Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Civilians never have a say in the outcome?

Wrong. Civilians sometimes have a say in the outcome? How? By voting or if they cannot vote then by sustaining or tolerating leaders who bring them into the line of fire.

The principle of double effect, please.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

How in heaven’s name is destroying a city not indiscriminate destruction?

Principle of double effect, please.

 

[JimG]

That’s a good hypothetical question, but historically moot. If Truman had publicly proclaimed his intent to use atomic weapons to destroy cities, would it have been legitimate to vote for him? I think that in actuality, Truman himself did not know what he was going to do until the time came.

However, the point is less moot in the case of Eisenhower, whose stated foreign policy included an intent to bomb Russian cities with nuclear weapons if there was a conventional (non-nuclear) military attack against any NATO country. That was viewed as the only credible way to protect the NATO countries.

 

[Brendan]

Philip P:

How in heaven’s name is destroying a city not indiscriminate destruction? You might as well claim that the Church only prohibits the destruction of innocent unborn children. It’s a meaningless qualifier.

Perhaps we should specifiy that only wet water satisfies thirst, only an ordained priest can celebrate mass, only a Catholic pope can be leader of the Church.

In any case, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, by any possible criteria, indiscriminately destroyed. The nuclear bomb’s heat and radiation did not probe the guilt, innocence, civilian, military, class, wealth, race, age, sex, or religion of those it killed. It killed all.

I was not the one who put the qualifier in the Document, Pope John Paul II was. Do you honestly think he meant that word as being meaningless?

Besides you are ignoring the definition of the word, Indiscriminate means "not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment "

A bullet kills whom it hit without regard to age, sex or innocence. But the use of a bullet is subject to discrimination or discernment, is it not.

A solider might intent to kill an enemy solider, but

Is it your premise that Truman did not discern the morality of dropping nuclear weapons.

For immorality to have occurred, the civilians would have to the have been the direct target.
Assume for a moment that all the civilians in Hiroshima had chosen that morning to visit relatives in other cities, and the bomb only destroyed the 5th Army HQ.

What do you suppose would have been Truman’s reaction? Anger at having missed the target (civilians) after so much planning and effort, or relief that the military object was destroyed at minimal loss of civilian life.

Ask yourself honestly, but that intent of target is the entire root of the moral question.

That is precisely what is meant in Moral Theology by ‘discernment’ or ‘indiscriminate’ and probably why JPII put the qualifier in.

Now, anyone actually going to take up the challenge of appying the competing voting philosophies to Truman?

Easily,

 

[JimG]

I don’t think I can justify Truman’s use of the atomic bombs as a means to an end, or as a use of proportionate force (although there is more wiggle room there), because the key is that in using them he could not avoid the targeting of civilians.

But, I feel like I can almost get inside Truman’s mind in some of his considerations: There were already casualties in the thousands every day. Suppose the war had dragged on for another year with increased ferocity in the Pacific, with an eventual U.S. invasion and Japanese surrender. And afterwards the news had come out that all the while, he had possessed a weapon that could have ended the war much sooner. Would he have been viewed at the time—and later—as a hero of restraint, or as a villain responsible for thousands of additional deaths? How would we be viewing him now?

 

[wabrams]

I can’t believe some people here are argueing about a policy not to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets when the first 2 a-bombs were dropped before that policy was even thought up.

 

[larryo]

What’s the point of the revisionists’ hand-wringing and remorse over decisions made 60 years ago? Absent any proof to the contrary, I take President Truman at his word that the decisions to drop the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made to bring the war to a speedier conclusion and to save the lives of American military personnel. Would it have been preferable, from a moral perspective, to starve the Japanese into submission? I don’t pretend to know. But we do know that the Japanese started the war in the Pacific and that the atom bombs caused them to surrender.

 

[Philip_P]

Brendan:

I was not the one who put the qualifier in the Document, Pope John Paul II was. Do you honestly think he meant that word as being meaningless?

I suspect the words are amplifiers rather than qualifiers, but I’ll have to study this passage a bit more.

Besides you are ignoring the definition of the word, Indiscriminate means "not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment "

A bullet kills whom it hit without regard to age, sex or innocence. But the use of a bullet is subject to discrimination or discernment, is it not.

And if you were to march down the streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and put a bullet through the head of every man, woman, and child who the bombs killed, you would have accomplished an equally heinous act. There is no distinction, discrimination, or discernment involved when an entire city is targeted for destruction.

Is it your premise that Truman did not discern the morality of dropping nuclear weapons.

For immorality to have occurred, the civilians would have to the have been the direct target.
Assume for a moment that all the civilians in Hiroshima had chosen that morning to visit relatives in other cities, and the bomb only destroyed the 5th Army HQ.

