Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[Philip_P]

Ok, last post responding to Brendan on this thread. If you want to continue this discussion, I’d ask that you invite us to do so in a different thread, perhaps in the forum section dealing with moral theology.

I would say that morality tells us what we ought and ought not to do, not what we can and cannot do. God destroyed cities. We also have the capacity to destroy cities. Morality, though, is about setting limits. In destroying a city, human being exceed the limits of what they ought to do, not what they are capable of doing.

I like Vern’s noting of cloning, which I think aptly captures this distinction. Certainly we can create another human being this way. It does not follow that it is moral to do so.

Milton tried to justify the ways of God to man. I know when I’m out of my depth, and will not try to follow suit. Thankfully, I don’t have to in order to maintain my premise that it is always wrong for humans to destroy an entire city.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

- God performed an action.

• Humans witness the action
• Humans learn from God’s example what constitutes a Just action.

Hi Brendan, this part of the discussion is very interesting. And yes I agree that God – at least Jesus – has often modelled for us the behaviour he considers appropriate for humans to undertake.

This raises some questions for me.

1. Are there not some behaviours which God reserves for himself and does not want humans to undertake? For example the destruction of cities.
2. Did God manifesting as Jesus make a difference to the way which we understand teaching? Specifically did (actually would is more accurate) Jesus (God as man) destroy a City?

Not that I disagree with Truman, just that I want to see this particular angle explored in more depth.

 

[Brendan]

vern humphrey:

God cannot sin. His laws are His laws – He may do with them as He will.

Certainly He sets His laws aside when He chooses – we call the results a miracle.

He sets aside his physical laws. God does not set aside His moral Laws.

If God could would choose to set aside His own moral law, it would follow that Christ could have stole, or fornicated. He still would have been without sin, as the Moral law was set aside.

Is that the position you really want to hold Vern?

Try that on a pro-abortionist and they will piously tell you “Nothing happens on this earth but by the will of God.”

Standard theodicy. The abortionist would be wrong. Not only is that a complete denial of free will, but it does not necessarily follow. God allows sin, He does not, and cannot Will it.

The desctriction of Somom was an Act of Will of God. The miscarriage of a child is not. The first was an act of Justice, a moral good, the second is an allowed act of natural evil.

God created man. Is it therefore moral to clone a human being?

God did not give the power of creation to Man. God DID however Give the power to enact Justice, so the point is irrevelant

In addition, God, through His Church, has declared that the conception of human life outside the maritial act is intrinsically evil. The Church has not yet made that prouncement on the desctruction of a city, nor can it, because God has both destroyed cities by an act of Will and commanded men to desttroy cities. Ergo, it cannot be intrinscially evil, not can it

There is no god above God. God’s laws are His laws – does He bind Himself as He binds man? Has He made Himself subject to Himself?

Can God commit evil? If not, What stops God from commiting evil?

The answer is God’s very Nature. If God committed an evil act, He would not, by definition be God.

All correct – which indicates that we cannot use an act of God to justify acts of man.

I never said an act was justified, only that the act itself was not exclusively immoral, there is a difference.

The justice of an act that is not exclusively immoral is then determined under the principle of double effect.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Brendan:

Does God maintain different Moral standards for Himself that for Us? (Aquinas says No, how about you)

God creates life. Does he intend for us to create life?

God takes life away (at least earthly life). Does he intend for us to take life away? Well this is partly what is under discussion. We have the commandment Thou shalt not murder (I am using the Hebrew usage). But we also have the Just War doctrine. So there are circumstances in which humans can take life away. When we take life away under these circumstances, it is not murder.

(Are there circumstances in which humans can create life too? Only a consideration and not meant to derail this discussion. Let’s move on…)

God created us in his image. This was before the Fall. Before the Fall were we gods? After the Fall and after Redemption are we gods?

Brendan:

It is just God’s commandments that define Moral Theology or is it God’s example as well?

