65 Years Ago Today
Today marks the 65th anniversary of one of the greatest war crimes in history: the bombing of Hiroshima. Let us take time out of the day to think and ponder the mass destruction wrought by American aggression, and plead to God for forgiveness. If we have no difficulty in destroying whole cities just to demonstrate our power and might, is it any surprise what we, as a society, end up doing to ourselves? Indeed, all we have to do is note how this one event changed not only the world, but America’s place in the world. Through mass human sacrifice, we put ourselves on top. We demonstrated we would do anything to satisfy our desires. The lesson was well learned. Is it any surprise, after our barbaric act of aggression, the people of the United States would imitate it and embrace the path of death, in all of its manifestations, in order to assure power and position in society?
Comments are closed.
Wasn’t WWII begun by a sneak attack on US Navy forces in Hawaii? Why not a comment about the service men who died in their beds that morning? What about the atrocities of the Japanese on China, the Phillipines and everywhere else they invaded? As I recall my history lessons it was estimated that Americans would have suffered almost a million casualities had we invaded Japan to end the war that THEY started. I don’t deny the atomic bomb should never be used again but I will not judge the generation that fought the war that ended the tyranny of Hitler and Japan. Get a grip.
“Indeed, all we have to do is note how this one event changed not only the world, but America’s place in the world. Through mass human sacrifice, we put ourselves on top. We demonstrated we would do anything to satisfy our desires. The lesson was well learned. Is it any surprise, after our barbaric act of aggression, the people of the United States would imitate it and embrace the path of death, in all of its manifestations, in order to assure power and position in society?”
I am not sure this is an accurate way of portraying how this went down.
First if we dropped the bomb or not I think it was pretty clear we would have have ended up on top. It seems the primary motivation by the Leadership in dropping the bomb was to avoid “What they believed” to be horrific American deaths in a invasion of Japan. Yes I know that topic is very disputed on what would have actually happened in an alternative Universe if we invaded.
I think war fatigue contributed to this more than trying to to attain a economic position
The attack itself was an unprecedented act of aggression. Whether or not we were attacked does not justify the use of the nuclear bomb — indiscriminate killing of a civilian population is always evil. And no, it was not needed. There was no need for any invasion of Japan. The Generals were themselves opposed to the use of atomic weapons in Japan because they knew we had won:
There are reasons why the Church has condemned the act — revenge is never a good reason for an intrinsic evil.
I agree with the substance of your comments, but I do question your use of the word aggression, if only because it is going to lead people to misinterpret what you are saying, or quibble about whether we were the aggressors or defenders in WWII. I think you would convey your point quite well by substituting the word violence for aggression: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of barbaric violence, the apotheosis of the brutality and mechanized slaughter that began sometime in the 19th century.
David
I would agree with you that there are more things at play than merely the use of the bomb, and you are right in pointing out classical liberalism is at play; however, the bomb really taught many after to rethink morality. When we read how the generals themselves opposed its use, and then we see later generations accept it, we can see a major shift in morality right there, which comes with the use of the bomb and I would say this shift was also one of society and not just the military
Henry,
we must be careful in reading too much back into the spring and summer of 1945; many of those involved (such as Leahy and Eisenhower) later had (profound) misgivings, but to the best of my understanding no one in a position of power (Truman, his staff, the joint chiefs, etc.) ever opposed the use of the bomb prior to its being dropped. This point is made very cogently by the historian Barton Bernstein in “Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Disasters and Modern Memory.” (in “Hiroshima in History and Memory” M.J. Hogan, Ed. Oxford). I trust this article because it was recommended to me by a colleague who is a Japanese historian who studies this period, is married to a Japanese woman, and is outspoken in denouncing the atomic bombing as a crime against humanity.
I make this point not to excuse or to justify the use of the bomb (which was indeed an intrinsic evil) but to try to understand the mind-set that led quite decent human beings to commit such gravely evil acts. Very few people get up one morning and decide to commit a mortal sin: the road to hell is paved by a gradual deadening of the conscience and the accumulation of lesser sins. In this case, the road behind these men is clear: the Tokyo firebombing, Dresden, Stalingrad, Coventry, Ypres, Verdun….
Of those who had moral qualms, a more pressing question is whether they acted on them. MacArthur, for instance, wanted to use the atomic bomb to stop the Chinese in Korea. Eisenhower came closer than most: see his “Cross of Iron” speech.
David
The generals were opposed, and this surprised people in Truman’s administration. This is what many of them point out — talking about how they were told and said no, let’s not do it. They knew it had won. And that fact that MacArthur wanted to use the bomb elsewhere indicates he was not opposed to its use, and yet was to this war. But beyond it, generals themselves didn’t think it right for the most part.
I also find it interesting we see consequential reasoning being offered (not by you) in this thread to justify an intrinsic evil. Again, no one denies we were attacked; but proportionality and other rules of war have to be followed.
“bomb really taught many after to rethink morality. When we read how the generals themselves opposed its use, and then we see later generations accept it, we can see a major shift in morality right there, which comes with the use of the bomb and I would say this shift was also one of society and not just the military”
Well I think there is something to that. Now as to this debate and every time it comes up the facts are often in dispute. How many Generals opposed it, who supported it, was Japan really ready to Surrender if jsut let then have their Emperor. Opinions are from to A to Z on this and it is difficult at times to see who is right.
Now what is intersting the huge moral dicussion on this topic was quite vibrant really after the War.
What changed the equation and what made this conversation mooted IMHO is the Soviets got the bomb
There was some controversy a few years ago about Comments that surfaced that Ronald Reagan was suppose to have made. When asked what he would do if the Soviets have launched a massive waves of ICBMS would he order a strike. He is reported to have said WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT. In other words it was over for us so why destroy all those people
Now this caused some concern when it came out because if you allow this line of reasoning to be discussed in the open your opponent might cacualte heck lets strike first. It does away with the whole principle of MAD.
So therefore you can have really Leaders in positions of power talkng about the ethics of a nuclear response that would also destroy cites without the regard to women, children, cilivians , etc
I think one reason why the discussion of Nuclear weapons and the morality of use never contiuned was because in real ways you could not have it
Ron, you should read war is a racket by Smedley
Butler, a retired Marine general. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But the US was having naval
games off the coast of Japan. People should learn
the history of at least 50 years prior to a war to get all sides. And the Soviet Red Army killed 70-80%of all Germans, so we ought to thank the Red Army
for defeating fascism. Of course, this does not
sit well with western powers that want to rule
the world.
WW2 was just a continuation of WW1, of which was
just a race among imperial powers. But, this
does not sit well with our romantic notion of
war with our country, does it?
