Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[Philip_P]

Ani:

Neutralizing the command, materiels, and troop concentration was not the circumstantial intention. It was the

proximate intention.

the circumstantial intention was to harm the civilian population and that would decrease

the moral goodness.

Ah, so it is on the proximate/circumstantial intention where we differ. We seem to have almost precisely reversed positions. Let me try to sum up our positions here (l’m sure you’ll let me know if I’m misreading you:

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

Circumstantial: To harm the civilian population.

**Philip **proximate intention: To destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (including civilian population)

Circumstantial: To neutralize the threat of Japanese military command.

If your formulation is correct, then I would accept that the proximate intention is morally good, and that the circumstantial intention reduces the goodness of the act but does not necessarily make it evil. We would then move on to the next step in testing under the principle of double effect.

If my formulation is correct, however, then we must answer the question of whether or not destroying a city is intrinsically evil. In my formulation the circumstantial intention would increase the goodness of the act, but if the proximate intention is evil, this does not matter. We could not move on to the next step in testing under the principle of double effect until we answer the question of whether destroying cities is intrinsically evil.

I think we need to determine what the circumstances are. Once again, the definition:

Circumstantial intentions are those further ends that are chosen in addition to the essential or proximate end of the action. Because such ends are not essential to the act, circumstantial intentions can only increase or decrease the moral goodness of an already morally good act, but they cannot determine the moral species (i.e., essential moral character) of the act."

And again, a summary of our respective positions:

Ani circumstances: military hub had embedded in the civilian population.

C_Intention: harm the civilian population

**Philip **circumstances: United States at war with Japan.

C_Intention: Neutralize Japanese military threat

There appears to be an inconsistency in your position between the circumstances and the circumstantial intention. For consistency, your circumstantial intention should be “to destroy the military hub.” This leaves open the question of where “harm the civilian population” goes. Before we go there, though, let’s make sure we settle this question of circumstances. First, am I correct in pointing out an inconsistency between your position’s circumstances and its circumstantial intention? If no, please rebut. Secondly, are my circumstances and circumstantial intention consistent?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I urge everyone who has contributed to this thread–especially those who dissent from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the deliberate bombing of non-combatants–to go to the Web site of the Catholic Peace Fellowship to read Dr. Gary G. Kohls’s article entitled “The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945: The Untold Story”:

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2263

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Al_Masetti]

A curious issue:

President Roosevelt supported the research and development effort to produce the atomic bomb because of letters written to him by Albert Einstein. Those letters were triggered by reports that the Germans were working on the atomic bomb.

After the Germans surrendered, all war efforts were focused on the defeat of Japan. And as a result, the American atomic bomb was dropped on Japanese cities. Some or many of the atomic scientists working on nuclear weapons protested the use of the atomic bomb on Japan.

The curious thing is this: it appears that the atomic scientists had NO OBJECTION to dropping the atomic bomb on Germany.

Does anyone have any insights or comments on this aspect of the atomic bomb issue???

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

There appears to be an inconsistency in your position between the circumstances and the circumstantial intention. For consistency, your circumstantial intention should be “to destroy the military hub.” This leaves open the question of where “harm the civilian population” goes. Before we go there, though, let’s make sure we settle this question of circumstances. First, am I correct in pointing out an inconsistency between your position’s circumstances and its circumstantial intention? If no, please rebut. Secondly, are my circumstances and circumstantial intention consistent?

OK, thank you for your response. I’ll take a look at what you have said tomorrow. I am a little frazzled from a kefuffle on another forum. Applying double effect is quite involved, isn’t it? I have also found some shifts in the language of the source material and that hasn’t made it any easier. For the time being, though, I propose that we have reached common ground in agreeing that harming the civilian population was not a good thing.

Depending on how I wake up tomorrow I may ask put this whole double-effect analysis on a new thread. It is hard enough to keep track of the analysis as it stands, but with all the other angles on this thread, I find I am getting distracted. And all you other people posting, please do not take offence because none is intended.

I have actually found the ‘indiscriminate’ angle very interesting. Just because I am not responding to you directly, does not mean I am not reading your posts with great interest. I am actually very grateful to folk on this thread for all the research and argumentation they have brought to bear on this thread. Ani.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

OK, thank you for your response. I’ll take a look at what you have said tomorrow. I am a little frazzled from a kefuffle on another forum. Applying double effect is quite involved, isn’t it? I have also found some shifts in the language of the source material and that hasn’t made it any easier. For the time being, though, I propose that we have reached common ground in agreeing that harming the civilian population was not a good thing.

No worries. Respond when you have time. I have to say that thus far I’ve quite enjoyed your thoughtful and considered response. If nothing else, I’m learning a lot about double effect and moral theology in general. This has definitely been among the more useful and pleasant exchanges I’ve had on these boards.

