Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[Brendan]

Pete2:

God was driving the bus on that one, not man, it says it plain as day in the bible.

Pete

Ah, but Romans 13:3-4 clearly puts God in the drivers seat as well when Justice is being performed.

'Do not be afraid of him, for I have delivered him into your hand with all his people and his land. Do to him as you did to Sihon, king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon.

In addition, does God ever tell man to perform an injustice or immorality?

Did God tell them to kill the women and children here, or did the Isrealites sin by doing so? Did God tell them to plunder the livestock or did they sin by doing so?

 

[SamCA]

mjdonnelly:

They thought our troops were going to eat their kids, all sorts of stuff. Their military must have had great public relations reps to get everyone to follow their emperor to their death. Imagine, trying to fight a war with suicide tactics. It’s just crazy.

It’s also not entirely propaganda. Some percentage of soldiers lose it in war, and our soldiers are no exception. There are pictures that survive to this day of American tank groups in some of the Pacific islands that have draped their tanks with the severed heads of Japanese soldiers.

Not to mention the fact that long before the atomic bombs were dropped, we caused more civilian casualties to the Japanese population by firebombing their cities than has ever been seen before in human history.

People have this idea that American soldiers in World War II were all Captain America, that we were the shining knights fighting the evil Japs and Nazis while still keeping our hands clean. That isn’t true. Our hands were probably cleaner than theirs, but that’s not exactly saying much, and the Japanese citizenry had every reason to fear our soldiers. After all, we’d burned a few hundred thousand of them alive.

 

[Pete2]

Brendan:

Ah, but Romans 13:3-4 clearly puts God in the drivers seat as well when Justice is being performed.

In addition, does God ever tell man to perform an injustice or immorality?

I don’t think you’re proving your point. With Sodom and Gomorrah, God destroyed the towns. With Bashan, God told man to destroy the town.

I admittedly have not read all of your very lengthy posts in detail, but can I summarize your argument like this: because God destroys towns, and God is morally perfect and man should imitate Him, then there must be circumstances where man can also destroy towns?

If that’s the essence of it, then I don’t see how providing more examples of God destroying towns (or God telling man to destroy towns) makes your point. Humans aren’t God. God wants humans to worship Him, so does that mean that we should also want humans to worship us? We’re not God.

The only acceptable circumstances for destroying a town is if God does it directly, or God’s voice booms from the sky and tells us to do it, but that doesn’t seem to happen any more.

Pete

 

[Philip_P]

Brendan:

Next question, can the CCC contradict Scripture?, Both are protected by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot contradict.

I see no contradiction, apparent or otherwise. The problem might be in your personal interpretation of the word ‘indiscriminate’ in the CCC. I view it as a qualifer, which removes any contradiction.

“Indiscriminate” may very well be the important word in this passage. In my long response I’ve given some reasons why I think indiscriminate refers to atomic/nuclear weapons. Let’s see if Ani picks this up in his rebuttal.

Is your premise now that an action performed by humans is moral if it is recorded in Scripture that would otherwise be immoral?. Otherwise, I fail to see the distinction.

No, my premise is that different methods of interpretation are appropriate to different genres. A poem is read differently from a textbook, for instance. My position is simpy that I lack the necessary knowledge and training to attempt an exegesis on the relevant OT passages.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Indiscriminate” may very well be the important word in this passage. In my long response I’ve given some reasons why I think indiscriminate refers to atomic/nuclear weapons. Let’s see if Ani picks this up in his rebuttal.

Of course an alternate interpretation might be that “indiscriminate” means “indiscriminate.”

It is not so much the design of the weapon, but the use to which it is put. An attack on a large and spread-out target is not per se indiscriminate. Nor can an enemy gain immunity from attack by putting war facilities in the midst of civilians.

Similarly, the man who builds a weapon is no less a legitimate target than the man who maintains it, or the man who uses it in combat – even if he doesn’t wear a uniform. All three can be attacked.

To answer the question of the atomic bombs, we have to ask, “Did they have a specific objective? Would that objective have been legitimate if attacked by other means?”

 

[Pete2]

vern humphrey:

To answer the question of the atomic bombs, we have to ask, “Did they have a specific objective? Would that objective have been legitimate if attacked by other means?”

