Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[Ani_Ibi]

amateurthomist:

Once we fall into such consequentialist reasoning, then abortion, contraception, and euthanasia all become legitimate.

No they don’t. They are subject to the principle of double effect. Applying that principle makes it very clear that they are not licit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

wcknight:

We know there may be more bomb makers in London, but does it justify dropping an atomic weapon on London to get the bomb makers ?

False analogy. The weapons and guidance and delivery systems available to Blair are completely different to those available to Truman.

wcknight:

Most folks usually try to minimize civilian causalties. Those that don’t usually end up being tried for war crimes, EXCEPT of course when the culprits happen to be the victors of the war.

The implication here is that Truman should have been tried as a war criminal? If the harm to the civilian population was used for a means to an end or for pleasurable gratuitous violence – instead of for what it was (collateral damage) – then yes, try him as a war criminal.

The gassing of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein was a means to an end (the end being questionable in and of itself). The torturing and murder of Nicaraguan peasants by a band of psychopaths holed up in Honduras was for pleasurable gratituous violence (violence for the sake of violence). The bombing of H and N did not resemble either of these actions. And therefore Truman did not merit being tried as a war criminal.

wcknight:

I think it is a measure of a society in how it treats prisoners of war and civilians or non-combatants. IF you can still be humane even in the most in-humane of situations, then you may call yourself somewhat civilized.

Civilized… Is this about looking good?

 

[oat_soda]

It may be that you can never really isolate military from civilian targets. War is a dirty business and there will probably always be collateral damage. Most folks usually try to minimize civilian causalties. Those that don’t usually end up being tried for war crimes, EXCEPT of course when the culprits happen to be the victors of the war.

this is really simple. you can never permit the killing of any innocent life, no matter what the end result is. hypothetically, would it be ok to kill a little baby if it were to save say 1 million lives in a future war? the answer is obviously no, because you can’t take an innocent life. it is always wrong.

if during the targeting they knew that civilians would be killed, even if there were some valid military targets, it is not justified and is morally wrong. now if they did not target any civilians and to the best of their knowledge no civilians would be killed, it may be morally legitimate.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

wcknight:

I agree with most of what you said, BUT how are they not ‘direct’ bombings ??? Both cities were targetted and destroyed, you can not get any more direct than that. Do folks have to be isolated from the buildings to make it direct ???

The object of an act = the behaviour + the proximate (direct) intention

The circumtantial (indirect) intention may reduce the goodness of the object but, if the object is good in and of itself, then the circumstantial intention cannot change this goodness into evil.

The object: to end the Pacific War

The behaviour: bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance

Proximate intention: by neutralizing the Japanese military command hub, materiels, and troop concentration.

Circumstantial intention: harming the civilian population.

And yet once again, I draw your attention to the question of how many of those so-called ‘civilians’ were actually civilians since they were in remote material collaboration with the military by virtue of the fact that they were manufacturing the necessaries for the military to continue waging an unlawful war against the Allies.

No supplies = no army.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

oat soda:

this is really simple.

If you say so.
oat soda:

you can never permit the killing of any innocent life, no matter what the end result is.

The weapons manufacturers in those cities were not innocent. They were in remote material collaboration with the Japanese military.
oat soda:

hypothetically, would it be ok to kill a little baby if it were to save say 1 million lives in a future war?

No because the ends do not justify the means.
oat soda:

the answer is obviously no, because you can’t take an innocent life.

And because the ends do not justify the means.
oat soda:

it is always wrong.

Perhaps, but it is a false analogy.
oat soda:

if during the targeting they knew that civilians would be killed, even if there were some valid military targets, it is not justified and is morally wrong. now if they did not target any civilians and to the best of their knowledge no civilians would be killed, it may be morally legitimate.

They did not target civilians directly.

 

[grotto]

In many instances we must “kill them all and let God sort them out”! That’s what war is- small, medium or XXXLarge!

War is a state of “now” when one party causes a response from the other party - the response is morally good when taken to protect and defend the innocent good. The cause of war has to be an evil action demanding the moral response. Response may be enacted prior to the evil action being carried out - as an example - nuclear bombs poised to strike, personnel in position to enact their destruction on a targeted enemy and they need two hours to perform the deed. The innocent good have superior weapons and only need 15 minutes to perform the deed. The innocent good remain innocent and good, saddened, but protected, continuing to love and serve our neighbor. The innocent good used the best judgement in the “now” that was possible. Our souls trust in God’s Mercy and Forgiveness!

