbers of B-sans. This was shock and awe. One plane, one bomb, one city. It worked. In 4 days.
In the face of credible and reasonable opinion that the Japanese would surrender before the end of 1945, dropping the atomic bomb was not only unnecessary, it was barbaric.
G
GKMotley
Guest
And certainly you should listen. I’ll relate the history. Whatever position you take on the morality is of no interest to me.
This is a point that, in the 14 years I’ve been posting on this, I am constantly having to reiterate.I have my position on the morality, but I no more am interested in discussing it than I am in discussing yours. If history doesn’t show up in the discussions I (a) rejoice) and (b) make no comments on the subject. If history does, I do. All RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty what the Church (say, in Gaudium et Spes) teaches on the subject. If no “and any way” historical fallacies (as I see them) follow, you won’t see me at all.
This is a point that, in the 14 years I’ve been posting on this, I am constantly having to reiterate.I have my position on the morality, but I no more am interested in discussing it than I am in discussing yours. If history doesn’t show up in the discussions I (a) rejoice) and (b) make no comments on the subject. If history does, I do. All RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty what the Church (say, in Gaudium et Spes) teaches on the subject. If no “and any way” historical fallacies (as I see them) follow, you won’t see me at all.
Last edited:
O
omgriley
Guest
I’m not questioning the United States’ justification for entering the war. I’m questioning it’s justification for ending the war. In fact, I, along with the Church, countless theologians, Dwight Eisenhower, William Leahy, the USSBS and countless other experts are saying there is no justification for it.The US was never gonna exercise that right if it handnt been attacked first. It’s not like the US one day got bored and got into WWII to show everyone who’s the baddest in town
G
GKMotley
Guest
Not the USSBS. Paul Nitze.
O
omgriley
Guest
Then you and I will both agree that the United States murdered 300,000 innocent civilians. That’s history.And certainly you should listen. I’ll relate the history. Whatever position you take on the morality is of no interest to me.
C
Curious11
Guest
Fine. But please, tell me what your alternative would be, and then argue why it’s better
G
GKMotley
Guest
They precisely were. But not the will of the abstract people. The will of very specific people. Roughly 20 of them,
More like 15 US airmen.
Had it surrendered in (let us say) Jan 1945, the average monthly death toll in the Pacific Theater (not including the opening of Slim’s/14th Army Operation Zipper in Sep 1945), would have continued for roughly 4 months, around roughly 1 million, not assuming the opening of Operation Olympic.
More like 15 US airmen.
Had it surrendered in (let us say) Jan 1945, the average monthly death toll in the Pacific Theater (not including the opening of Slim’s/14th Army Operation Zipper in Sep 1945), would have continued for roughly 4 months, around roughly 1 million, not assuming the opening of Operation Olympic.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
Yeah, I was answering the post about you saying the US had no right to impose a democracy, not the atomic bombs
G
GKMotley
Guest
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.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Neither did the United States. What in the world are you talking about???The Japanese never eviscerated over 300,000 innocent women and children.
Repeating the same thing makes it no more true or believable.According to very highly respected men of high military rank, and available declassified intelligence material, we know the Japanese were seeking a peaceful way to end the war as early as December of 1944.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
I would think he’s thinking of the two bombs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.