And all you other people posting, please do not take offence because none is intended.

I have actually found the ‘indiscriminate’ angle very interesting. Just because I am not responding to you directly, does not mean I am not reading your posts with great interest. I am actually very grateful to folk on this thread for all the research and argumentation they have brought to bear on this thread. Ani.

Likewise.

 

[pnewton]

Steve O'Brien:

I urge everyone who has contributed to this thread–especially those who dissent from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the deliberate bombing of non-combatants–to go to the Web site of the Catholic Peace Fellowship to read Dr. Gary G. Kohls’s article entitled “The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945: The Untold Story”:

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2263

Keep and spread the Faith.

Can one dissent from a condemnation? I thought the reason we have the catechism is so we can stand by the doctrine of the faith. The article you linked promoted pacifism from a Catholic/Protestant/Buddhist point of view. I think I will stick with the catechism and thereby avoid any dissent.

 

[Wolseley]

Steve O'Brien:

I urge everyone who has contributed to this thread–especially those who dissent from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the deliberate bombing of non-combatants–to go to the Web site of the Catholic Peace Fellowship to read Dr. Gary G. Kohls’s article entitled “The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945: The Untold Story”:

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2263

Keep and spread the Faith.

As someone already alluded to, why do we hear so much about the “American atrocities” in dropping the a-bombs, but nary a word about Japanese atrocities? How come there’s no yearly condemnation of the Rape of Nanking? Why are there no annual outcries about the Bataan Death March? Why do we never hear any breasts being beaten concerning Unit 731, and all the germ-warfare experiments the Japanese carried out, using American POW’s as guinea pigs?

Why is only AMERICAN evils that everyone, including the U.S. bishops, howls about, but nary a peep about the evils the Japanese committed?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wolseley:

As someone already alluded to, why do we hear so much about the “American atrocities” in dropping the a-bombs, but nary a word about Japanese atrocities? How come there’s no yearly condemnation of the Rape of Nanking? Why are there no annual outcries about the Bataan Death March? Why do we never hear any breasts being beaten concerning Unit 731, and all the germ-warfare experiments the Japanese carried out, using American POW’s as guinea pigs?

Why is only AMERICAN evils that everyone, including the U.S. bishops, howls about, but nary a peep about the evils the Japanese committed?

Having had the opportunity to follow the Chinese press articles on the 50th anniversary of WWII (I was working a project in Singapore at the time) the Japanese atrocities were fully as bad as the Nazis – but no one in the United States has ever seemed to care.

As has been pointed out, the Rape of Nanking resulted in MORE deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined – yet did any Catholic prelate write an article on that anniversary?

 

[BibleReader]

Steve O'Brien:

I urge everyone who has contributed to this thread–especially those who dissent from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the deliberate bombing of non-combatants–to go to the Web site of the Catholic Peace Fellowship to read Dr. Gary G. Kohls’s article entitled “The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945: The Untold Story”:

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2263

Keep and spread the Faith.

Nagasaki was put on the target list because most of the wonderful Japanese Catholics there were employed in the privately owned shipyards there, building the ships the Japanese government used to murder innocents throughout Southeast Asia.

The odds are overwhelming that the Japanese soldiers cutting off heads and hammering sticks into the ears of the woman they just gang-raped in Nanking sailed to China on barges manufactured in Nagasaki. Somewhere in my library I have a photo of a smiling Japanese soldier, who sailed to China almost surely on a Nagasaki barge manufactured by Nagasaki Catholics, holding onto a head he has just severed from the body of a Chinese villager.

So, Nagasaki really was part of the Japanese murder machine.

Before Hiroshima, the government supported by the tax-paying Catholic citizens working for the Nagasaki murder machine carefully ignored the West’s warning to surrender, or sustain a blow from a new super-weapon.

Even after the same government realized that Hioshima really had been vaporized by a single high-altitude bomber, they decided to ignore the next warning that another such super-weapon would be dropped on another Japanese city.

So, Japanese kept murdering, and *another *Japanese city, the Nagasaki murder machine, was incinerated.

Even after Nagasaki was incinerated, the Japanese government decision to finally surrender was almost overthrown in a rebellion, but the Emperor cut short the rebellion by personally announcing the surrender to the crying, shocked populace.

TO THIS DAY, Japanese history books omit mention of the terrible holocaust the Japanese unleashed for no good reason against Southeast Asia.

One of the Leftists in this site might say, “Well, we should have just kicked them out of the lands they invaded, and left them alone in Japan!”

