Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

[BibleReader]

quasimodo:

One of the most painful changes for me was to finally agree that the use of the Atomic bombs was not moral. Just war theory does not allow the deliberate targeting of civilians … even in total war. One may not use immoral means … deliberate targeting of civilians … that good may come of it. Double effect does not apply here because civilians were targeted deliberately as a means to demoralize the population.

(Fire bombing Dresden was immoral because it, too, targeted civilians …largely undefended civilians, by the way. It was purely an act of revenge. There was no strategic or tactical value to bombing Dresden. )

Yes, using the A-bombs saved far more lives than they took … at least by an order of magnitude. Yes, more lives were taken in ordinary bombing raids than by the a-bombs. The problem is that Catholic just war theory does not allow civilians to be targeted: any deliberate targeting of civilians is immoral … whether atomic, firebomb, conventional or otherwise.

Cities were targeted in WWII because there was a theory that the people would be demoralized and press their government to sue for peace. This theory has been thoroughly discredited by the experience of the English, the Germans and the Japanese.

I believe we can thanks Churchill for implementing civilian bombing. He realized England was in deep trouble because the Germans were very successfully bombing his airfields. The RAF could not get planes off the ground to stop them. England was slowly loosing the ability to defend itself. Our friend, Mr. Churchill, bombed German civilians to demoralize the German population AND to try to get Hitler to take his eye off the English airfields. It worked. Hitler was enraged and immediately began bombing population centers, not military targets. The pressure was off the English airfields and the RAF was safe(er). They had time to regroup; time to get the USA to help out a little. Their civilians were being killed nightly but, heck, they had a few to spare, right?

The demoralization of the civilian population tactic never works but the military tactic Churchill employed did work. It was immoral, never the less. We may not use immoral means to acheive a greater good. Period. Because the means are in and of themselves immoral, double effect is irrelevant.

Today, an enemy may rely upon the Main Steam Media to demoralize the population .

The problem is that the entire Japanese nation was geared to waging war.

As I said up above, most of the women in Nagasaki work in the shipyards building war ships. Those ships blew people up, and transported troops who simply murdered women and children.

And that’s no exaggeration.

Is that “civilians”?

So, if we may not use immoral means to achieve a moral end, then the Pope’s prayers before the Battle of Lepanto were profoundly demonic?

Sorry. Nagasaki was sad, but understandable.

Ladies in Nagasaki building troop barges enabled Japanese men wearing helmets to laugh as they hammered chopsticks into the ears of little girls in Nagasaki.

It’s not so simple as moral absolutes.

The moral absolutes I see here in this thread kill children.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BibleReader:

The problem is that the entire Japanese nation was geared to waging war.

No surrender

Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. In the last, desperate months of the war, this image was also applied to Japanese civilians. To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.

Not only were there virtually no survivors of the 30,000 strong Japanese garrison on Saipan, two out of every three civilians - some 22,000 in all - also died…

They were indoctrinated from an early age to revere the Emperor as a living deity, and to see war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world. Within this framework, the supreme sacrifice of life itself was regarded as the purest of accomplishments.

Japan’s samurai heritage and the samurai code of ethics known as ‘bushido’ have a seductive appeal when searching for explanations for the wartime image of no surrender. The great classic of Bushido - ‘Hagakure’ written in the early 18th century - begins with the words, ‘Bushido is a way of dying’. Its basic thesis is that only a samurai prepared and willing to die at any moment can devote himself fully to his lord.

 

[grotto]

Looks like we’re off like a herd of turtles! Does anyone see the times we are living in now? Me thinks most of America has pulled their little heads into their shells! The similarity between the Nazis, Japanese, France, and “Uncle Joe” is alive and well today as it was beginning in the 1930s - 40s.

Just plug in different players today, but the ideology of Islamic Fascism has become as dangerous to the free world. I include France in my similarity because they got caught in the “just go along to get along” trap. Today, numerous European countries are inundated with Islamic Fascists waiting to do their worst and don’t kid yourself - they are in the good old USA and Canada.

Examine the setup of WWII and the political dancing that lasted for so long while the enemy was busy. See the picture?

Saudia Arabia is our “friendly oil provider”, we don’t want to offend them just because they sit on their geysers and fund Islamic Fascism. We have to be so politically correct trying to locate the Islamic Fascists as they lurk among us and cry out “Who, Me?”

America, land of the free and home of the brave! Lets lock the
blinking, neon signed door that says “open”! “Do you have your membership card?” I hate to say it fellow turtles, but (oh, I hate this) - it may be its too late!