And for all who are offended by the article
not protraying American in a glamourous light,
are you equally offended by the lack of criticism
and bias thoughts of the western world always doing
the right thing?
It was wrong for Japan or Germany to grasp for empire,
but yet it was OK for the British to rule 1/4 of the
globe? Why no criticism of the Britsh? The Opium
Wars in China, starvation in India, etc?
If you are sincere in condemning Germany and Japan,
then the British empire should be lumped in with them
for all of their crimes. If not, then a person’s
pursuit of justice is not sincere.
As Americans, we are rightly proud of our successful defense against these grave threats to freedom and justice. But like every nation that fought in this war, we face continuing questions, symbolized most clearly by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Henry,
The document you link to seems to have a more balanced view of the United States than you do. Your post reads like a wholesale condemnation of the United States and its citizens, with the dropping of the atomic bomb being not just a troubling part of our history, but the moment the country began its ever-continuing descent into murder and barbarity.
David
It is a very clear moment where we chose consequentialism as morally acceptable, and I do believe, ever since then, people have followed through with the logic in personal lives as well.
The ideas of “total war” and “unconditional surrender” are American barbarisms, rooted in a culture that totally rejects–has always rejected–such traditional orthodox Christian teachings as “just war.”
There was no need to occupy Japan–indeed, no need even to rebuild Japan; her difficult and onerous task of rebuilding herself without any help from the victorious powers SHOULD have been sufficient punishment for her atrocities in the World War.
By the time that genocidal bomb was dropped, Japan’s objectives in the World War had been completely foiled and she was defeated. Sanctions against trade with her or against occupation by another power (the Soviets) with embargoes against her own trade would have forced her to sue for peace and then accept the responsibility of mending herself, without the requirement of any of the victorious powers’ treasure expended on her reconstruction.
Of course, we dropped the bomb only to “shock and awe” the Soviets and to put ourselves in the position of creating a new “market” and a puppet state. Such a thing should never, ever be the objective of a state that is actually a part of Christendom. But America has never been a part of Christendom.
“The ideas of “total war” and “unconditional surrender” are American barbarisms, rooted in a culture that totally rejects–has always rejected–such traditional orthodox Christian teachings as “just war.””
Sorry History does not bear that out at all. We herw “unconditional surrender” as to the American Civil War for instance. However the Unconditional surrender for Japan was far from a complete Conquest and I think the terms were good
“There was no need to occupy Japan–indeed, no need even to rebuild Japan; her difficult and onerous task of rebuilding herself without any help from the victorious powers SHOULD have been sufficient punishment for her atrocities in the World War.”
SO we should have not helped to rebuild Japan? I find it amazing that people of my Grandfathers age that had much hate toward Japan in his war years thinks kindly of them now. That was because we did not hold grudges. Our actions in Japan was one of America’s finest hours
“By the time that genocidal bomb was dropped, Japan’s objectives in the World War had been completely foiled and she was defeated. Sanctions against trade with her or against occupation by another power (the Soviets) with embargoes against her own trade would have forced her to sue for peace and then accept the responsibility of mending herself, without the requirement of any of the victorious powers’ treasure expended on her reconstruction.
Of course, we dropped the bomb only to “shock and awe” the Soviets and to put ourselves in the position of creating a new “market” and a puppet state. Such a thing should never, ever be the objective of a state that is actually a part of Christendom. But America has never been a part of Christendom.”
I oppose the bombing looking back in hindsight. But I have debated this topic enough to realize the alternatives were not so clear as they appear perhaps now. In fact now the issue if Japan was defeated is still of much controversy. So needless to say I am a tad wary, though I oppose those bombing now, thinking I can get into the minds of those that made that choice and Pontificate the worst intentions.
“But America has never been a part of Christendom.”
As sure as Death and Taxes I was sure that was coming.Sigh
jh
Unconditional surrender goes against just war requirements. And attacking civilian centers like this is an intrinsic evil. There is no justification.
Mr. Karlson, you’re absolutely right: “There is no justification.” To attempt to do so is Americanism or Consequentialism, not Catholicism.
This is not an issue about which an informed conscience can come to either side. If it were, would it have been moral to march tens of thousands of Japanese civilians, men, women, and children, into gas chambers to force their government to unconditionally surrender? After all, that would have been more humane and less destructive. Or would it have been moral to do the same to German civilians because their government did it first?
Here is a helpful piece on this issue:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1485
Advice for Ron:
UNLEARN.
Sorry History does not bear that out at all. We herw “unconditional surrender” as to the American Civil War for instance. However the Unconditional surrender for Japan was far from a complete Conquest and I think the terms were good
JH, while I can ignore the misspellings and the solecisms–and attribute them to some weak American schooling–I cannot ignore your egregious ignorance of history: “total war” and “unconditional surrender” are the tactics and the strategy of industrialized warfare, in which the TARGETS are no longer the warriors and the armies of the enemy, but the enemy’s war-making capacities, which ALWAYS include the civilian populations. That’s why it’s disingenuous to claim that we are not targeting civilians in Afghanistan. Of course we are; if we wish to “occupy” and “pacify” that country, we have no choice but to do so, because the fanatically devout Muslim, tribal population of that country are the “fish” among whom the insurgents “swim,” to borrow Mao Dse-Dung’s terminology.
Now, “industrialized warfare” was, of course, first practised in Europe by the French Revolutionaries, but, even in the Napoleonic wars–except for the invasion of Russia–the warring powers got tired of it and abandoned all vestiges of it except the embargoes. “Industrialized warfare” was PERFECTED in the American Civil War, and then brought to full embodiment in the wars of extinction against the American Indians. Not even the Prussians, six years later in Europe demanded “unconditional surrender” of the Second French Empire. It just wasn’t a European or a Western Christian thing until the Americans brought it to Europe.
As a matter of fact, it is very doubtful that the First World War would have ended with the “unconditional surrender” of the Allies at Versailles (the contributing cause of the Second World War), if the Americans had stayed out of that conflict. The greater likelihood would have been a stalemated conclusion, an armistice, treaties (but not “treaties of surrender”), exchanges of territories (leading, for sure, to further wars, which we equally might have stayed out of, allowing Europe to proceed faster to the natural decline that she is destined for, anyway), etc.
“Total wars,” “unconditional surrender” and even “ethnic cleansings” are the war-making habits of the industrialized societies of the post-Christian world and the United States is the dominant and trend-making society of that historical epoch.
This is perhaps quibbling and getting us off topic, but I must point out that we cannot blame “total war” and “unconditional surrender” on the post-Christian west. The third Punic war ended with the complete and total destruction of Carthage: the population slaughtered or enslaved and the city was razed and the ground salted.
