You Shall not kill

[bobzills]

I don’t think it was a decision President Truman made with glee and joy.

Sometimes if you’re faced with two bad choices, the lesser of the two bad choices is the best way to go.

In addition to being terribly cruel and inhumane, a decison like that sets a bad precedent.

 

[Meathead]

Yes, it is impersonal and callous to lightly dismiss the murder of innocent children as would result from the use of nuclear weapons. I am not buying the morality of nuclear weapons since they kill masaively and indiscriminately without distinguishing between soldiers and innocent children. Also, the manner in which these nuclear weapons kill and maim innocent children is horrendously cruel, incinerating them in large swathes of flames at horrific temperatures, setting off huge firestorms, flattening structures, releasing blinding light, and spewing out enormous quantities of radiation with their slow and fast acting poisons, many of which will remain in the environment for years and centuries. The use of these weapons on children promotes the cruelest form of death for them, and even if they are not in the vicinity of the bomb, there is the possiblility of long lasting injury and health damage that will result in a life of excruciating pain, misery and agony for them. It is simply wrong and immoral to use such weapons.

So you would rather have had a massive ground invasion, in which millions of Japanese citizens committed suicide out of fanatical loyalty to their emperor, rampant disease and famine that always arrives with an invasion force, and an even more overwhelming rate of destruction?

I agree with you that nukes are immoral and wrong. In this day and age, no forseeable good can come from them. However, it was the best option for our nation back then, and if things get really dicey sometime in the future, then it may become an option.

Innocents always die during wartime. Yes, it is sad. Yes, it is cruel. But it is unavoidable. The human race simply loves waging war, which is obvious in the fact that we do it alot.

I suggest that you should not spout your opinion on war, since you have a childs understanding of it.

I apologize for putting it so bluntly.

 

[LRThunder]

In addition to being terribly cruel and inhumane, a decison like that sets a bad precedent.

So, should he have ordered a full scale invasion that would have killed MORE people? Not much better precedent there.

 

[bobzills]

So I suggest that you should not spout your opinion on war, since you have a childs understanding of it.
.

Let us recall what Our Divine Saviour said: "Then he said, “I tell you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3

 

[Meathead]

Let us recall what Our Divine Saviour said: "Then he said, “I tell you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3

Thats all well and good, but until EVERYONE changes and becomes like little children, then we will have to take everything from an adults perspective.

 

[bobzills]

So, should he have ordered a full scale invasion that would have killed MORE people? Not much better precedent there.

It concerns the use of nuclear weapns against civilians. As I said, nuclear weapons are unlike many other weapons in that they kill massively and indiscriminately. They do not distinguish between the combatant soldiers and the innocent civilian children.
They are hideously cruel as they send off huge shock waves which flatten all kinds of buildings and set off hige firestorms. They cause long lasting injury and health damage, even to those who were not in the immediate area of the blast.
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.”

 

[LRThunder]

It concerns the use of nuclear weapns against civilians. As I said, nuclear weapons are unlike many other weapons in that they kill massively and indiscriminately. They do not distinguish between the combatant soldiers and the innocent civilian children.
They are hideously cruel as they send off huge shock waves which flatten all kinds of buildings and set off hige firestorms. They cause long lasting injury and health damage, even to those who were not in the immediate area of the blast.
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.”

Agreed, but at that time do you think anybody would know how powerful they were going to be? We have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[sodak]

In addition to being terribly cruel and inhumane, a decison like that sets a bad precedent.

Not at all. We often choose the lesser of two evils, even the Church tells us this when voting. For example, if one candidate is very, very pro-abortion, and one is 50-50, then it would be permissible to vote for 50-50, even though you would rather vote for a good pro life candidate.

It concerns the use of nuclear weapns against civilians. As I said, nuclear weapons are unlike many other weapons in that they kill massively and indiscriminately. They do not distinguish between the combatant soldiers and the innocent civilian children.
They are hideously cruel as they send off huge shock waves which flatten all kinds of buildings and set off hige firestorms. They cause long lasting injury and health damage, even to those who were not in the immediate area of the blast.
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.”

You seem to be fixated on children, which is interesting. Nuclear weapons these days (ours, at least) are much, much smaller. All weapons are indiscriminate to a point, you are arguing a matter of degrees.