OK. Was there a difference in God’s example before Jesus? If there was, then this would (on the surface) imply that God changes. We know that God does not change. So I propose that our understanding of God’s example changes. Our understanding as individuals and as a whole people is (I propose) being sanctified over time. If it were not, then why would God have a plan for us? A plan implies changes over time.

So certainly one consideration (which has not yet been raised) is that Truman was as correct as could be expected given the information and ability available to him at that point in time. And that a more advanced standard is held up to us at this point in time.

Ah! Moral relativism alert! No, not quite. We know that we can’t get it right all in one fell swoop. (St Paul’s milk and strong meat theory; his child and adult theory) That is why priests often justify a pastoral approach to people like Prime Minister Paul Martin who pass same-sex marriage legislation while calling themselves Catholic. The assumption is that the person wants to be sanctified and will learn given time. (This is different from a person who obstinately refuses to be sanctified and obstinately refuses to learn given time.)

One differentiating factor between Truman then and ourselves now is the information available to Truman then, the ability available to Truman then – on the one hand – and the information available to ourselves now, the ability available to us now. If our knowledge and ability is different from those of Truman, then we are held to a different standard.

So, we learn from history but in many ways. One way we learn is through our mistakes. Another way we learn is by what we did right. Obviously, if we learn from our mistakes, then we should strive not to repeat them. Learning from what we do right, however, is not so simple. Nothing is without cost, including being right.

If Truman was right in his era, then was the cost of being right something we want to reduce – should reduce in our own era?

That is probably the crux of the question on this thread. And I suggest that some people have already addressed this question by posting information on the changes in nuclear warfare which we have seen over time.

Given the nature of nuclear warfare in times such as these in which we find ourselves:

1. What mistakes (if any) have we made which we do not wish to repeat?
2. What have we done right which we wish to repeat?
3. What costs have we incurred for being right in the past, which we want to – should – reduce in the present?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Ok, last post responding to Brendan on this thread. If you want to continue this discussion, I’d ask that you invite us to do so in a different thread, perhaps in the forum section dealing with moral theology.

Hi Philip P. Ordinarily I would agree with you. But starting another discussion would only disrupt this one. I don’t think the time is ripe for us to start another discussion. Let’s let some of these angles run their course first. Moving the whole thread to the Moral Theology Forum is another option, but I don’t think that is a good idea either. There are more lines of thought than Moral Theology involved in this thread. Apologetics, Culture of Life are a few.

Let’s just let this rest for the time being and review it in, say, three days.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mjdonnelly:

And Japan was not prepered to surrender, it’s military was still ready to fight till the end.

Bushido required those in leadership to avoid being captured. That is what the whole ritual around sepuka (suicide) was about: to avoid being captured. There were a number of justifications for avoiding being captured. One was avoiding being forced (by means of torture) to relinquish strategic and tactical information. Another was avoiding being held hostage. Yet another – far more critical – had to do with honour (and shame).

The Japanese at that time were an honour culture. (Some people call this a shame culture, but let’s not quibble over words.) Being Japanese meant being honourable. Being captured was not an honourable way to die, it was not a Japanese way to die. It could not be permitted. Even the children (of nobility) were taught the method of ending their own lives. Unless the Emperor commanded them to stand down, the Japanese were prepared to sacrifice their lives to the last man, woman, and child.

The Japanese were developing their own nuclear weapons. They knew the scale of the destruction possible with nuclear bombings. So, when Hiroshima was levelled the next question was would the other cities fall as well? Nagasaki answered that question. Now it was apparent that the Japanese could continue to die to the last man, woman, and child by their own hands or by the hands of the Americans.

But there was a third option. For the Japanese, these bombings demonstrated that the Americans had beaten them at their own game. And therefore the Americans had earned their respect. To decline the Americans their due respect would not have been honourable.

 

[Brendan]

Ani Ibi:

God creates life. Does he intend for us to create life?

God takes life away (at least earthly life). Does he intend for us to take life away?