Similarly, the sack of Bezier by Simon de Monfort during the Albigensian crusade, ending with the slaughter of the entire civilian population (which was seeking sanctuary in the church), also strikes me as a counter-example.
These evils have always been in the hearts of men and women. The only change is that the advent of industrial technology allows us to accomplish them on ever grander scales. As I argued above, this culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
David
While you are right that, in ancient history, there were some brutal examples (even in Scripture), Christianity, for a time, changed that and put in moral rules to warfare. Even in early modernity, this ideal was still held — indeed, often was promoted contrary to the wars between Christian nations when they became brutal. Nonetheless, there are new dimensions which are added when we come to late modernity, with its wholesale rejection of the Christian tradition and embrace of nihilism, and I think we really need to see how these changes affect social structures and how we think and live in the world today.
Henry, I would like to have a show where I would
go around to visit different churches (all denominations) and ask questions.
One question would be do you know the just war
theory? Some of it, all of if, do you know
where to find it etc.
My following question is getting off the inital
post, but I think it has to do with the military.
The issue of immigration (Latin America in particular), I feel is largely an unjust wage
issue. Here in the US people complain how
illegals cross the border. Is it illegal?
Yes. But for the richest country in the world
to pay such unjust wages for labor is unethcial
in my opinion. If they made a wage that was
a just wage, maybe they would stay in their country.
We do not have posters of Sadam on the sides of
buildings, but we do have XYZ corporation telling
us what we need to be happy.
The US will give “favored trade status” to
Georgia or South Korea. McCain said “we are
all Georgians”. But we treat Latin America
like it is a mole or wart we would cut off
if we could. It seems we give favored trade
status to countries where we want to
project military power.
I think it is because of the “military industrial
complex”. The US would rather have contracts or
bases to project power, sell hardware for the
obscene amounts of money it provides than
really form relations with Latin America.
Of course, this is all my opinion but because
Vox Nova deals with a lot of social justice issues,
I wonder if you had a post why Latin America
has no appeal or is not glamarous to us,
why is that?
Henry,
Apparently you see the decision to drop the atomic bomb, made by one man with a relatively small circle of advisers, as more the act of the United States as a nation than, say, the Holocaust — with widespread complicity and hatred of the Jews by ordinary Germans — as being the act of Germany. Also, apparently it doesn’t count that Eisenhower, one of those who disapproved of the decision, was elected president, or that the United States has never used nuclear weapons again.
If we have no difficulty in destroying whole cities just to demonstrate our power and might, is it any surprise what we, as a society, end up doing to ourselves?
The atomic bomb was not dropped “just to demonstrate our power and might.” It was dropped to end a world war. Whether or not using the bomb was “necessary” to end the war, or end it more quickly, or end it without massive Allied casualties, is still being debated. But those who made the decision to use the atomic bomb made that decision with the belief that using the bomb would end the war and save Allied lives. You can legitimately argue that that made them consequentialists, but you can’t (in my opinion) argue that they used the bomb “just to demonstrate our power and might.”
Admittedly it is the reaction of some of us to defend the United States when it is criticized, no matter how justified the criticisms. But you seem to be on the opposite extreme.
David
The Holocaust was repudiated after the fact, and so German society was transformed in reaction to it. The atomic bomb was made into a good in the US, and so its society was affected by this.
David, I think that historians of warfare, its stragegies and techniques would tell you that what you are asserting is simply NOT TRUE.
You are speaking of the human psychology at war, and I am talking about the OBJECTIVES of modern warfare, which have changed tremendously since the conquest of a region or a continent was simply the control of its agriculture or a trade route or two, and also ever since the development of a new kind of identity called “nationalism.”
In visiting a battlefield of the Middle Ages or even the 17th or 18th centuries, haven’t you ever wondered why the equivalent of modern-day skirmish of only a few thousand men was able to alter a border or capture a city? It was because SO FEW were even involved in it; most of the rest of the population were able to ignore what was going on and get on with their lives. They weren’t being brainwashed by mass communications, they weren’t being herded into factories, they weren’t under constant surveillance to pay taxes or send their children to state schools, etc. But once the power of the state AND of employers AND of state-monopolies, etc. grew to such exponential sizes, then the need of military strategists to have their conflicts determine much more than they ever had before ALSO increased exponentially, and that’s how you get the “total war” of the industrial and post-industrial epochs, which includes mass-killing as a BYPRODUCT, not as phenomenon of human cruelty at war, as in the events you refer to.
Henry,
There has been an authentic movement in the United States for at least the past fifty hears to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Continued here.
David
The issue is not just nuclear weapons, but the thought processes which led to their original use. Many will still support their original use while trying to remove the world of them now. And many who nonetheless were raised this way, and might oppose nukes, still think in consequential terms based upon the society which came from their use.
Let me begin with a small request: since there are two David’s in this thread, if you respond to one of us could you distinguish between us? You may call me David CU, or even Cruz, my nickname in high school. :-)
DigbyDolben: I am not a historian by training, but I think that your characterization of unconditional surrender is historically inaccurate. The concept definitely existed prior to the American Civil War, though the terminology “unconditional surrender” may have originated then. The prior term is “surrender at discretion” [discretion of the victor]. This term is still used in international law and is synonymous with “unconditional surrender.” A brief internet search turned up two references from the 18th century (prior to the French Revolution) and Santa Anna demanded that the Alamo surrender at discretion.
Your point that the nature of war has changed is true, but I think you read too much into it. A (vulgar) Marxist, for instance, might argue that the objectives of war have always been the same: control of the means of production. But, as the means of production have changed, the nature of the conflict—in terms of the weapons used and the nature of military targets chosen—has also changed. In an agricultural era, invading armies would cut down orchards, burn crops, slaughter livestock and poison wells, since these are the means of production on which armies depend. In an industrial era the proletariat, as captive labor of the military-industrial complex, must be destroyed. (In passing, I would note that your comment about civilians sitting things out and getting on with their lives romanticizes war in the pre-industrial era.)
Henry & DD:
However, my point is that, paraphrasing Clauswitz, war is fought by human beings, so, as you put it, the psychology of war is paramount and it is this that drives the art of war: military objectives and weapons are subordinate and driven by this. As Henry put it, “The issue is not just nuclear weapons, but the thought processes which led to their original use.” I agree completely. Rereading the above exchange, I think our disagreement is whether and/or to what extent the atomic bombing marked a “major shift in morality.” As I have argued, I am not convinced that it did. As technology and social structures have evolved (pace my vulgar marxist argument above) the underlying forces of evil and human sinfulness have remained constant.