What I find much more cruel is the sheer, staggering magnitude of abortions. If you look at the overall numbers, it will shock you. War is a distant second.

 

[sodak]

Let me try to frame this another way. President Truman inherited the war from FDR. His decision as to whether or not to drop the bomb, is very well documented. He wasn’t trying to bomb Japan into annihiliation, nor was he trying to kill as many civilians as possible. He was trying to bring the war to an end as fast as possible while minimizing loss of life.

All intelligence pointed to Japan being prepared to defend themselves to the end. An invasion by US forces would have dragged the war on for years, and cost millions of lives, both Japanese and US. Many historians have since confirmed this.

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the will of the Emperor. He surrendered quickly. The loss of life caused by these two events is certainly regretable, but resulted in the war being ended much more quickly.

Ironically, using nuclear weapons saved many, many lives. Both the WW2 intelligence and later historians confirm this.

Thank God President Truman had a spine and did the right thing. He saved many lives.

That’s my take on it.

 

[the_Gaudess]

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.

I have no liking for any fighting unless it’s face to face, and nuclear war is especially hateful to me, but the killing of innocent people was not the intention when bombing Japan, though the results were foreseeable. Is this not the same difference the Catholic Church notes regarding abortion (mortal sin) and indirect abortion (no sin)?

 

[CapaxDei]

Exodus 20…vs13… You shall not kill.

Why do Christians join the armed forces
Why do christians kill. and how do they justify it?

This is not exactly a direct answer to your question, but… browse here.

 

[bobzills]

Thank God President Truman had a spine and did the right thing. He saved many lives.

Your opinion is contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"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. 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 "
(CCC 2314).

 

[bobzills]

So, should he have ordered a full scale invasion that would have killed MORE people? .

There were other untried alternatives. Anyway, according to the Pope:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).
The dropping of an A-Bomb on Japan used the death of innocent children and others as a means to achieve the good of the war’s end. This is obviously gravely immoral and against Catholic teaching.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

There were other untried alternatives. Anyway, according to the Pope:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).
The dropping of an A-Bomb on Japan used the death of innocent children and others as a means to achieve the good of the war’s end. This is obviously gravely immoral and against Catholic teaching.

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.

 

[bobzills]

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.

It doesn’t matter really. The use of the A-Bomb is against the catechism:
"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. 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 "
(CCC 2314).
And it is contrary to what our beloved Pope has stated:
:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It doesn’t matter really. The use of the A-Bomb is against the catechism:
"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. 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 "
(CCC 2314).
And it is contrary to what our beloved Pope has stated:
:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).

All mortal sins are forbidden. I agree with you. It is a mortal sin to use an atomic weapon.

But it is also a mortal sin to, shall we say, pleasure one’s self.

And both are equally and easily forgiven on Saturday mid-morning in reconciliation.

A “temporal power” has the right to do as it sees fit to do after it’s calculations as to what serves the “greater good”. As do we all.

That is why, once again, we have purgatory.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Originally Posted by bobzills
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.

It wasn’t just about saving American lives, it was also about saving many many many Japanese civilian lives.

 

[sodak]

It doesn’t matter really. The use of the A-Bomb is against the catechism:
"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. 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 "

No. Relatively small areas of the cities were destroyed. And if the targets were military (I’m not up on Pacific Theater WW2 operations), then it was morally justified.

(CCC 2314).
And it is contrary to what our beloved Pope has stated:
:“the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).

Yes, but that’s not what we are talking about here. You are quite quick to condemn the US and Pres. Truman. He did the right thing, and it certainly was not the easy thing.

You can make all the quotations that you like, and continue to imply it was only directed at children (it wasn’t), but these people had to make the best decision they could for the times, and I still believe, with over 60 years of hindsight, that they did. You can disagree if you like.

 

[sodak]

There were other untried alternatives.

Name them.

 

[bobzills]

It wasn’t just about saving American lives, it was also about saving many many many Japanese civilian lives.

You might want to take a look at what CAF says about this:
" In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II the United States violated it. Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations. They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God’s law, according to which, “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57)."
catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp
My understanding of this, is that the use of the A-Bomb was a grave violation of God’s law.