The objective was to terrorize the Japanese government into surrender, it was not a military objective. The military factories in Hiroshima were on the outskirts of the city, but the bombing was targeted for the center of the city.

The Church, and our own Catholic Answers apologists agree that this was the objective:

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Pete

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Part 1 of 5 parts
Philip P:

Response to Ani, Part 1/2. Ok Ani, here’s my response, finally. I’ve tried to condense, but it still runs a bit long.

Thank you for setting out the Principle of Double Effect and for applying such to the act in question. Herewith is my version of the same:

The act in question is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance in August 1945. For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

The First Test for Double Effect

---

The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);

Application of the First Test to the act in question*:*
**

The object of the act was to end the Pacific War and consisted of the following:

Behaviour: bombing with atomic ordinance.

And

Proximate intention: to neutralize the threat of Japanese military command, materiels, and troops to the people and legitimate government of the United States.

Not intrinsically evil: The object was not to countermand a commitment to God, neighbour, or self in that the object was not to destroy the enemy for the sake of destroying the enemy. (For example, the bombing was not comparable to a Honduran torture pit run by sociopaths who had no understanding or interest in Central American peace and stability.)

The object was to neutralize the means by which the enemy could continue to destroy American property and kill American citizens. This object, in itself, therefore was not intrinsically evil.

Therefore the first test of double effect is met.
**
continued in part 2…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Part 2 of 5 parts

The Second Test for Double Effect

1. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;

Application of the Second Test to the act in question*:*

The Japanese military command, materiels, and concentration of troops were located – or were hubbed – in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The direct intention of the bombing was to neutralize the command, materiels, and troops. The direct intention was not to harm the civilian population in which the command, materiels, and troops were embedded.

Harming the civilian population, however, was a necessary consequence of the bombing because the Japanese military hub was embedded in the civilian population. Nevertheless harming the civilian population was not the direct intention of the bombing; it was the indirect intention of the bombing.

Therefore the second test for double effect is met.

continued in part 3…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Part 3 of 5 parts

The Third Test for Double Effect

---

1. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;

Application of the Third Test to the act in question*:*
**
**
The foreseen beneficial effects were the neutralizing of the Japanese military command, materiels, and concentration of troops. The foreseen harmful effects were the harm to the civilian population.

Neutralization was achieved at the same time as the harm to the civilian population but not by means of the harm to the civilian population.

There were no other means of achieving the beneficial effects – neutralization of the Japanese military – without a demonstration of overwhelming military superiority.

Wolsely (Post 151) has enumerated the enormous depth of Japanese preparedness to extend the Pacific War and the enormous cost – in the millions of lives to say nothing of infrastructure – on both sides that such an extension would have meant. The Japanese military, for their part, knew full well what the atomic bomb could do. They were preparing their own bomb. The Americans, for their part, beat them to it.

If the Americans had waited, the Japanese would have had their own atomic bomb. The likelihood of them using it on the U.S. was enormous. The fact that the Americans did not wait demonstrated their overwhelming military superiority to the Japanese military. Demonstrating overwhelming military superiority to the Japanese military meant neutralizing Japanese military command, materiels, and troop concentration by means of bombing them with atomic ordinance.

Therefore the third test for double effect is met.
**
**
**
continued in part 4…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Part 4 of 5 parts

*The Fourth Test for Double Effect

---

**
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);

Application of the Fourth Test to the act in question*:*

Wolsely and Vern have pointed to the enormous casualties – in the millions – which would have ensued had the War continued beyond August 1945. Widespread death among the Japanese alone due to combat, hunger, cold, and disease would have come close to wiping out their population. And the damage to Japanese infrastructure would have staggered the imagination.

American combat deaths were projected in the high hundreds of thousands and this does not take into account injuries and war stress syndrome which, given the horrific nature of such an invasion, would have had intergenerational harmful effects on the American psyche.

These, however, were not the foreseen harmful effects of the act in question. The foreseen harmful effects were the harm to the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The foreseen beneficial effects of the act in question were the neutralization of the Japanese military command, materiels, and troop concentration.

However another foreseen beneficial effect was the avoidance of the stupefying numbers of casualities and damage to infrastructure necessarily ensuing from continuing conventional warfare with the Japanese military.