Nevertheless, I think this disagreement masks a more fundamental agreement. I find myself more or less in agreement with Henry when he wrote
“Nonetheless, there are new dimensions which are added when we come to late modernity….and I think we really need to see how these changes affect social structures and how we think and live in the world today.”
(Only more or less since I am not quite as pessimistic about the modern age as he is.)
I think we need to hammer home the point that bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the continuation of post facto rationalizations for this indefensible act, point to the (continuing) power of the illusion that we (the United States) can solve our problems through violence.
David CU, you’re playing with semantics with your equivocation of “surrender at discretion” with “unconditional surrender.” The wikipedia article on “unconditional surrender” cites as the FIRST example of such a surrender being demanded of a nation-state (Japan was a nation-state) as coming at the end of the American Civil War, and “surrender at discretion” has to do with the surrender of armies or besieged cities or fortifications.
Also, the “crops, livestock and wells” of pre-industrialized society were not centralized in some planning system to generate war-making capacity, as they became in the industrial age.
Also, I don’t think I “romanticize” pre-industrial warfare at all; there are accounts of peasants 20 or 30 kilometres away from battlefields like Bosworth Field and Pavia NOT EVEN KNOWING that a battle had just been fought. I will grant you that things became different in battles among early-modern but still pre-industrial societies such as those of the Thirty Years War, but I still think those were conflicts that featured the introduction of another phenomenon of the soon-to-be-industrialized nation-state: nationalism.
Now, I have a question for you: why do you refuse to concede the point that the societies of the Age of Faith at least aspired to conduct their battles in a limited fashion and that modern and post-modern societies characterised by revolt AGAINST “faith” threw off those restrictions? It is recorded that after the Battle of Fontenoy, as late in European history as 1745, Louis XV, no paragon of religiosity, took his son, the Dauphin, on a tour of the battlefield, because he wanted to instill in him a horror of war, so that he’d understand at what cost such victories are won. Compare THAT, if you will, with the pagan monstrosity of the state-worshipping Bush II forbidding the photographing of coffins returning from Iraq. I know what George Orwell would have made of that difference, and I bet you do, too. It’s an immensely significant cultural difference that has everything to do with the modern rationalization of the genocidal nature of the warfare characteristic of a nation-state like America.
DigbyDolben:
I am not playing semantics: the terms appear to me (after a more extensive literature search) to be interchangeable and to apply to both military units and to nations. A Google search of “surrender at discretion” and Japan produces multiple authoritative hits (i.e., sources I consider to be reliable primary or secondary sources). In the Civil War, Grant introduced the term to call for the surrender of military units, not of the south as a nation state. (Since he was not a professional solider, he may not have known the older term “surrender at discretion.”) Also, despite what the preface to the Wikipedia article you refer to said, the U.S. did not demand unconditional surrender from the the Confederacy: it offered terms—harsh terms, but terms. At the military surrender at Appomattox, Grant offered fairly generous terms. (See, for instance, Mark Neely, “Was the Civil War a Total War,” in “On the Road to Total War”, Stig Forste and Jorg Nagler, Eds.)
According to one historian I stumbled upon, the only war in which the U.S. asked for unconditional surrender was WW II, making this war sui generis in yet another way. And the earliest case of unconditional surrender directed at a political entity (as opposed to an army) I could locate was during the Peloponnesian war, in 415 BC. As recorded by Thucydides: “the Melians surrendered to the Athenians unconditionally.” (Other translations of the text record this as “surrendered at discretion.”)
And to turn to your final question:
“Why do you refuse to concede the point that the societies of the Age of Faith at least aspired to conduct their battles in a limited fashion…”
I refuse to concede this because I don’t believe it is true. These societies claimed to have aspired to conduct their battles in a limited fashion, but this was a rationalization and a denial of the reality that they often fought savagely and without mercy. We cherish the same illusions today. The Strategic Air Command, which has control of the nuclear weapons of the U.S., has as their motto, “Peace is our Profession.” And General Sherman, who made full use of his military capacity to lay waste to Georgia and South Carolina, urgently implored cadets at West Point to not look on war as noble: he told them “War is hell!” Today the U.S. military tells itself and the public that it wants to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a “limited fashion” while adhering to the rules of war; dead civilians and a wasted infra-structure suggest otherwise.
I have no desire to return to an illusory past where “men of faith” fought “chivalrous” battles. Technological toys have always been gleefully adopted by the military, expanding their ability to kill, but the desire to kill remains unchanged since Cain slew Abel. We have reached a point, God willing, where the extent of the destruction we can wreak has given us pause. But our only hope is to reject violence entirely.
And our “only hope of rejecting violence entirely” is to find the prospects for it in the “wisdom-teachings” of our past, which you call delusional “romanticism.”
Well, good luck with that one.
And here’s mechanized death on such an exponential order of magnitude as MUST qualify as an essential difference in nature, as much as quantity:
This issue should be posed to the paratroupers who fought “The Battle of the Bulge” and who were scheduled to parachute into Japan before WWII ended. Many were thankful that they could go home.
Cyn
So basically, ends justify the means, and intrinsic evils are ok for American soldiers? What if all it took is 100 abortions? Would everyone applaud the abortions for saving US soldiers from invading Japan? Would you applaud the sacrifice of children? And yet how many pregnant women were killed with their babies? How many abortions happened? And where do you get this “they were about to be sent to Japan”? History says otherwise — as the generals themselves said, there was no need for any invasion of Japan, the war was over.
Objectively, the point is this: We believe or are taught to believe in hellfire, metaphorically or literally, in the afterlife. But we know perfectly well, having made it, what hellfire looks like on earth.
Those who justify it are, it would seem, justifying their own damnation.
That last thought is scurrilous, unwanted, regretted; but I cannot suppress it. I am very sorry.
So, instead of sending the paratroupers and other soldiers to Japan, we should have let Japan invade the United States – ? You would be okay with Japanese solders killing American woman, children, and unborn babies?
Also, many more soldiers would have fought in WWII. One of those soldiers would have been my father-in-law, so my husband may never have been born. It was American soldier vs. Japanese soldiers. Since the American soldiers were protecting my family and Japan initially attacked the United States, I would choose the American soldiers.
The “about to be sent to Japan” was quoted by members of the military who were serving in Europe at the time. They were happy to learn that they could finally end their fighting and continue on with their lives.
Cyn
Once again, the war was over. There was no need for any invasions of Japan. You are dealing with the after the fact creation used to justify the unjustifiable. The Church has itself condemned the act (at Vatican II, with other similar acts). But once again, even if you believe that “it’s our lives vs theirs” is fine, so would you approve of 1000 abortions if it would “stop them from invading”?