Well, in Iraq the US Army made the mistake of not drawing the entire Iraqi army into a battle, and killing the entire army. Now look what is happening: Baathist army units are blowing-up Iraqis day-in and day-out, so that they can take over the country again and kill, kill, kill, kill, kill even more! They gassed entire Kurdish villages. They murdered the Marsh Arabs in the south. Heck, they miss all of that murdering! It gave them a warm fuzzy!

Who here thinks that the proud Japanese, who today, even after two atom bombs can’t face the truth of their atrocities, would have gone home, if we had left them alone, and stopped murdering, murdering, murdering, murdering?

Who, here, thinks that they would have gone back on the offensive?

utmem.edu/bcdd/images/photos/photo2.jpg

Not to be offensive to Steve O’Brien, but his opposition to incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is foolish and offensive. When he does so, he implicitly indirectly supports Japanese murder outside of Japan.

I agree that all human death is a tragedy – the non-murder killing (with warnings!) of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilian families supporting the Japanese murder machine is a tragedy, and so is the murder of the screaming Chinese girls gang-raped in Manchuria by the Japanese.

Whenever you mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don’t forget to mentrion that the Japanese murder machine killed far more people in one Chinese city, alone – gang raping, torturing and murdering 300,000 Chinese in Nanking, alone – than both the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never fail to say those things in the same breath.

And if you ask those poor, weeping Japanese victims today if their people hurt anyone without justification, they deny it!

Those poor, victimized Japanese!

 

[BibleReader]

vern humphrey:

Having had the opportunity to follow the Chinese press articles on the 50th anniversary of WWII (I was working a project in Singapore at the time) the Japanese atrocities were fully as bad as the Nazis – but no one in the United States has ever seemed to care.

As has been pointed out, the Rape of Nanking resulted in MORE deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined – yet did any Catholic prelate write an article on that anniversary?

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

 

[Wolseley]

Steve O'Brien:

I urge everyone who has contributed to this thread–especially those who dissent from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the deliberate bombing of non-combatants–to go to the Web site of the Catholic Peace Fellowship to read Dr. Gary G. Kohls’s article entitled “The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945: The Untold Story”:

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2263

Keep and spread the Faith.

And incidentally, the picture being used in the article on that site is misleading. That is not a picture of the Hiroshima or the Nagasaki weapon, but rather a picture of a test bomb called “Upshot-Knothole” which had a yield three times larger than the bombs dropped on Japan. The picture being used was taken at the Nevada Test Site on June 4, 1953.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wolseley:

And incidentally, the picture being used in the article on that site is misleading. That is not a picture of the Hiroshima or the Nagasaki weapon, but rather a picture of a test bomb called “Upshot-Knothole” which had a yield three times larger than the bombs dropped on Japan. The picture being used was taken at the Nevada Test Site on June 4, 1953.

I note also the author of the article claims we were waging “aggressive war” against Japan.

Yeah. Remember how the US Navy attacked the Japanese ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor, and invaded the Japanese protectorate of the Phillippines, and forced the captured Japanese to undergo the Baatan Death March?

 

[HagiaSophia]

vern humphrey:

yet did any Catholic prelate write an article on that anniversary?

I am waiting for the Japanese Bishops to issue a statement apologizing for Pearl and Bataan and a few other things since we heard from the US Bishops this week – waiting…waiting…waiting.

Hark! I hear naught but silence…

 

[FightingFat]

DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

• Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

• Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

“The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

HERBERT HOOVER

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: “I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you’ll get a peace in Japan - you’ll have both wars over.”

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O’Laughlin, “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

“…the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.”

• quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: “Use of the bomb had besmirched America’s reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan.”

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, “I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.”

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

 

[FightingFat]

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur’s reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: “…the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.”

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

“Prof. Albert Einstein… said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate.”

Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.

Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted:

“As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. ‘I made one great mistake in my life,’ he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, ‘…when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.’”.

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620.

 

[BibleReader]

When a realist brings up the fact, to left-leaning Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear-phobes, that the Japanese murdered 300,000 in Nanking – mostly women and children (because they were easiest to murder) – and killed approximated 19 million in Southeast Asia, all told, and that whereas the death rate for prisoners-of-war held by the Nazis was about 1 out of 10, but the death rate of prisoners of war held by the Japanese was about 1 out of 3, the left-leaning nuclear-phobes say, “Oh, yeah, that stuff was bad, too. Too bad. It’s a shame. NOW LET’S GET BACK TO THE CRIME WROUGHT AGAINST HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI!!!”

Look, I am terrified of nuclear weapons. One of these days soon, some really sick pup in the Arab world is liable to finance the purchase of four Mark-IV equivalents from the former Soviet block, from North Korea or Pakistan, and put these miniaturized 100 kiliton little b-----ds into 4 crates and ship them through unawares, leftist Canada into New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, set them all off at the same moment, killing 75 million people, and mortally crippling our culture. It really, really does scare me silly. Nuclear weapons are “bad.” There’s no doubt about it.