Sometimes yes. Killing itself is not intrinsically evil, but can fall under the principle of double effect (in certain circumstances). It can also be an act of Justice

Romans 13:3-4

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

(Are there circumstances in which humans can create life too? Only a consideration and not meant to derail this discussion. Let’s move on…)

Nope, as mentioned above humans do not create in the true sense. Only God has that power which God has never granted humans. We can only participate in creation, not create ourselves.

OK. Was there a difference in God’s example before Jesus? If there was, then this would (on the surface) imply that God changes. We know that God does not change.

There is no difference in God’s example at any point in Scripture and what Christ teaches. They are in perfect harmony.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Brendan:

Killing itself is not intrinsically evil, but can fall under the principle of double effect…

I agree, I am still in the middle of preparing my double effect response to Philip’s double effect post.

Brendan:

There is no difference in God’s example at any point in Scripture and what Christ teaches. They are in perfect harmony.

I agree, but that was not the point of my question. The point of my question was set out subsequently in terms of our varying places on a learning curve dependent on our place in time and our place in God’s plan. I brought up that point in order to open a line of thought on the changing nature of warfare.

 

[pnewton]

Wolseley:

Hiroshima’s primary value as a military target consisted of the fact that it was the Headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army;

Nagasaki’s primary value as a military target consisted of the fact that 90% of the city’s labor force worked in a huge complex of manufacturing plants owned by the Mitsubishi company,

After reading HagiaSophia’s rather fascinating links one question remains unanswered in my mind. In addition to potential military targets, the population figures were included, along with the potential for civilian destruction. If this figure was used to maximize casualties, then those who chose these targets were gravely in the wrong.

Of course it also possible that the civilians casualties were kept as a balance of conscience as it were, so that they could make a morally appropriate decision.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

Hi Philip P. Ordinarily I would agree with you. But starting another discussion would only disrupt this one. I don’t think the time is ripe for us to start another discussion. Let’s let some of these angles run their course first. Moving the whole thread to the Moral Theology Forum is another option, but I don’t think that is a good idea either. There are more lines of thought than Moral Theology involved in this thread. Apologetics, Culture of Life are a few.

Let’s just let this rest for the time being and review it in, say, three days.

You may be right, I just don’t want to get too far afield here. Some the the points Brendan raised seem to have only a very tangential relationship to the topic at hand and could very easily sidetrack us into a discussion which, while interesting, doesn’t have the greatest bearing. They seems to be questions on the nature of God and of theology generally.

As someone who is himself often easily sidetracked by thread drift, it’s just something I try to be aware of, but I suppose there’s no harm in seeing these tangents run their course a bit longer. Personally, I don’t have much else to add to Brendan’s objection than to plead invincible ignorance regarding the inner mind of God. God’s apparent toleration or active participation in evil is certainly a conondrum, but one I have no answer to and which I do not believe we need to answer in order to discuss human moral action.

 

[Brendan]

Philip P:

You may be right, I just don’t want to get too far afield here. Some the the points Brendan raised seem to have only a very tangential relationship to the topic at hand and could very easily sidetrack us into a discussion which, while interesting, doesn’t have the greatest bearing. They seems to be questions on the nature of God and of theology generally.

.

I would disagree Phillip. The are critically important to the question, in fact the central premise that you posted.

Would it not be critical to the morality of the Hiroshima bombings to investigate if the destruction of a city is or is not objectively immoral.

You made a proposition to that effect and I am examining the logical conclusions of that proposition.

The determination of the validity your proposition determines exactly how we should examine the morality of a specific instance of the action in question, would it not?

I also fully agree that the full Mind of God is unknownable to any creature.

This does not preclude that we can determine facets of Moral Law from God’s demonstrated actions, correct?

 

[Philip_P]

Brendan:

This does not preclude that we can determine facets of Moral Law from God’s demonstrated actions, correct?

I’m not sure, and because I’m unsure I’d rather stick to commands and statements rather than trying to interpret God’s actions or attempting OT exegesis (and running the risk of eisegesis).

The passage I’ve cited as precluding destruction of cities, “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,” most definitely is directed at human actors, not at angels or animals, and definitely not at God. Hence I’m still at a loss as to how God’s actions are relevant here.