Furthermore, I don’t see anyone applauding the act of dropping the bomb. For those involved, they were just glad the fighting was over.
Since today is the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, please read this account of stories rescued from the memory hole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/how-press-censorship-hid_b_675106.html
You are missing the point and this has nothing to do with abortion. You are calling this an act of American agression when it was an act of defense. (The bombs were not dropped after the surrender of Japan.) It certainly was not an act of glory.
Cyn
You are missing the point. It was an act of aggression, an act which runs contrary to any possible position for just war theory. It has been denounced by the Church for following an intrinsic evil. One can always make claims of “defense” to allow disproportional war crimes, but defense does not do it. This is an intrinsic evil. And, in killing pregnant women, abortions happened. More importantly, many women use “defense” and “invasion” arguments to justify abortion as well. The thing which connects the two is consequential thinking; indeed, it was after the US has justified itself in this fashion — to allow any evil in war as being just because it is “defense” that we get such thinking in individual/personal basis.
Nonetheless, back to my question. If soldiers were to hold 10,000 pregnant women hostage, and perform 100 abortions a day until Japan surrenders, would it be just because it saved American lives?
There was no threat to the mainland of the US.
This weekend I also thought of the abortion issue.
and people that defend the bombing.
Those that justify say look at the context
of the times.
What would these same people say about a young
woman going to have an abortion. The womans
reasons: I’m too young, I want my freedom, etc.
Nobody in the anti-abortion crowd would buy it.
A couple in heavy petting that leads to sex,
“well, you just had to be there to know the
context”. Nobody would buy it.
Bomb a civilian population, people buy it.
As what has been said prior on here,
there is a anti-abortion crowd but few
very total pro-lifers.
Curt
Exactly. And more importantly, a lot of the issue of abortion comes into war-like terms when one sees the defenders of abortion dealing with abortion.
Cyn, thank you for being so assertive of your cognitive dissonance; you are a perfect example, here, of “American exceptionalism,” when you assert, so firmly, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were acts of “defense.”
Whoa, what is with the gratuitous swipes at anti-abortion/pro-life advocates? Where did that come from? This happened just recently a few posts ago, if I recall correctly.
(For the record, I’m anti-abortion/pro-life, and I think the atomic bombs violated just war principles because it was an immoral targeting of civilians and/or caused disproportionate harm to civilians. Yes, there are “pro-lifers” who actually hold that position!)
Where is there such swipes at pro-life advocates? There are many people who are anti-abortion but not pro-life, and I wonder if they would be anti-abortion when it comes to a time of war. It looks like they have no problems with abortions done by bombs…
Henry – while I typically find your opinion/ positions to be very admirable ones they are of course those of a thinker with the luxury to look from the outside in.
Past and present our society very much needs these kind of voices – however on this issue I am with Cyn –
it is one thing to muse about this 65 years after the fact it is another to truly consider the facts on the ground at the time – reasonable people were involved in the American War effort – NOT using that Bomb was certainly pondered but ultimately not pursuit – no reason to get bend out of shape two generations later and run around in ashes – it rings hollow – yes this was and still is an aggressive Nation – all empires are – most successful human societies are one way or the other – at the same time good human societies ( I fully find that the US fits that bill)find additionally ways to mitigate the raw aggression and channel more civilized venues.
For me the fact that you find ways to rope Abortion into the mix further speaks to the ‘theoretical’ nature of your laudable yet inconsequential ponderings.
I am pretty sure most of us would not enjoy a society run by absolute moralists. We prefer the mixed bag that we have – yes this means some of our fellow Catholics will Abort under circumstances they deem appropriate -certainly the law is on their side- most folks will certainly use some form of Birthcontrol – the average familysize certainly speaks to that point – if you wait for a society without either you will wait in vain. And is this modus aperandi really all that terrible? In my view it is not.
Say your part and fully expect to be one voice among billions. Reality is formed by the lived consensus of billions and not by the theoretical ideals of oh so well meaning singularities.
Look at the church – theoretically in such fundamental moral questions we are expected to indeed speak with a singular 1+ Billion strong voice – in reality we are diverse. In my view there is a message in the fact that despite enormous efforts of our fairly centralized church leadership they never could convince most actual Catholics to live according to HV. At some point perhaps one cuts the losses and moves on.
Grega
Once again it was only AFTER the fact that the “we would have had to invaded the land and it would have amounted to a great disaster” theories were made. The generals (as given from the video) already knew there was no such need. It was not for Japan, but Russia, it was done.
And that I am pointing out abortions happened by the use of the nuke brings abortion into it, whether or not we want to deal with the intrinsic evil issue.
It is quite telling; what we see is constant trumpeting of abortion as the issue which over-rides everything and nothing can allow it — be allowed when it is about war and soldiers.
No, war does not allow anything and everything. The generals knew this and this is why they opposed the use of the nuke (on top of the lack of need). It is not just “theory.” This is reality.
Henry,
I want to explore your connection between the atomic bombing and consequentialism further, since it is close to the heart of our disagreements. I honestly find it hard to accept your key proposition:
“indeed, it was after the US has justified itself in this fashion — to allow any evil in war as being just because it is “defense” that we get such thinking in individual/personal basis.”
Do I deny that there is lots of consequentialist thinking in the world today? No! I just question the causality here: that the atomic bombing and the rationalizations that followed it created or substantially increased these sorts of rationalizations in American culture. Can you expand on why you see this connection?
David Cruz-Uribe
There is a reason why debates over consequentialism itself came out of and after the use of the bomb and not before — I think it is because a new era of thought had opened up, and we see it all over in our society. It continues with the degradation of the person from the industrial age, but now we have moral calculus which tries to justify it – in a way which had not happened before. And this kind of calculus once let loose is found all over. When I read women defending abortion, it includes “the baby invaded” “self-defense” etc — the way the defense is wages is not just consequentialist but with warlike rhetoric being used for such justification. Though one can question a post hoc ergo propter hoc assertion, there certainly has been a very major moral change in our society. Liberalism (in the classical sense) helped bring it about, but again, there were stand outs, moral absolutes which could not be done away with through “ends justify the means” beliefs. They would bring other reasons than just the ends for violence, when asked. Yet, when we see a society which raised itself in the world through such ethics, and when we see people think ethics in such a fashion for all kinds of evils, one must wonder what was the great example which led to it– I can find no other, and indeed, I still see the correlation of thought processes which go on. This is why I bring out abortion — because abortions happened with this act. Abortions would not have been common with normal acts of war, but this would have produced it. It is interesting to see how people ignore this and will be the first to argue about abortion in other situations — they are doing exactly the kinds of things (actually worse) than those they accuse — because they are arguing war makes it ok.
