You Shall not kill

[sodak]

So what were the untried alternatives?

 

[the_Gaudess]

So what were the untried alternatives?

Properly performed assassination.

 

[sodak]

That would be valid (military target), in my opinion, I wonder what Bobzills would say. Although it’s still murder. Hmmm…

 

[bilop]

This is nothing more nor less than the doctrine that the end justifies the means. It is OK to commit genocide on innocent Japanese children, because this saved American lives. I am not buying it and remain opposed to the murder of innocent children.

No.

The point is that once a just-war is joined, you have to conclude it victoriously with the minimum amount of evil done.

The Atomic bombings ended the war with the loss of perhaps 100,000-150,000 lives (mostly civilian).

Any other alternative, invasion, blockade, continued conventional bombing, etc. would have caused FAR MORE civilian deaths, and well as many more deaths to U.S. military personnel.

You can’t fight a war without killing, and most times innocent civilians will die as well. This is unavoidable. All you can do is take the actions that will save the most lives among your military and the enemy civilians.

God Bless

 

[the_Gaudess]

That would be valid (military target), in my opinion, I wonder what Bobzills would say. Although it’s still murder. Hmmm…

Not murder, that would be wrong. Self-defense in advance!

 

[Al_Masetti]

Yes, they should probably have blown the top off of Fujimoto (possibly several times) and created a few new bays in uninhabited areas of the coast before dropping nuclear bombs on cities.

Then again, how many bombs did they have? Could they have perhaps told the Japanese authorities that they “really should evacuate” Hiroshima before it would be bombed or a “whole lot of people” would be on the hands of the Japanese authorities? Would they have “listened”?

Sometimes, in fact nearly always, a “temporal power” has no obligation to be “perfect” and will be judged by history as it knows it will be. Free will dictates that we all are allowed to make our “calculations” and act on them as we see fit.

Even “grave and mortal sin” in forgiven. That’s why we have purgatory.

The U.S. only had TWO atomic bombs. We used them. If the Japanese had not surrendered when they did we would have been forced to invade with amphibious landings.

We were monitoring and decrypting their radio communications. We learned that the Japanese had figured out where we would be landing. And they had moved huge numbers of troops to oppose our landing. If the atomic bombs and our subsequent threats had not caused the Japanese to surrender, the next move was almost moot: to invade into suicidal opposition by troops that equaled or exceeded our own numbers?

We learned later that they Japanese had huge resources in reserve … suicide planes, suicide boats, and suicide mini-submarines. They had giant submarines … bigger than anything else out there, with hangars for three float planes.

AND … [this is somewhat speculative] … while the Japanese Army’s atomic bomb program in Tokyo was destroyed by B-29 raids … apparently the Japanese NAVY had a rival program located at or near Wonson, Korea and it was an active program. They apparently test fired a nuke at sea a day or so before the surrender. If the U.S. had been forced to invade Japan, it is conceivable that the Japanese Navy could have deployed a nuke in a suicide submarine and detonated it under the U.S. invasion fleet.

All hind-sight.

WW2 was a fight to the death and used every resource … military, economic, and political … that all the various countries could bring to bear.

The winner was arguably the Soviet Union.

Analysis of Venona decrypts suggest that the USSR actually triggered the whole war including the war between the U.S. and Japan.

 

[bobzills]

No.

The point is that once a just-war is joined, you have to conclude it victoriously with the minimum amount of evil done.

The Atomic bombings ended the war with the loss of perhaps 100,000-150,000 lives (mostly civilian).

Any other alternative, invasion, blockade, continued conventional bombing, etc. would have caused FAR MORE civilian deaths, and well as many more deaths to U.S. military personnel.

You can’t fight a war without killing, and most times innocent civilians will die as well. This is unavoidable. All you can do is take the actions that will save the most lives among your military and the enemy civilians.

God Bless

See post #60

 

[bilop]

See post #60

I don’t concur with CAF on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do concur on Dresden.

The Japanese regime and population were prepared for a fight to the death. There was no way to end the war without a lot of death. The A-bombs were likely the least destructive way to end the war.

Would you feel better if we had just isolated Japan with our Navy and let 10 million civilians starve to death?

There was no humane way to end that war.

God Bless

 

[bobzills]

Would you feel better if we had just isolated Japan with our Navy and let 10 million civilians starve to death?

I would feel better if the USA followed the path of morality and the teachings of the CCC and Pope John Paul II and the theologians at CAF. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct when they tell us that the use of the A-Bomb is immoral and must be condemned. The Vatican UN Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino said: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation.”
Also see post #60 for more details.

 

[Meathead]

I would feel better if the USA followed the path of morality and the teachings of the CCC and Pope John Paul II and the theologians at CAF. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct when they tell us that the use of the A-Bomb is immoral and must be condemned. The Vatican UN Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino said: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation.”
Also see post #60 for more details.