 

[BibleReader]

BibleReader: Last night, I saw the interview of a Japanese woman who survived the bomb when, as a girl, she stood outside her bomb factory, taking a break from making bombs to kill people overseas!!! She complained about the bomb dropped on Nagasaki!!!

Oh, you poor thing!!! Did those bad Americans interrupt your bomb-making???

Question for the liberals here – If Nagasaki, a city dedicated to mass production of invasion barges, battleships and bombs, in buildings peppered throughout the population, was a largely “civilian” city, then aren’t Moslem bomb-makers in Londoin “civilians”? Those poor, poor civilians!!! What is the matter with us? Why do we go to arrest those innocent civilian bomb-makers in London with guns?

**oak soda: **are you serious? so what about the farmers who make food for the jap soldiers, or the soldeirs parents who give support to their children -are they enemy combatants too? your subjective moral relativistic argument can be used to call anyone a enemy combatant.

BibleReader: I’m confused, oak soda. Your answer is ambiguous, and I think that that ambiguity is the result of mental confusion in you.

SHOULD we, or SHOULDN’T we, be hunting, with guns, for London bomb-makers, and SHOOT them if they twitch (because twitching sets off bombs)?

The dilemma for you is this…

What is the difference between an entire city of mommies and teenagers making bombs, so that the daddies and boyfriends can go to Manchuria and do this to the civilians there…

origami.no/stoptorture/images/japnbody.gif

…and a Moslem bombmaker in London making bombs so that he and his friends can do this to the civilians there…

cnn.com/WORLD/9602/london_blast/02-19/830pm/bus_side.jpg

…except that the Nagasaki bomb-making, which was taking place at full speed when the Bomb was dropped there, was a much, much, MUCH more efficient Murder Machine???

 

[oat_soda]

The object: to end the Pacific War

The behaviour: bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance

Proximate intention: by neutralizing the Japanese military command hub, materiels, and troop concentration.

Circumstantial intention: harming the civilian population.

the object the pacific war!!?? that’s like saying: the object: to live a happy life, the circumstances -kill my unborn baby. the object is the matter of a act -in this case, to kill a baby.

the object is the bombing itself. the initial intention is to end the pacific war, but the object is the action itself -the intentional bombing of a city to end a war. the church has already defined this act as "a crime against God and man".

**1761 **There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

the only way you can justify the bombing of civilians is to say they were not civilians but enemy combatants. no one can argue that factory workers are enemy combatants. by doing so you are implying that anyone who has any relationship with the military are combatants. even if they unitentionally missed their target, they shouldn’t have dropped a atomic bomb precisely because it is so devastating. the object is again morally evil.

 

[oat_soda]

**

What is the difference between an entire city of mommies and teenagers

making bombs, so that the daddies and boyfriends can go to Manchuria and do this to the civilians there… **there is a huge difference between women and children making bombs and the people who are in the act or of the intent to employ them. this is what seperates combatants and non combatants. chaplains, doctors, and JAGs, in the military are non combatants. because they do not actively go to war. they may indirectly support the war, but they are not active participants.

the people making these bombs are supporting the war, as are the people feeding the soldiers or growing food which feeds the soldiers. does that make them all guilty? do we kill all of them? by your logic, every one in japan or germany was guilty because they probably supported the war in some way, either voluntarily, or involuntarity.

this is why a chaplian or medic are not supposed to be targeted or taken POW during war according to the geneva convention.

 

[BibleReader]

oat soda:

there is a huge difference between women and children making bombs and the people who are in the act or of the intent to employ them. this is what seperates combatants and non combatants. chaplains, doctors, and JAGs, in the military are non combatants. because they do not actively go to war. they may indirectly support the war, but they are not active participants. the people making these bombs are supporting the war, as are the people feeding the soldiers or growing food which feeds the soldiers. does that make them all guilty? do we kill all of them? this is why a chaplian or medic are not supposed to be targeted or taken POW during war according to the geneva convention.

As I expected, oak soda, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Here it is AGAIN:

SHOULD we, or SHOULDN’T we, be hunting, with guns, for London bomb-makers, and SHOOT them if they twitch (because twitching sets off bombs)?