But they didn’t all choose to visit relatives in other cities that day, and Truman knew that they didn’t.

What do you suppose would have been Truman’s reaction? Anger at having missed the target (civilians) after so much planning and effort, or relief that the military object was destroyed at minimal loss of civilian life.

Seeing as the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to force Japan’s surrender, I imagine he would have been quite upset that the entire civilian population of the targeted cities escaped. After all, if he did not intend all those civlians to die, why did he not urge them to leave, or why did he not target an exclusively military site?

Ask yourself honestly, but that intent of target is the entire root of the moral question.

If you target a city for complete destruction, the death of noncombatants is inescapably also an intended outcome. You might as well say that abortion is meant to empty a womb and that the death of the fetus is simply a tragic but unavoidable consequence. Or, more plausibly (but equally flawed), you may claim that the intent in harvesting stem cells is to cultivate embryonic stem cells for research, and it’s an unavoidable but tragic consequence that the embryo dies as a result.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

You might as well say that abortion is meant to empty a womb and that the death of the fetus is simply a tragic but unavoidable consequence.

I’ve already differentiated between abortion and just war. Instead of tautologizing, it is contingent on you to set out the criteria for principle of double effect and apply that to the historical events in question on this thread. Double effect, please.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

I’ve already differentiated between abortion and just war. Instead of tautologizing, it is contingent on you to set out the criteria for principle of double effect and apply that to the historical events in question on this thread. Double effect, please.

Working on it. Don’t worry, I’m not ignoring you, just haven’t had time to address your responses yet…

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’d like to correct one of my sentences in post #110:
**
“The use of nuclear weapons to perpetrate the mass murder of non-combatants is simply post-birth [not ‘post-conception’] abortion.”**

In section 2314 of the Latin version of the new catechism, the disputed adverb is *indiscriminatim * (“without being able to separate”). The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed in a manner that was ***inherently * ** “indiscriminate,” i.e., they could not separate non-combatants from combatants. As per *CCC * 2313, non-combatants are to be considered immune from attack in any war.

As for the principle of double effect, the solid pre-Vatican II moral theologian Francis J. Connell explains why it can’t excuse what our government did to the Japanese cities:

**“Too many civilians were killed in comparison with the military objectives gained” (Outlines of Moral Theology, page 23).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Steve O'Brien:

As for the principle of double effect, the solid pre-Vatican II moral theologian Francis J. Connell explains why it can’t excuse what our government did to the Japanese cities:

***“Too many civilians were killed in comparison with the military objectives gained” (*Outlines of Moral Theology, page 23).

Keep and spread the Faith.

As for the principle of double effect, please set out the criteria and apply this situation to those criteria. While citing an authoritative writer goes some way to supporting your point of view, it does not go all the way.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Philip P:

Destroying a city is **always **morally unacceptable.

Then you have to concede that almost all the bombing we did throughout the war was immoral since we carpet bombing and fire bombing. They would destroy whole regions of the city.

The whole war was won based on bombing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steve O'Brien:

In section 2314 of the Latin version of the new catechism, the disputed adverb is *indiscriminatim *(“without being able to separate”). The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed in a manner that was ***inherently ***“indiscriminate,” i.e., they could not separate non-combatants from combatants.

That’s true of ALL mass bombings of WWII, not just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I have said – if we are willing to condemn the bombing of London, Berlin, Coventry and Dresden with the same fervor, then we have a moral position. But we cannot say that the killiing of civilians by one bombing is somehow “better” or “morally acceptable” when MORE civilians are killed than by the method we condemn.
Steve O'Brien:

As per *CCC *2313, non-combatants are to be considered immune from attack in any war.

But a beligerant who puts an arms factory inside an orphanage cannot thereby gain immunity for that arms factory, and if orphans are killed, must himself accept the blame.
Steve O'Brien:

As for the principle of double effect, the solid pre-Vatican II moral theologian Francis J. Connell explains why it can’t excuse what our government did to the Japanese cities:

***“Too many civilians were killed in comparison with the military objectives gained” (*Outlines of Moral Theology, page 23).

Keep and spread the Faith.

Note that this is an argument based on proportionality. You can certainly make the case that the atomic bombs achieved more in military terms than the firebombing of Dresden.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mjdonnelly:

Then you have to concede that almost all the bombing we did throughout the war was immoral since we carpet bombing and fire bombing. They would destroy whole regions of the city.

The whole war was won based on bombing.

Actually not.

As I have posted in this thread, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) conducted by the Armed Forces after the war concluded that strategic bombing had no effect on the outcome of the war. German production of war materials actually rose during the bombing campaigns.