The bombs that were dropped on H&N were big. Today they are downsized and can fit in a large suitcase. These are available to buy at your local old Uncle Joe and Uncle Kruschev market! They had a surplus and offered a large discount.

We have to lock the door, shop a different oil market or do with homemade, find and kill the vermin that are planning to open their suitcases, AND - GET OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR SHELLS! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_6_7v.gif

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

If the act is intrinsically evil, it must be because of some good reason. What standard can we apply to

Hiroshima and Nagasaki that DOESN’T also apply to the bombings of London, Berlin, Coventry and Dresden or the blockade of Japan? Or the seige of Leningrad? Or the seige and storming of Berlin?

Vern, I thought we already settled this. My position is that intentionally destroying cities is wrong. You’re smart enough that you should be able to make a reasonable guess as to which actions in WWII this applies to, and which it does not. Storming Berlin? Hardly, we didn’t attempt to blot Berlin out from the face of the Earth. The destruction of Dresden? Yes. The same criteria that apply to analyzing our actions in Hiroshima and Japan apply to all. If you really want to determine the morality of any specific act you’ve raised here, you need to run the same exercise that we’re running in regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Philip_P]

Wolsely:

However, let’s say the situation was reversed, and

Japan and Germany had the bombs, and we didn’t.

Do you suppose they would have dropped a couple on us, destroyed a couple of cities, and after we quit, they’d help us clean up the damage, provide medical care for the victims, and provided us with a fair and equitable constitutional government, pouring billions of dollars’ worth of their own money into our country to get us back on our feet again, then allowing us our independance and a equal place in the community of nations alongside them?

And the point of this is to prove what, that the Axis powers violated the standards of justice and morality? I think we all agree on that. So what’s your point? Perhaps an implicit admission of our guilt in dropping the bomb by implying that, unlike Japan or Germany would have, we actually made an attempt at reparations for our actions?

If the point that you are making is simply that the Allies held the moral high ground, then you are actually making my point. It is *precisely *because the Allies held themselves to a higher moral standard that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an issue at all. Holding the high moral ground means admitting moral failure. Denying moral failure means debasing your standards to subjective nationalism rather than objective norms.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Vern, I thought we already settled this. My position is that intentionally destroying cities is wrong. You’re smart enough that you should be able to make a reasonable guess as to which actions in WWII this applies to, and which it does not. Storming Berlin? Hardly, we didn’t attempt to blot Berlin out from the face of the Earth. The destruction of Dresden? Yes. The same criteria that apply to analyzing our actions in Hiroshima and Japan apply to all. If you really want to determine the morality of any specific act you’ve raised here, you need to run the same exercise that we’re running in regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Let me get this straight – bombing SOME cities is okay, but not others? And the discriminating factor is whether we are attempting to “blot out the city from the face of the earth?”

So killing a million civilians in a city of two million would be okay, but killing ten in a village of ten would be wrong?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Let me get this straight – bombing SOME cities is okay, but not others? And the discriminating factor is whether we are attempting to “blot out the city from the face of the earth?”

So killing a million civilians in a city of two million would be okay, but killing ten in a village of ten would be wrong?

If the intent is to kill every last man, woman, and child in that city, then yes it is completely immoral. If that is not your intent, then it might not be immoral.

One key difference between Ani’s position and mine is that I believe that the intent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to kill every single man, woman, and child. This was a “proximate” intention. Ani, from what I understand, instead holds this out to be a “circumstantial” intention. Look at post 239. One caveat - Ani has not yet had time to respond; she might disagree with my summary of her position.

Now if your complaint is that it’s just too much work to apply this rather abstract moral analysis to every act in question, I can’t say I’m too sympathetic. It is at times of greatest moral stress, such as war, that our responsibility to adhere to clear moral thinking is the most pressing…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

If the intent is to kill every last man, woman, and child in that city, then yes it is completely immoral. If that is not your intent, then it might not be immoral.

And you have a copy of a planning document or executive order that documents that the intent was “to kill every last man, woman, and child in that city?”
Philip P:

One key difference between Ani’s position and mine is that** I believe** that the intent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to kill every single man, woman, and child.

That’s the key – it isn’t documented fact, it’s your belief.
Philip P:

This was a “proximate” intention.

No, it’s your belief.
Philip P:

Now if your complaint is that it’s just too much work to apply this rather abstract moral analysis to every act in question, I can’t say I’m too sympathetic. It is at times of greatest moral stress, such as war, that our responsibility to adhere to clear moral thinking is the most pressing…

No, my complaint is that you base your position not on facts, but on what you believe. That was the whole point of my last post.