 

[BibleReader]

oak soda: there is a huge difference between women and children making bombs and the people who are in the act or of the intent to employ them. this is what seperates combatants and non combatants.

**BibleReader: **I get it! You’re in favor of hunting with guns, London bomb-makers who actually then plant the bombs, but NOT in favor of hunting London bomb-makers who give the bombs to someone else to plant!!!

Do I have that right???

 

[oat_soda]

this says it all

**Enola Gay pilot **recalls fateful flight

“We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible.”

i don’t think you can use the excuse that “they didn’t know civilians would die”. so your left with civilans = combatants. which is a ridiculous argument.

hunting London bomb-makers who give the bombs to someone else to plant!!!

I get it! You’re in favor of hunting with guns, London bomb-makers who actually then plant the bombs, but NOT in favor of hunting London bomb-makers who give the bombs to someone else to plant!!!

if they are not going to directly use those bombs to kill anyone why would you kill them? you arrest them as they probably would for intel. now if they suspect they are going to use them then you kill them. you only kill in self defense. that is when it is legitimate, to protect the innocent.

but this is comparing apples and oranges. assuming these people making a bomb are terrorist and not a sovergn country like japan, how could you know that they personally were not going to use them to kill people?

 

[wcknight]

Ani Ibi:

The implication here is that Truman should have been tried as a war criminal? If the harm to the civilian population was used for a means to an end or for pleasurable gratuitous violence – instead of for what it was (collateral damage) – then yes, try him as a war criminal.

Civilized… Is this about looking good?

Had the Japanese won the war Truman may have been tried.

Not about looking good, but having made a moral decision based on humane principles.

I think Truman made the best decision given the circumstances, BUT I’m an American and looking back at history with 20-20 hindsight.

Given the ruthlessness of the Japanese military during the war, you would think “almost” any action could be justified. They rivaled the Nazis as far as atrocities goes. BUT the responsibility for those actions fall largely on the German and Japanese leadership.

I don’t know what the percentage of civilians working in war factories was. During a war it could very well have been 90%. The same could probably have been said about Detroit or Boston. During wartime, a huge portion of the population is involved either directly or indirectly with the war effort.

IF the Japanese had the 2 nukes, would folks be saying that it was okay to nuke Detroit and Boston in an effort to stop the war ?
Granted Detroit may not be a city worth saving anyway. (sorry Detroiters, nothing personnel) but Boston is at least the home of the world champion Red Sox, and super bowl champion Patriots…

 

[BibleReader]

oat soda:

this says it all i don’t think you can use the excuse that “they didn’t know civilians would die”. so your left with civilans = combatants. which is a ridiculous argument.

Of course, you still didn’t answer the question. Why not? Because it’s clear.

**Again, here is the question: **

SHOULD we, or SHOULDN’T we, be hunting, with guns, for London bomb-makers, and SHOOT them if they twitch (because twitching sets off bombs)?

 

[oat_soda]

SHOULD we, or SHOULDN’T we, be hunting, with guns, for London bomb-makers, and SHOOT them if they twitch (because twitching sets off bombs)?

i answered your question. another analogy are the ROE police have. they only use lethal force to protect themselves or others. in the same way, you can’t kill someone making a bomb unless you know they personally have the intent to use them to kill innocent people. there’s also the rule of proportionality. if you can capture the bomb maker peacefully, you would do it that way rather than killing them.

 

[qmvsimp]

oat soda:

this says it all i don’t think you can use the excuse that “they didn’t know civilians would die”. so your left with civilans = combatants. which is a ridiculous argument. if they are not going to directly use those bombs to kill anyone why would you kill them? you arrest them as they probably would for intel. now if they suspect they are going to use them then you kill them. you only kill in self defense. that is when it is legitimate, to protect the innocent.

but this is comparing apples and oranges. assuming these people making a bomb are terrorist and not a sovergn country like japan, how could you know that they personally were not going to use them to kill people?

Does it mean anything, in your opinion, in the moral arguement that the population had been militarized? Does it mean anything, in your opinion, that we warned the population before we bombed, giving them enough time to evacuate?