There were two exceptions to that – the systemic attacks on the German oil production and distribution system accidentally wrecked the German chemical industry.

And the atomic bombs ended the war with Japan.

 

[Philip_P]

mjdonnelly:

Then you have to concede that almost all the bombing we did throughout the war was immoral since we carpet bombing and fire bombing. They would destroy whole regions of the city.

The whole war was won based on bombing.

I’m not a WWII expert. Some bombings, certainly, were completely immoral. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo. (And of course much of the actions of the Axis power, not to mention their ad bellum itself, was completely immoral, but I think we can safely assume we all agree on that!).

A bombing with the intention of destroying a city and killing all the inhabitants in it is certainly immoral. Again, I’m not a WWII expert, but I’m pretty sure not every bombing sortie was designed to blot a city from the face of the earth, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were expressly intended to do.

 

[saltyjoe]

If the world listened to the Vatican, the world would not have had a horrific 21st Century.

Choosing the leaders the world did gave us the attrocities we comit against each other. Until we accept Christ’s leadership, we will suffer under man’s (“Man” including women too, so don’t think that a feminist is going to give us anything better. Elizabeth II was not benign).

rooseveltmyth.com/

 

[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.

First, basic moral theology. CCC par 1750 – 61 are the most relevant, I’d like to highlight three paragraphs:

1750
The morality of human acts depends on:
1)the object chosen;
2)the end in view or the intention;
3)the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

**1759 **
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

**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.

My contention is that the destruction of cities falls under the categories of acts which are always wrong. But wait, what about the principle of double effect?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/):

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).
   
   It is on the very first step we run aground on. If destroying a city is intrinsically wrong, none of the other steps (which effectively sum up most of the defenses for dropping the bomb seen on this thread) count. I hold that Truman’s use of the bomb fails the first step.
   
   So, the obvious question as this point is, on what basis do I hold that destroying cities is inherently immoral (and thus contrary to the CCC and not justifiable according to the principle of double effect)?
   
   Primarily, on the following:
   
   CCC 2314
   
   "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."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.

 

[Philip_P]

Response to Ani, Part 2/2

Much now seems to hinge upon the adjective “indiscriminate.” What did the writers of the Catechism intend by indiscriminate? I have a very difficult time conceiving of any use of that word that does not apply to destroying a city by nuclear arms. A weapon that blots a city out of existence hardly discriminates among the different inhabitants of that city.

Furthermore, the tradition out of which this statement comes appears to agree with me. If you’ll notice after the first sentence, there is a footnote (110). It refers to Gaudium et Spes 80 § 3, which can be found at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Here is an excerpt from Section 80:

“The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread deviation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.

All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(1) The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”

Clearly the writers of the document have nuclear weapons in mind here. If you still doubt, let’s dig a bit deeper into the roots of this statement.

See footnote 1 in the first paragraph? This is what it refers to:

Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 291; “Therefore in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to believe that war is still an apt means of vindicating violated rights.”

Here we have a pope explicitly talking about atomic weapons. Clearly this was on his mind, and therefore in the minds of the drafters of the statement referring to the “indiscriminate destruction of entire cities”

BTW, *Pacem *can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...cuments/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

Given all this, then, someone arguing that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified faces a considerable challenge. First, he or she must somehow get around the condemnation of the indiscriminate destruction of cities. Then, the apologist must establish that the action is morally good or at least indifferent, according to the criteria laid out by the catechism, which again are 1) the object chosen; 2)the end in view or the intention; 3)the circumstances of the action.

Then, assuming all these have been met, the apologist for Truman must still meet the last three conditions of the principle of double effect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I’m not a WWII expert. Some bombings, certainly, were completely immoral. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo. (And of course much of the actions of the Axis power, not to mention their ad bellum itself, was completely immoral, but I think we can safely assume we all agree on that!).

A bombing with the intention of destroying a city and killing all the inhabitants in it is certainly immoral. Again, I’m not a WWII expert, but I’m pretty sure not every bombing sortie was designed to blot a city from the face of the earth, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were expressly intended to do.

Intentions do make a difference. And they varied from case to case. Some bombings were retaliatory – retaliation and reprisal are recognized in international law as a legitimate measure to redress violations of the laws of war by the other side.

Some bombings were aimed at industrial targets. Some at military targets within or near cities.

And sometimes odd things happened – for example, when the British launched the first Thousand Plane Raid at Cologne, there were strict orders not to damage the cathedral.

Some squadron commanders accomplished this by ordering their “bomb-aimers” to aim at the cathedral – secure in the knowledge that whatever the bombs hit, it wouldn’t be the aiming point!