 

[Wolseley]

Philip P:

And the point of this is to prove what, that the Axis powers violated the standards of justice and morality? I think we all agree on that. So what’s your point? Perhaps an implicit admission of our guilt in dropping the bomb by implying that, unlike Japan or Germany would have, we actually made an attempt at reparations for our actions?

If the point that you are making is simply that the Allies held the moral high ground, then you are actually making my point. It is *precisely *because the Allies held themselves to a higher moral standard that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an issue at all. Holding the high moral ground means admitting moral failure. Denying moral failure means debasing your standards to subjective nationalism rather than objective norms.

No, my dear fellow; my point is simply to underline the fact that everyone constantly flogs the United States for this “heinous crime” of dropping the atomic bombs, but either ignores or downplays to nothing the crimes committed by Japan.

I re-iterate: if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor, there never would have been a Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, I’m a fair-minded guy. So, you tell me: it’s 1945, and we are standing at the brink of invading Japan. We have these bombs, but decide not to use them—it would be too inhumane.

This leaves us with:

Invasion, meaning anywhere from two to ten more years of war, with several million more deaths on both sides;

Blockade, meaning enforced starvation for a good section of Japanese populace;

or Withdrawal, declaring a negotiated peace and leaving the Japanese to do their thing, hang on to their military warlords, re-build their army, and start their aggression all over again.

If you have other options of what else we could have done at the time, which in your opinion would have been more acceptable than droppong the bombs, invasion, or starvation, all of which involved further massive death, let’s hear it. I’m all ears.

Enlighten me, O Wise Sage.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Wolseley:

If you have other options of what else we could have done at the time, which in your opinion would have been more acceptable than droppong the bombs, invasion, or starvation, all of which involved further massive death, let’s hear it. I’m all ears.

It’s about time those who condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance came forth with alternatives.

Give us an alternative plan of action.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

It’s about time those who condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance came forth with alternatives.

Give us an alternative plan of action.

And hopefully it will be one that doesn’t leave us saying, “Well, yes, we DID kill twenty million more people than we would have otherwise. But we didn’t drop those nasty 'ol bombs, so don’t we feel GOOD about ourselves.”

 

[Petertherock]

vern humphrey:

And hopefully it will be one that doesn’t leave us saying, “Well, yes, we DID kill twenty million more people than we would have otherwise. But we didn’t drop those nasty 'ol bombs, so don’t we feel GOOD about ourselves.”

This is my first post in this topic but I have to agree with this. I will say that dropping the atomic bombs was a horrible thing to do and tragic to everyone involved. But under the circumstances there was no other alternative that wouldn’t have involved killing millions more people than what was killed by using the atomic bombs.

If any of my liberal friends have an alternative that would have saved the civilian lives and the lives of troops on both sides then I would have loved to hear them.

 

[Philip_P]

Wolseley:

No, my dear fellow; my point is simply to underline the fact that everyone constantly flogs the United States for this “heinous crime” of dropping the atomic bombs, but either ignores or downplays to nothing the crimes committed by Japan.

I re-iterate: if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor, there never would have been a Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, I’m a fair-minded guy. So, you tell me: it’s 1945, and we are standing at the brink of invading Japan. We have these bombs, but decide not to use them—it would be too inhumane.

This leaves us with:

Invasion, meaning anywhere from two to ten more years of war, with several million more deaths on both sides;

Blockade, meaning enforced starvation for a good section of Japanese populace;

or Withdrawal, declaring a negotiated peace and leaving the Japanese to do their thing, hang on to their military warlords, re-build their army, and start their aggression all over again.

If you have other options of what else we could have done at the time, which in your opinion would have been more acceptable than droppong the bombs, invasion, or starvation, all of which involved further massive death, let’s hear it. I’m all ears.

Enlighten me, O Wise Sage.

In response to your post, two points.

1)If you are truly interested in examining the morality of any of the alternatives to destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so long as we apply the same criteria for moral analysis to those actions, I would have no problem with it. Indeed, how could I oppose a robust moral analysis of any action after insisting upon one when discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I would suggest, though, that such an analysis deserves its own, separate thread. Discussing two actions (destruction of Hiroshima, destruction of Nagasaki) has taken 200+ posts thus far. An additional, separate moral analysis probably merits its own thread.

2)If you are attempting to argue for the morality of destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by comparing it to the morality of its alternatives, please keep in mind that until we have settled the matter of whether or not destroying these cities was an intrinsically evil act we cannot, from a moral theology perspective, begin comparing it against other possible actions. I, too, have secondary moral questions I would like to ask (such as, would it be moral to have voted for Truman if one knew he intended to destroy these cities), but, like your secondary questions, they must wait until the primary moral question has been answered.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

And you have a copy of a planning document or executive order that documents that the intent was “to kill every last man, woman, and child in that city?”