Do you make a distinction with the morality of killing people during war and when there is no war?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

oat soda:

the object the pacific war!!?? that’s like saying: the object: to live a happy life, the circumstances -kill my unborn baby. the object is the matter of a act -in this case, to kill a baby.

False analogy. Apples and oranges.

The object was identified by those who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance: to end the Pacific War. Therefore that is the object under question, under analysis here. That is the object to which I applied double effect and to which many others applied their analyses.

But the object of ending the Pacific War is not automatically, necessarily like the objects of living a happy life or killing your unborn baby. They are similar with respect to being subject to double effect analysis. So, if you want to say that the object was to live a happy life or to kill you unborn baby then apply double effect to those objects.

Keep in mind that your objects are not the objects identified by those who dropped the bombs and, even after applying double effect to your objects, the objects may have little of relevance in common and therefore your results may still be false analogies.
oat soda:

the object is the bombing itself.

No. The bombing itself was the behaviour which was part of the object. The other part of the object was the proximate intention which was to neutralize the Japanese command, materiels, and troop concentration.
oat soda:

the initial intention is to end the pacific war, but the object is the action itself -the intentional bombing of a city to end a war.

You can make up your own terminology until the cows come home. But it is not double effect.
oat soda:

the church has already defined this act as "a crime against God and man".

No your interpretation has defined it thus.
oat soda:

the only way you can justify the bombing of civilians is to say they were not civilians but enemy combatants.

No one has tried to argue thus. You are arguing a false dilemma: if someone is not an enemy combatant then he/she is a civilian. Some of us have argued a third category which is manufacturers of materiels without which the Japanese military could not have performed its purpose.

These manufacturers were in remote material collaboration with the Japanese military – or combatants, if you will. And as such they were fair game. Why? Because no supplies = no army.
oat soda:

no one can argue that factory workers are enemy combatants. by doing so you are implying that anyone who has any relationship with the military are combatants.

No. I am saying – not implying – that those who were manufacturing materiels for the military – guns, ammunition, ship parts, and so on – were in remote material collaboration with the military – or combatants, if you will. What I am saying is not at the same as saying that anyone with any relationship with the military are combatants.
oat soda:

even if they unitentionally missed their target, they shouldn’t have dropped a atomic bomb precisely because it is so devastating. the object is again morally evil.

A claim as yet insufficiently supported.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

oat soda:

there is a huge difference between women and children making bombs and the people who are in the act or of the intent to employ them.

There is a difference. That difference does not bear on their remote material collaboration.
oat soda:

this is what seperates combatants and non combatants. chaplains, doctors, and JAGs, in the military are non combatants. because they do not actively go to war. they may indirectly support the war, but they are not active participants.

Neither to do they manufacturer the means by which the military can wage war. Again no supplies = no army.
oat soda:

the people making these bombs are supporting the war, as are the people feeding the soldiers or growing food which feeds the soldiers.

False analogy. The munitions manufacturers were building products whose sole purpose was for waging that particular war and whose products were being used to wage that particular war. The farmers and cooks were creating products which could be used for any number of purposes and were being used for any number of purposes.

 

[john_doran]

Ani Ibi:

False analogy. The munitions manufacturers were building products whose sole purpose was for waging that particular war and whose products were being used to wage that particular war. The farmers and cooks were creating products which could be used for any number of purposes and were being used for any number of purposes.

how is it false? munitions and food are each a sine qua non of the war effort - if you lack either, then war cannot be waged.

 

[Wolseley]

wcknight:

I am not a big fan of Truman as he was known to have been quite a racist

Off-topic, but I’d like to know your sources for this.

Harry Truman’s best friend was a Jewish man named Eddie Jacobson; and Truman was also nearly lynched one night in Missouri because he gave a county job to a black man, which angered the Ku Klux Klan. Truman and Jacobson drove up to the Klanclave and Truman confronted them, saying “So you’re the ones who are going to tell me that I can’t give a job to a black man or a Mexican or a Jew or anybody else you don’t happen to cotton to, eh? Well, boys you’d better know that that is 100% pure ********! Those jobs belong to all the people, not just a few hooded ******** like you. And I’m going to hire whoever I ******* well please, boys! Let me tell you something: if you want to keep a black man in the gutter, then there’s gotta be a white man in the gutter with him, holding him down!”

Truman was about the least-racist person I can think of. I’d just like to know your sources for this “knowledge”.