The foreseen beneficial effects unequivocally far outweigh the foreseen harmful effects.

Therefore the fourth test for double effect is met.

*continued in part 5…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Part 5 of 5 parts

---

The Fifth Test for Double Effect

---

1. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Application of the Fifth Test to the act in question*:*
**
**
One beneficial effect was the neutralization of the Japanese military command, materiels, and troop concentration. When the atomic bombs were dropped, this neutralization occurred at the same time as the harmful effects to the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The other beneficial effect of avoiding the casualties and damage to infrastructure which a protracted War would have meant also occurred at the same time as the harmful effects to the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not necessary to wait for the following winter to avoid the casualties and damage. They were avoided in August 1945, by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance.

Therefore the fifth test for double effect is met.
__________
**
**
All tests for double effect are met. Therefore the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance were licit acts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think this was in response to me, but somehow I can’t find the post:

The objective was to terrorize the Japanese government into surrender, it was not a military objective. The military factories in Hiroshima were on the outskirts of the city, but the bombing was targeted for the center of the city.

Putting aside the use of value-laden words like “terrorize” and foregoing a challenge to the poster to document his claim that this was the objective, I suggest a little research into the nature of war.

We might start with Clauzwitz’ seminal “On War” and look at the definition of war (the continuation of politics by other means) and the purpose of war (to impose one’s will on the enemy.)

Clearly, to impose our will on the Japanese government and persuade them to surrender is a legitimate objective of war!!

The Church, and our own Catholic Answers apologists agree that this was the objective:

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

No, they don’t – I don’t see a single quote from the orders to use the bomb, nor any other proof that the objective was other than to end the war.

 

[Brendan]

Pete2:

I don’t think you’re proving your point. With Sodom and Gomorrah, God destroyed the towns. With Bashan, God told man to destroy the town.

I admittedly have not read all of your very lengthy posts in detail, but can I summarize your argument like this: because God destroys towns, and God is morally perfect and man should imitate Him, then there must be circumstances where man can also destroy towns?

Not quite, my point is that the destruction of a city is, absent other conditions, not intrinsically immoral.
[q/uote]

Humans aren’t God. God wants humans to worship Him, so does that mean that we should also want humans to worship us? We’re not God.

The action is is the worship of God, not worship of self. God wants humans to worship God, and therefore it is Just and proper for humans to want humans to worship God.

The only acceptable circumstances for destroying a town is if God does it directly, or God’s voice booms from the sky and tells us to do it, but that doesn’t seem to happen any more.

Pete

First of all, where do you find that conculsion in either the Bible or in Church documents. Specifically, where is in Church teaching that an intrinsically immoral action becomes moral when God tells us to do it.

Romans 13:3-4 shows that God uses human rulers to enforce His Justice. Does St. Paul here indicate that this will only happen when God’s voice booms down.

We also have the case of Jephthah (Judges 12)

The leaders of Ephraim responded, “The men of Gilead are nothing more than rejects from Ephraim and Manasseh.” So Jephthah called out his army and attacked the men of Ephraim and defeated them. Jephthah captured the shallows of the Jordan, and whenever a fugitive from Ephraim tried to go back across, the men of Gilead would challenge him. “Are you a member of the tribe of Ephraim?” they would ask. If the man said, “No, I’m not,” they would tell him to say “Shibboleth.” If he was from Ephraim, he would say “Sibboleth,” because people from Ephraim cannot pronounce the word correctly. Then they would take him and kill him at the shallows of the Jordan River. So forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

Here we have Jephthah killing 42,000 prisioners of war. At what point did God’s voice boom down to tell him to do that?

 

[Pete2]

Brendan:

Not quite, my point is that the destruction of a city is, absent other conditions, not intrinsically immoral.

And to cut to the chase, that argument entirely hinges on the use of the word “indiscriminate” as a “qualifier” by the Church in their condemnation of destroying cities?

If that’s the case, then I’m not sure how the debate gets resolved. It seems perfectly obvious to me that mass destruction is, by definition, indiscriminate. Blowing up a whole city with men, women, children, and elderly… that’s indiscriminate. There’s no discriminating between military and civilian targets… you just blow the whole thing up. That’s what the Church is condemning.