 

[Brendan]

Phillip,

Here is a description of warfare by humans. Based upon the CCC entry you sited, was the action of these people immoral and worthy of “unequivocal condemnation”?

We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns.

 

[Brendan]

Hence I’m still at a loss as to how God’s actions are relevant here.

Does God break His own Moral Law, Phillip? Does God have a seperate Moral Law for Himself and a different one for Creatures?

 

[pnewton]

Regardless of one’s particular opinion, there is a valuable lesson. These difficult moral decisions will ultimately come down to the prudential judgement of the countries leaders, and there will be no time to vote new ones in. That is why, despite all the other critical issues to consider, top on my list is proven moral fiber. The man at the top must at least making an attempt to take the moral high road.

 

[Philip_P]

Brendan:

We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns.

A difficult passage to be sure. And it certainly seems to be in conflict with the Catechism. If the Bible were self-interpreting and easy to understand, though, we wouldn’t need a Church

So to anwer you, I don’t know. I don’t have an answer, and it would be foolish of me to pretend otherwise. I can’t reconcile the seeming contradiction between these OT passages and the teachings of the Church.

Destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, were not acts commanded or carried out by God and recorded in the Scriptures, but human acts recorded in secular history. That distinction is important.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brendan:

Phillip,

Here is a description of warfare by humans. Based upon the CCC entry you sited, was the action of these people immoral and worthy of “unequivocal condemnation”?

We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns.

NOW you have a point!

Here you have men destroying towns, and that surely is approved by God in this instance.

The key is in the nature of war in general, and that specific war in particular. The same yardstick may be applied to the Second World War.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

My two cents.

The view that Truman dropped the two atomic bombs to intimidate Stalin is falacious. Once the two bombs were dropped, there were no more atomic bombs! We had nothing left to intimidate the Soviets!

The U.S. had wreaked more death and devastation in firebombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities than with the two atomic bomb blasts, and yet Japan had refused to capitulate!

It had been suggested that Japan surrendered not because of all the firebombings or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but because Stalin had stated the Soviet Union would invade Japan using Mongol troops as it had done with Berlin. The Battle of Berlin in 1945 resulted in over a million deaths and was renowned for its rape and pillage on part of the Soviet ‘Mongol’ troops (who had open orders to do so). The Japanese leadership could not lose such face, so they surrendered.

The atomic bombs were such a unique weapon that it was not an obstacle of conscious to use them, in view of the larger amount of damage using thousands of bombs caused by the firebombing of other major Japanese cities, the atomic bombs could do less damage with only one bomb so it made sense to use them.

If it is true that the dropping of the atomic bombs caused the Japanese to surrender, then it did save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops who were staging in the adjoining islands for a major invasion of Japan (along with Soviet mongol troops from the North).

So I feel that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on an intractable Japanese foe during wartime in 1945 was an ugly political necessity which resulted in saving the lives of tens of thousands of American troops who were already poised for a massive invasion.

 

[Pete2]

Brendan:

Phillip,

Here is a description of warfare by humans. Based upon the CCC entry you sited, was the action of these people immoral and worthy of “unequivocal condemnation”?

We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns.

You conveniently skipped verses 1-3:

1 "Then we turned and proceeded toward Bashan. But Og, king of Bashan, advanced against us with all his people to give battle at Edrei. 2 The LORD, however, said to me, ‘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.’ 3 And thus the LORD, our God, delivered into our hands Og, king of Bashan, with all his people. We defeated him so completely that we left him no survivor.

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

Pete

 

[Brendan]

Philip P:

A difficult passage to be sure. And it certainly seems to be in conflict with the Catechism. If the Bible were self-interpreting and easy to understand, though, we wouldn’t need a Church

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

So to anwer you, I don’t know. I don’t have an answer, and it would be foolish of me to pretend otherwise. I can’t reconcile the seeming contradiction between these OT passages and the teachings of the Church.

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.

Destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, were not acts commanded or carried out by God and recorded in the Scriptures, but human acts recorded in secular history. That distinction is important.

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.