As I stated, the issue should be posed to the paratroupers. Also, take up your cause with WWII veterans. You have a disregard for their suffering and sacrifice.
Once again, where does a rejection of a war crime mean I disregard the suffering and sacrifice of WWII veterans (who I know and have close friendships with)? You are not willing to answer the question. I am sure we can do all kinds of evil which will act as “defense” — that does not justify the means.
Now I will ask you once again — and if you do not answer, you will not be allowed to post — so you are saying abortion is fine in a time of war, that it is fine to kill babies because it’s war?
No. I am not saying that abortion is fine and I still think that your comparison is out of place. (I do not agree with killing babies.) If the United States government would not have issued orders to defend our homeland, babies would have been killed here in our cities along with other people by any of the following: Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the USSR. (Can you really say that any of these governments restrained themselves from killing babies?) I also believe that you do not have regard for the lives of the soldiers that were saved by ending the war as it did with your opinion. Many soldiers suffered due to the indecision of military and government leaders caring more about politics.
Post or not, this is my belief and you are your complaint is easy to make 65 years, and many forgotten memories, later! Also, it is not an imperialist view since the United States did not start WWII.
Cyn
Because they do evil, we do evil? Method is not a question at such times? Really? And yes, we are the ones who did the evil. And you continue to ignore the fact – the war was over. Even if it was not, however, intrinsic evils are still evils, and grave ones like the bomb, moreso.
2314 “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.”110
110 GS 80 #3.
Henry – good points – we of course do not have to go back to 1945 to find examples relating to these kind of dilemmas. Perhaps this very second in a remote valley in Afghanistan an innocent pregnant Women dies from a Predator fired bomb – she dies because she happens to be standing next to a house suspected to shelter terrorist and/or Taliban fighters.
Perhaps even the same group of Terrorist/ Taliban fighters that just last week killed 10 western doctors and aid workers.
Yes it continues to be a complex world – in my view even the proper way forward always has been a struggle mired in plenty individual missteps.
The broad stroke on the other hand seems to me the correct one. Yes we should bother to attempt protecting womens rights and basic human rights even in a place like Afghanistan. And the many IMHO rather cynical American ‘anti-abortion’ conservatives should make no mistake about it – our guys are actually the ones defending the liberal Abortion laws and the Taliban are the ones with the ‘pro-life’/'anti-abortion’ mindset and willingness to kill women and men to enforce it.
In my view our laws did not fall out of the sky but are the result of a very important basic direction in our society – a direction towards freedom of expression that I am very much in favor.
Women in our society are ultimately free to dress, speak, participate – women are ultimately free to choose. Yes we do see societies in this world that happen to not see it that way – perhaps the in my view small price we have to pay for this kind of freedom is to allow responsible adults to make choices trusting that in the grand scheme they will make good choices.
If the United States is guilty of a crime similar to abortion, than your belief to withhold defense of a country is the same. If you as a leader failed to provide for the defense of a nation attacked by a country such as Imperial Japan, you would be guilty of a crime as great as abortion for allowing the attacker access to your citizens that included woman and children.
Your statement is false because the war was not over until Japan surrendered.
Cyn
It is clear you are unwilling to read and listen to the generals and soldiers who were involved in the war, like Ike and MacArthur. Nonetheless, whether or not it is over is one issue (and one which, even at the time, it was known, and it was known there was no need for any land invasion). The other issue is of morality, and we must recognize the fact not “anything” is allowed in war. Even if others attack first, even if they are doing evil, this does not justify us in doing worse evil. And, as the Catechism and Vatican Council II declare, the kind of action involved is a major evil which deserves condemnation.
The rest of what you write is very telling and proves all I have said.
Japan was given the option to surrender but refused per the Potsdam Agreement. Your appointment of blame and criticism of my opinion is very self-righteous.
Cyn
Unconditional surrender is itself an illegitimate demand. They were ready to surrender.
Rather than ‘Agreement’, it was the Potsdam Declaration.
Henry,
As I understand it, you believe the dropping of the atomic bomb was a turning point for the United States away from I’m-not-sure-what (deontologism?) and toward consequentialism. Would you say other nations, say Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union had already adopted consequentialism before WWII?
I am not great when it comes to remembering the history I studied. I was googling today and discovered that the Battle of Manila resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians. I had never even heard of it. I had heard and knew a little bit about the Rape of Nanking, but I hadn’t known that 300,000 civilians were killed by the Japanese, many of them having been raped and tortured first.
Now, it’s understandable that the dropping of the first atomic bomb is a very memorable historic event whether you think it was right or wrong. But for sheer barbarity with no possible justification of any kind, the Rape of Nanking seems to me to dwarf the dropping of the bombs. And we don’t commemorate it. From the little I have read, Japan hasn’t really come to grips with it so well, either.
It seems to me the first major sin of the United States was not the dropping of the atomic bomb, but the reprehensible treatment of the indigenous peoples on the continent (which continues even today, in my opinion). So I don’t look at the dropping of the bomb as the point where the United States committed its first sin. But I also don’t judge the whole country by either the treatment of the American Indians/Native Americans or the dropping of the atomic bomb.
A case can certainly be made that the dropping of the bomb was a terrible thing indeed, but I think you (and to a much greater degree digby) have a position that smacks of “anti-Americanism” (although I would hate to have to define that).
From what I have been reading, Japan was basically defeated by the time the bombs were dropped, but she was not at all ready to surrender, and the war was not over. In fact, those in charge didn’t agree to surrender after the Soviet Union entered the war and the two bombs were dropped. The Emperor had to intervene, which was apparently extraordinarily unusual.
I guess I am just wondering where you think the United States ranks in the world on a scale going from the most moral to the least moral of nations. Apparently digby thinks it comes in last, and Cyn thinks it comes in first. I think it is very difficult to judge a whole nation, so I won’t venture any rankings myself.
David
I agree with you that the evil done to the Native Americans was indeed an evil, but the moral justification for it was quite different than the consequentialistic ethic of the bomb.
I think some attention to historical detail is necessary here. Below is a brief chronology I assembled from the article I cited above, plus a few quick jumps to Wikipedia.
Plans were in the works for an invasion of the home islands from before this period. President Truman called a meeting of his war planning committee for June 18 at the White House to discuss the invasion of Japan, with an alternative discussion of a bombing/blockade strategy. The invasion (in two parts, first Kyushu and then Honshu) was pushed by George C. Marshall, with the support of the Joint Chiefs and MacArthur, the commander in the Pacific. Truman accepted their plan, and planning began immediately for a November invasion. The atomic bomb was not discussed at this meeting, or if it was, it was only in passing and did not make the minutes of the meeting.