Pete

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pete2:

And to cut to the chase, that argument entirely hinges on the use of the word “indiscriminate” as a “qualifier” by the Church in their condemnation of destroying cities?

If that’s the case, then I’m not sure how the debate gets resolved. It seems perfectly obvious to me that mass destruction is, by definition, indiscriminate. Blowing up a whole city with men, women, children, and elderly… that’s indiscriminate. There’s no discriminating between military and civilian targets… you just blow the whole thing up. That’s what the Church is condemning.

Pete

If an enemy army takes refuge in a city, would beseiging them be indiscriminate? How about a naval blockade, preventing food and fuel from reaching a whole nation?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Pete2:

And to cut to the chase, that argument entirely hinges on the use of the word “indiscriminate” as a “qualifier” by the Church in their condemnation of destroying cities?

‘Indiscriminateness’ is covered by examining the object of the act in queston. This in turn is covered by my analysis above of the application of double effect to the act in question.

 

[Brendan]

Pete2:

And to cut to the chase, that argument entirely hinges on the use of the word “indiscriminate” as a “qualifier” by the Church in their condemnation of destroying cities?

.

Pete

No, the point is, if God Himself does it, it by definition cannot be intrinsically immoral.

Intrinsically immoral means that it is never moral under any circumstances.

But, as I have shown, it is moral when God orders it, or somehow approves of it.

There are, then, circumstances were it is moral, ergo the action is not immoral.

In addition, the ‘indiscriminate’ covers the action, not the target. In Moral Theology terms, it means having a lack of discernment, (you didn’t think about it enough before hand)

This definition is also reflected in Websters as well

Main Entry: in·dis·crim·i·nate
Pronunciation: "in-dis-'krim-n&t, -'kri-m&-
Function: adjective

1:not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

 

[Philip_P]

Ani,

Thanks for the response. It’ll take me some time to go through and give it a proper evaluation (and then some more time to formulate a proper response).

In the meantime, some more thoughts on “indiscriminate.” Today the USCCB released their statement on the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-171.shtml)

Here is the relevant portion of the letter:
Most Reverend William S. Skylstad:

At this time of remembrance, we solemnly recall the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings, like other acts of total war in that conflict, brought indiscriminate destruction and death to civilians and soldiers alike. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are permanent reminders to the entire human family of the grave consequences of total war.
No matter how noble the ends of a war may be, they cannot justify employing means or weapons that fail to discriminate between noncombatants and combatants. As the Second Vatican Council declared, “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 80)

Notice that he refers to these bombings as acts of total war wich brought “indiscriminate destruction and death to civilians and soldiers alike.” He then goes on to cite Gaudium et Spes, the source of the CCC quote we have been discussing. Clearly in his mind, then, the bombings *were *an action “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities” which “merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

Now I know someone will bring up the old “but that’s not an infallible statement” routine, but let’s be cautious about doing that. If we limit the Catholic faith to infallible statements, there wouldn’t be much to it. Let’s try to give the bishop the respect his position deserves (note that position is quite apart from what you may think of him as a person), and engage his statement seriously.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Now I know someone will bring up the old “but that’s not an infallible statement” routine, but let’s be cautious about doing that.

I agree with the caution.
Philip P:

Let’s try to give the bishop the respect his position deserves (note that position is quite apart from what you may think of him as a person), and engage his statement seriously.

I’ll read his statement tomorrow. To tell you the truth I always think twice before swallowing something a bishop says, particularly if the bishop is North American. You would have to have spent more time on the Culture of Death forum to understand what I mean.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Truman was Right ! God Bless him !
What did the USCCB do on the anniversary of the " Rape of Nanking " where the Japanese army murdered 350,000 civillians ? or the Bataan DEath march, or the 10,000,000 dead chinese killed by Japan in her Un-declared war with China.
Or if we had invaded Japan and lost 500,000 allied lives. Including all the Japanese held prisoners of war who would be murdered the minute the invasion started.Do you think the USCCB would remember them?
Maybe were lucky no one actualy listens to the bishops.Yes, there abilty to teach is not effected by their personal character, thats Catholic teaching.Most Catholics of course do not agree with that. They think your personal character does effect the weight of what you say.