But the creation of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Several people got the critical mass idea at about the same time, beginning with a Hungarian named Leo Szilard, and all of a sudden intellectuals in Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and America thought “bomb.” In the competitive atmosphere of WWII, the creation of an atomic bomb, and then in the competitive atmosphere of the Cold War, the creation of the H-bomb, were inevitable. We were stuck.

But to shed tears over Hiroshima anbd Nagasaki, and to simultaneously not mention the context, is evil.

The Japanese culture including those nice Catholics in Nagasaki manufacturing invasion barges used to murder 19 million people, including millions of non-Japanese women and children raped and tortured and murdered with glee – that’s not an exaggeration – were simply demonic, and their culture needed to be decked with a mighty punch.

 

[Wolseley]

BibleReader:

When a realist brings up the fact, to left-leaning Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear-phobes, that the Japanese murdered 300,000 in Nanking – mostly women and children (because they were easiest to murder) – and killed approximated 19 million in Southeast Asia, all told, and that whereas the death rate for prisoners-of-war held by the Nazis was about 1 out of 10, but the death rate of prisoners of war held by the Japanese was about 1 out of 3, the left-leaning nuclear-phobes say, “Oh, yeah, that stuff was bad, too. Too bad. It’s a shame. NOW LET’S GET BACK TO THE CRIME WROUGHT AGAINST HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI!!!”

Look, I am terrified of nuclear weapons. One of these days soon, some really sick pup in the Arab world is liable to finance the purchase of four Mark-IV equivalents from the former Soviet block, from North Korea or Pakistan, and put these miniaturized 100 kiliton little b-----ds into 4 crates and ship them through unawares, leftist Canada into New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, set them all off at the same moment, killing 75 million people, and mortally crippling our culture. It really, really does scare me silly. Nuclear weapons are “bad.” There’s no doubt about it.

But the creation of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Several people got the critical mass idea at about the same time, beginning with a Hungarian named Leo Szilard, and all of a sudden intellectuals in Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and America thought “bomb.” In the competitive atmosphere of WWII, the creation of an atomic bomb, and then in the competitive atmosphere of the Cold War, the creation of the H-bomb, were inevitable. We were stuck.

But to shed tears over Hiroshima anbd Nagasaki, and to simultaneously not mention the context, is evil.

The Japanese culture including those nice Catholics in Nagasaki manufacturing invasion barges used to murder 19 million people, including millions of non-Japanese women and children raped and tortured and murdered with glee – that’s not an exaggeration – were simply demonic, and their culture needed to be decked with a mighty punch.

Well said. And you are 100% correct. If it hadn’t been us that developed the damn things first, it would have been somebody else, and at that time, that meant either Germany, Japan, or Russia.

Frankly, I shudder at the thought of any of those three powers having something like that instead of us.

And ofttimes, it is forgotten that the reason we developed the atomic bomb to begin with is because we thought the Germans were in the process of developing one. We were in an “arms race” with the Germans. As it turned out, they were a long way from being able to actually make one, but we didn’t know that then. We felt we had to get one before they did, because if they got one first…well, that scenario was unthinkable.

And it is also ofttimes forgotten that we had originally intended to use those bombs on Germany, not Japan—but the Germans surrendered too soon for us to implement a combat drop.

And considering how little we knew of atomic weaponry, and the fact that if we actually had used the bombs to vaporize, say, Berlin and Munich, or even Hamburg and Leipzig, the fallout drifting east would have killed several thousand of our Soviet allies, it’s probably a good thing that they weren’t used in Germany, but Japan, where the drifitng fallout simply headed out over open ocean.

 

[BibleReader]

Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened…

metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.12.96/gifs/china2-9650.jpg

geocities.com/colleenart/paintings/Nanking.gif

imadr.org/photo/japan/nanking.jpg

ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/truth/genocide/nanking_heads.jpg

mykeru.com/assets/images/nanking_beheading.gif

origami.no/stoptorture/images/japnbody.gif

hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.NANJING.BODIES2.JPG

users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/webgraphics/JapWarCrimes/Nanking_victims.jpg

Our fellow Catholics of Nagasaki helped to engineer the above handiwork.

In the future, whenever discussing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, please include these links depicting horrors wrought by the Hiroshima- and Nagasaki-ites.

 

[FightingFat]

My ethical reasoning doesn’t follow along the lines of they were bad so we’re justified in being worse.

 

[BibleReader]

FightingFat:

My ethical reasoning doesn’t follow along the lines of they were bad so we’re justified in being worse.

Then you didn’t read the material

“Worse” is what the Japanese did. They were disgusting.