When the Trinity tests were successful in July, it was decided to use the bomb with the hope that this would preclude the need for an invasion. However, preparations for the invasion continued.
During this period the Japanese government was divided on the subject of surrender with the majority, backed by the military members of the war cabinet, against surrender. While the unconditional surrender demanded at Potsdam was an issue, the peace camp, such as it was, never floated a proposal through diplomatic channels (primarily through the Russians). The militarists were determined to fight to the last man, if necessary. Even after the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, the cabinet was divided, and after the bombing of the 9th it took several days for the peace party to prevail. As last as August 14, there was an attempted coup by the militarists to prevent the government from surrendering. (This was the so-called Kyoto incident.) During this period of August 9 to August 14 the U.S. continued heavy conventional bombing of Japan.
The evidence that any military commanders contested the decision (as outlined in the film clip posted by Henry above) to drop the bomb during this period is contested. All of it appears to be statements from years later in various biographical and autobiographical documents. There does not appear to be any contemporary evidence (diary entries, meeting minutes, letters, etc.) in which this opposition is recorded. This is not to call them liars, but such recollections must be treated with caution: vague concerns that are never expressed can become transformed into more definite positions that were only articulated later. As one historian said: “autobiography is always true, but rarely factual.”
Why do I go through this? Because, as Henry pointed out, there are two things going on here. First, there are the abstract moral points:
1) Targeting civilians with weapons of mass destruction (such as the atomic bomb) is morally wrong and an intrinsic evil.
2) Justifying the use of such weapons by utilitarian or consequentialist reasoning is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
Second, there is the historical context. These must be thought through in order to understand better the actions of the key players. This is not to excuse or justify their objectively evil acts. But moral theology (and good history) requires us to understand intentions and understandings at the time as best we can, so that we do not read back into the events later understandings.
My opinion: the decision to drop the atomic bomb was never viewed, at the time, as a grave moral decision. The fact that massive conventional bombing campaigns were by this time routine (the firebombing of Tokyo in March, 1945, killed 100,000 people) suggests that their collective consciences were dulled to the consequences of their acts: they already were comfortable with authorizing horrifically evil acts. Consequentialist reasoning—if we drop the bomb we may be able to avoid an invasion of Japan—probably dominated their thinking. After the fact it appears there were many roads not taken which may have yielded a Japanese surrender without an invasion, but no one seemed to consider them seriously at the time.
David Cruz-Uribe
That the generals themselves said they opposed it, including some who in other situations actually supported their use, to me indicates they really did oppose it; they would have no reason to say “I rejected it” when they still accept the use of the bomb.
David, I don’t think it comes in “last” at all. I just think that, because it is the most powerful (or was, until the day before yesterday), it has the greater responsibility, and, therefore, its terrible failings are magnified on an exponential level. In fact, I feel that, one day, our descendents will feel terrible remorse for America’s twentieth century history, when she no longer HAS the power to be a force for good in the world.
“Father George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Air Force, served as a priest for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and gave them his blessing. Over the next twenty years, he gradually came to believe that he had been terribly wrong, that he had denied the very foundations of his faith by lending moral and religious support to the bombing. Zabelka, who died in 1992, gave this speech on the 40th anniversary of the bombings.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/zabelka1.html
Nations cannot be forces for good. Only individuals. Wow, I seem to be going palaeo-right!
Seriously, the “America is a force of good” line is dangerous nonsense. Like the Roman empire in its day, for centuries no-one will miss your polity as it stands, once it transforms into whatever shall follow.
Not that we could know, however I doubt that our decedents will feel much different about Americas twentieth century than for example you might feel today about 19th century Britain. The world is also growing closer together – likely future generations will have to worry more about the planet as a whole than this or that countries insecurities.
I believe that the United States has committed sins. Contrary to David’s statement, I do not believe that the United States is first in moral standing, and I am not sure who would be. (All I know is that I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world at this time.)
I do not believe that we should self-righteously judge the decisions made regarding the dropping of the A-bomb. Even with my statements, I consider the dropping a tragedy.
My point is that the United States has an obligation to defend its citizens. We can criticize this event all we want, but we were not there to fight and we were not tortured by the Japanese. We were not weary from fighting on the battle field for long periods of time. We did not witness people who were tortured by the Japanese. We do not have total knowledge of the events of this time.
Wringing our hands filling ourselves with guilt does not change history. Also, we need to respect the sacrifice made by people who did suffer at this point in history for the defense of this country.
Actually, Grega, a lot of Brits feel very sorry about the behaviour of 19th century Britain. I suggest you take a look at William Dalrymple’s The Last Mughal. I suggest you take a look at E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India.
Cyn – you seem to be focusing on the subjective guilt/culpability of the people who made and implemented the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan.
While those are important considerations, I think it is useful and important to look back with clear eyes at the moral character of those acts, so that we can resolve never to do that, or something like that, again.
I’m not in a position to judge the souls involved in the events of 65 years ago: but I don’t really read that as the point of the post. It’s more about “let’s do better if (God forbid!) there is a ‘next time.’”
It’s about that “firm purpose of amendment” thing, as I see it.
Matt -
According to the post, we purposely dropped the atomic bomb for world domination and we need to be sorry for acting as aggressors in this war. I do not agree with these points and that is the point of my argument. I believe other factors were considered in making the decision and disagree with the condemnation since we, as individuals, are so far removed from these particular events in history that it is easy to sit back and make judgement calls.
As a result, per my interpretation, people in society (I assume Henry directs this at U.S. citizens.) do not have regard for human life and seek to destory for position in society. I am not totally disputing the concept but do not agree that this was because of these events.
I do agree with the fact that it was a tragedy but not to the extent that it was a war crime or that it was for revenge. War is awful and the alternatives to dropping the this bomb to end the war may have been even more deadly and may have caused more suffering.
But Cyn – when you say…
…I’m not reading that as full-throated condemnation of the acts (and again, I’m talking about the objective nature of the acts.) Deliberately terrorizing innocents to win a war is prima facie a war crime. It is never licit to incinerate women and children (which, let’s face it, is what we’re talking about here) for any end whatsoever: this is basic Catholic moral teaching.
It’s about that “firm purpose of amendment” thing, as I see it.