No, my contention is that targeting a city with a 1945 era atomic bomb necessarily means also intending the death of every last man, woman and child. I see the death of all the civilians as a proximate (e.g. essential) intent rather than a circumstantial one.

No, my complaint is that you base your position not on facts, but on what you believe. That was the whole point of my last post.

But that’s what all of us are doing. The difference is that some of us are actually backing up our positions (or “beliefs” as you dimissively term it) with logical argumentation that makes us of the tools for moral analysis the Church provides. So far, the only people on this thread I have seen do this are Ani and myself.

Criticize my position by all means, but unless you are willing to base your critique upon objective moral analysis (i.e. that provided by the Church, especially in the CCC passages referenced and the principle of double effect) don’t expect me to take your critiques too seriously. You may want to review my position (posts 137 and 138, 223 - 225, 239). Come on and step up to the plate, Vern, if you think you’re up to it.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I again urge everyone to read the Church’s condemnation of total war in sections 79-80 of the Vatican II document entitled Gaudium et spes:

rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/gaudium.ets

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Petertherock:

This is my first post in this topic but I have to agree with this. I will say that dropping the atomic bombs was a horrible thing to do and tragic to everyone involved. But under the circumstances there was no other alternative that wouldn’t have involved killing millions more people than what was killed by using the atomic bombs.

If any of my liberal friends have an alternative that would have saved the civilian lives and the lives of troops on both sides then I would have loved to hear them.

It seems to be the nature of the beast that we have a plethora of people willing to tell us what we should NOT have done, and a paucity of people winning to stand up and tell us what we SHOULD have done.

We find that everywhere – from the atomic bomb to the current war on terror. Lots of people deploring our actions, but no alternatives being proposed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

No, my contention is that targeting a city with a 1945 era atomic bomb necessarily means also intending the death of every last man, woman and child.

This was circumstantial intent, not proximate intent.
Philip P:

I see the death of all the civilians as a proximate (e.g. essential) intent rather than a circumstantial one.

Indeed you do say that, but you have not been able to justify saying that.

I dunno. This discussion has become mighty palling to me. Karl Keating asked us to apply some Catholic rigour to this. I have attempted to do that by applying the principle of double effect to the act in question. I don’t see – with all due respect – that same degree of rigour in his e-letter.

People keep on flinging quotations at me as if those quotations in and of themselves prove their points. They do not prove anything. They are simply quotations taken out of context.

I’m no longer willing to discuss the morality of dropping the bomb. It’s beating a dead horse.

Those of you think it was morally evil to drop the bomb, either set out in detail your alternatives to dropping the bomb or accept that our leaders made a difficult but good decision given the information and resources available to them at that time.

In fact, I am starting a new thread.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

This was circumstantial intent, not proximate intent.

Indeed you do say that, but you have not been able to justify saying that.

I dunno. This discussion has become mighty palling to me. Karl Keating asked us to apply some Catholic rigour to this. I don’t see – with all due respect – that same degree of rigour in his e-letter.

Please see post 239.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

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?

No Phillip. This is way off. Way way off. Look at my discussion I think it is on the second thread on constant and variables.

 

[amateurthomist]

Ani Ibi:

This was circumstantial intent, not proximate intent.

Indeed you do say that, but you have not been able to justify saying that.

I dunno. This discussion has become mighty palling to me. Karl Keating asked us to apply some Catholic rigour to this. I have attempted to do that by applying the principle of double effect to the act in question. I don’t see – with all due respect – that same degree of rigour in his e-letter.

People keep on flinging quotations at me as if those quotations in and of themselves prove their points. They do not prove anything. They are simply quotations taken out of context.

I’m no longer willing to discuss the morality of dropping the bomb. It’s beating a dead horse.

Those of you think it was morally evil to drop the bomb, either set out in detail your alternatives to dropping the bomb or accept that our leaders made a difficult but good decision given the information and resources available to them at that time.

In fact, I am starting a new thread.

See my post on the other thread but to summarize, the morally permissible alternatives would be:

A) conditional surrender
B) negotiate truce
C) invade Japan

The consequences, from a moral point of view, are not relevant. With regard to intention, we must look at the act itself and not the motives to specify the objective nature of the act. This is why all abortions are wrong, because objectively they always constitute a gravely evil act, no matter the subject intentions. “Double effect” applies to actions which are not intrinsically unjust but which have unavoidable but unintended side effects (such as removing a diseased filopian tube which unfortunately also causes death of the embryo).

What is the objective act? Bombing a civilian population. It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. The act is itself gravely immoral, case closed.