Atomic weapons do deserve condemnation, but I honestly can’t see how it is more humane, or within our morals to launch a destructive invasion that could last for years, and would end more lives than two atomic weapons.

How can you see that as a better alternative???

 

[Al_Masetti]

I would feel better if the USA followed the path of morality and the teachings of the CCC and Pope John Paul II and the theologians at CAF. I believe that the Catholic Church is correct when they tell us that the use of the A-Bomb is immoral and must be condemned. The Vatican UN Representative, Archbishop Renato Martino said: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation.”
Also see post #60 for more details.

To follow the path you laid out above requires time travel.

Perhaps it is irrelevant, but in fact Pope John Paul II was not Pope during World War II.

So, explain how the United States in 1945 would be able to follow the guidance given by the Holy Father in 1990 or so.

How would the Holy Father know anything in 1945 about a weapons project that was super secret and that many experts predicted wouldn’t work.

Time warps are really not a valid way of discussing morality.

What is needed is to put yourself in the eyes of the people who lived through that time period.

Japan had been attempting to assemble a colonial empire. Unlike the British, Dutch, Americans and French, the Japanese were too late in history and their excesses of brutality went beyond anything done by anyone up to that time. The Japanese killed around 15,000,000 Chinese civilians (men, women and children) and around 5,000,000 South East Asians.

The U.S. economy was at least ten times larger than the Japanese economy. Japan made a foolish move by attacking Pearl Harbor. AND, the Japanese Navy bungled the attack … they failed to sink the U.S. aircraft carriers and they failed to attack the U.S. oil storage facility at Pearl Harbor.

By the end of the war, the United States had in service about 100 aircraft carriers (of all sizes) and a logistics system that was able to carry all the materiel of war 8000+ miles. Meanwhile the U.S. submarines, mine laying forces, and Army and Navy aircraft had just about wiped out the Japanese merchant marine.

Curtis LeMay’s B-29 bombers burned out most of Japan’s cities. Even at a cost of about 50% of the B-29 fleet. [The U.S. built around 4000 B-29’s and about half were lost in the attacks on Japan.]

But Japan refused to stop fighting.

They could have ended it simply by standing down.

But they just kept fighting.

The U.S. Navy was severely shaken by the kamikaze attacks on the U.S. fleet at Okinawa. More than 5000 sailors were killed and more than 30 ships were sunk and many of the aircraft carriers were severely damaged.

With fanatical fighting continuing, the U.S. had no alternative but to press on. Fortunately, the two atomic bombs ended it.

 

[bobzills]

To follow the path you laid out above requires time travel.

Perhaps it is irrelevant, but in fact Pope John Paul II was not Pope during World War II.

So, explain how the United States in 1945 would be able to follow the guidance given by the Holy Father in 1990 or so.

How would the Holy Father know anything in 1945 about a weapons project that was super secret and that many experts predicted wouldn’t work.

Time warps are really not a valid way of discussing morality.

What is needed is to put yourself in the eyes of the people who lived through that time period.

Japan had been attempting to assemble a colonial empire. Unlike the British, Dutch, Americans and French, the Japanese were too late in history and their excesses of brutality went beyond anything done by anyone up to that time. The Japanese killed around 15,000,000 Chinese civilians (men, women and children) and around 5,000,000 South East Asians.

The U.S. economy was at least ten times larger than the Japanese economy. Japan made a foolish move by attacking Pearl Harbor. AND, the Japanese Navy bungled the attack … they failed to sink the U.S. aircraft carriers and they failed to attack the U.S. oil storage facility at Pearl Harbor.

By the end of the war, the United States had in service about 100 aircraft carriers (of all sizes) and a logistics system that was able to carry all the materiel of war 8000+ miles. Meanwhile the U.S. submarines, mine laying forces, and Army and Navy aircraft had just about wiped out the Japanese merchant marine.

Curtis LeMay’s B-29 bombers burned out most of Japan’s cities. Even at a cost of about 50% of the B-29 fleet. [The U.S. built around 4000 B-29’s and about half were lost in the attacks on Japan.]

But Japan refused to stop fighting.

They could have ended it simply by standing down.

But they just kept fighting.

The U.S. Navy was severely shaken by the kamikaze attacks on the U.S. fleet at Okinawa. More than 5000 sailors were killed and more than 30 ships were sunk and many of the aircraft carriers were severely damaged.

With fanatical fighting continuing, the U.S. had no alternative but to press on. Fortunately, the two atomic bombs ended it.

My understanding of Catholic theology is that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As to why dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan in WWII was immoral, please see post #60 and follow the link given there.

 

[sodak]

My understanding of Catholic theology is that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As to why dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan in WWII was immoral, please see post #60 and follow the link given there.

And at this point in time, the least evil choice was chosen, which is permitted in a just war. I’ve already read post 60, and no, I’m not following the link. Rather than giving good refutation, you keep repeating the same line over and over.

Abortion has killed over 50 million children just in this country. What is your stand on that?