Matt,
That is not Henry’s view. He sees the dropping of the bomb as a turning point for all Americans to descend into barbarism:
Let it be noted that the criticism of the dropping of the bomb here does not depend on whether Truman and his advisers were correct in their assessment of the military situation. If it could be now be conclusively demonstrated that dropping the atomic bomb did in fact save more American soldiers’ lives and Japanese civilian lives by shortening the war than any of the other alternatives, it still would have been a decision based on “consequentialism,” and the more “moral” thing to do would have been to continue the war by conventional means no matter how many more hundreds of thousands died.
Matt –
First, I am not sure why your post was released but not mine.
Second, the U.S. targeted the miltary that was dispersed among the civilians. (The Japanese would not leave the military vulnerable to total destruction by concentrating it in one area.) We did not purposely target innocent civilians. Due to your reference as to the series of events, of course you would believe this to be a war crime.
I am not sure why your post was released but not mine.
That was my fault – the author of a post has the authority to release comments – I forgot to hide mine (for him to then release.) Apologies.
Second, the U.S. targeted the miltary that was dispersed among the civilians. (The Japanese would not leave the military vulnerable to total destruction by concentrating it in one area.) We did not purposely target innocent civilians. Due to your reference as to the series of events, of course you would believe this to be a war crime.
There are authoritative sources who contend that the nuclear bombings were mostly aimed at our post-war rivals, the Soviets, as a message of our military and technological superiority. It was pretty clear that the Japanese were heading toward surrender by mid-summer 1945.
If a military force is dispersed among civilians, and it is the case that, in order to kill those military forces, it is necessary to incinerate many, many more innocents, then you find another means of dealing with the problem other than vaporizing the city. Again, this is Catholic morality 101 – do I really need to spell this out?
“…feel very sorry about the behaviour of 19th century..” I would not doubt that Digby – but 99% could care less really – that is not to say that such ignorance is laudable.
As a German born post WWII I certainly appreciate that Americans bothered to step in and defeat Fascism and afterwards (for all kinds of pretty rationale reasons as well as due to a certain amount of trust in humankind) they allowed Germany/ Japan rather swiftly to reemerge as a modern Democracy.
Now sure Americans have close to the same percentage of Saints and Sinners as any other country on earth – and yes that means that this countries history is filled with the same kind of ruthless Darwinism that we humans tend to gravitate towards in order to get a leg up.
And surprise surprise those pious new settlers did not bother too much respecting the natives property rights. They took the land because they could.
Nothing particular inspiring about that.
But you know what, at any given time you can also find very generous and kind people that present sort of a counterbalance.
If the Germans would have had the Atomic bomb they would have used it – same for the Brits, the Japanese, the Russians etc. in my view it was regrettable that this bomb was used – but shocking it was not in an all out war.
In my view to use this event as a launching point for airing diverse general grievances with all of a sudden oh so bad America is somewhat naive.
People are people – around the world – the societal systems they create allow them to prosper or might lead them into despair and extremism.
In my view the western democracies over all have decent system in place right now.
Of course this is all work in progress.
Cyn, You are free to have your opinion, but I
think you are being dishonest. When the US
dropped the bombs, did Japan have warships off
our coast ready to bomb and invade?
Can you prove your point referring to Catholic
teaching?
What part of just war did dropping the bombs
agree with the teaching on just war?
Not that the Just War Theory was breathed
down from heaven, but it comes from reason.
Just like we use reason in other areas.
You are giving your thoughts based on what?
Grega, I gather knowledge so I can try and make
the correct choices. In America, the Christian
community has given a blank check to the military.
You can criticize Catholics, Baptists, the mayor,
the school board, but the military is off limits.
Most of those that lead the “pro-life” movement
in the US preach to the choir. When Terry Schrivo
was taken off assistance, they all howled.
When Blackwater mowed down 18 Iraqis, did the
“pro-life” community fight to see steps were taken
it would not happen again. They didn’t even
howl. See, a blank check.
I don’t criticize to criticize, I want people
to have knowledge to not repeat mistakes.
But the military is off limits.
Matt –
I have discussed my opinion.
You and I are at odds with the sequence of events. If Japan would have acted diffently, there may not have been a Pacific Theater to WWII. If Japan would have surrendered, the bombs would not have been dropped. The innocent would have been killed with air raids and/or hand-to-hand combat. This is war.
Cyn, the sequence of events doesn’t matter. Any argument that even implicitly includes the phrase, “…and thus, incinerating thousands of innocents is justified…” is a wrong one, according to Catholic teaching concerning just war.
Matt –
So what is the point. Harry Truman, unless he reonciled with God, might be in hell, and most U.S. citizens would not support a president who wants to bomb Japan with another A-bomb. Why the hand-wringing?
The target was the military. If an innocent person dies in War from a machine gun or a conventional bomb, rather than from the A-bomb, is it any less tragic? Japan continued to toture innocent people in Asia before the surrender, and they refused to surrender. Would ignoring our allies request for assistance in stopping this toture be less tragic?
“If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.” — Harry S. Truman.
“The atom bomb was no “great decision.” It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.” — Harry S. Truman.
A spade is a spade, and barbarism is barbarism.
Again, this is Catholic morality 101 – do I really need to spell this out?
Of course, Catholic Morality 101 also dictates that if a pregnant woman and her unborn child are both going to die, it is better to let them both die than to save the life of the mother by abortion. Or, to quote Newman:
So not only was it immoral to drop the bomb to end the war. It would have been immoral to tell the Japanese a little white lie, even if it would have caused them to surrender. I don’t really think you can fight a world war within the constraints of Catholic morality. Now, that would be fine if everybody subscribed to and lived by Catholic morality.
I don’t really think you can fight a world war within the constraints of Catholic morality.
You say that like it’s a bad thing, David ;)
Cyn – we seem to be talking past one another.
The target was the military.
No, the targets were two cities with many thousands of innocents.
If an innocent person dies in War from a machine gun or a conventional bomb, rather than from the A-bomb, is it any less tragic?
Well, “tragic” is an interesting word choice. If a machine gunner is shooting at an enemy position, and a bullet ricochets and happens to kill an innocent, that is an unforeseen and undesired consequence of doing the (according to just war theory) legitimate action of shooting at an enemy.
If a machine gunner spots enemy troops on the far side of a village, and opens fire down a crowded-with-innocents main street, then this would not be legitimate: the deaths of innocents would be a reasonably-to-be-expected consequence of his actions.
Japan continued to torture innocent people in Asia before the surrender, and they refused to surrender. Would ignoring our allies request for assistance in stopping this torture be less tragic?
You are confusing the justice of the cause with the justice of the means. No one here is arguing that the Japanese military weren’t brutal and murderous: that they were those things, however, doesn’t mean we can resort to brutal means to accomplish just ends.