What a sick man Lee was.  I couldn’t hardly read his words; so hate filled; filled with the spirit of the devil.

Wow, someone’s off their meds…

When we look back to the decisions made in the times of a most difficult war, in which we faced adversaries who would not only rather die themselves than capitulate, but were also willing to sacrifice all of the children in Japan rather than surrender, we do well to resist the smug ease of armchair diplomacy you partake of here.

Of course using the bomb killed innocents. Of course that is wrong. But it is not as easy as you make it. How many 18 and 19 year olds would have died if the Allies had been forced to slog all the way to Tokyo to end the war? How many innocents would have been used by the Japanese as a last defense, calling in and arming the 16, then the 12 then the 8 year olds (I don’t know that wouldn’t have happened, but looking at the prevailing Kamikaze ethic it is more than likely). When the enemy has embraced such an ethic no decision is a good one, all of them cost innocent lives, there is naught but rocks and hard places. 

Not one of the men who made that decision in 1945 had the specific intent of killing as many children in their beds as possible, or branding children themselves as the enemy as we now see in the extreme wings of the environmentalist movement.

Yet you compare them, as if they were the same! Yikes! Mark Shea, to whom I turn for good sober thinking, for the ability to see things outside of the right-left traffic jam, cannot see the apples and oranges-ness of this comparison?

Truman’s thinking was sufficiently similar to Lee’s to warrant a comparison? I don’t think so!

convert Tom in Ohio

Spot on, Tom!

Yeah, Mark. I agree with you about this consequentialism thing; it’s bad ethics.  But come on! Lee was a misanthrope of the first degree. War is hell—or at least heck. Enough of the Monday morning quarterbacking about something no one can do anything about now anyway. What would you have us to do? “Nationally” repent? Make reparations to our defeated former enemies? I thought we sort of did that with all the rebuilding and post-war aid.  The only thing we should take away from this sad episode of our national history is a determination to never again resort to the tactics and rationale of our nation’s enemies. Oh! Maybe THAT’S what you’re getting at!

I’m not sure if Discovery-TLC executives are taking this person seriously or not, but I have not read a response-official or otherwise-from these comments.

WC Fields once said never to work with children or animals.  I believe not even HE would be this hatred toward children…even on his worst day.

This person must remember that he too once once a child.  He must have had a terrible, horrible youth (or is possessed which, I suppose, is probable) to spout such a negativity toward people.

That being said, I myself prefer in some instances the company of felines than humans including my own relatives.

Regarding the Atomic bombs we dropped on Japan, we must go back to the principles of just war, which state that, among other things, it is immoral to deliberately target a non-military area. The ends do not justify the means. The inability to reason according principles which are foundational because they truly respond to reality at it’s metaphysical level is the real problem with our society. Lots of nice well intentioned people think this way and end up justifying all sorts of immoral behavior.
I often hear the argument that the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan quite possibly avoided the deaths of up to a million soldiers. Firstly, that is conjecture. Secondly, all the above…
For a beautiful Catholic response from the Catholic community in Nagasaki, read “A Song for Nagasaki”. The bomb annihilated the most Catholic neighborhood in all of Japan. This story of Takashi Nagai is incredible and a fully mature saintly response to an incredible evil.

I’m not sure if Discovery-TLC executives are taking this person seriously or not

Not since the police sniper killed him.  Before that, I suspect it was his guns and bombs they were taking seriously, not his demands.

Enough of the Monday morning quarterbacking about something no one can do anything about now anyway. What would you have us to do? “Nationally” repent?

You may as well say that, if Catholics publicly deny the Trinity today it doesn’t matter because the Arian controversy happened a long time ago.How about, “Catholics, right now and today, should stop making excuses for the deliberate targeting of civilians?”  I don’t know anything about national repentance.  I do know that Catholics can, right now, stop making excuses for war crimes.  As long as they continue to, it’s not something that happened in 1945 that’s the issue.  It’s something Catholics are doing right now.

In taking issue with Mark I am not defending consequentialism nor the bombing of civilian populations. It’s the equating of our actions against Japan and Germany to bring an end to WWII with the voice of the anti-human eco-freaks like Herr Lee that I find bot objectionable and offensive. They are not the same. They are only very tangentially comparable. In the one, hundreds of people, some soldiers, some civilian, most of them “innocent,” were dying every day. As I said before any and all reactions would cause bloodshed, of both military and civilian populations. there were only rocks and hard places. Those who favored the quick and deadly A-bomb to the slow and equally deadly slog into Kamikaze-land, lasting who knows how long and taking a toll of who knows how many soldiers and civilians, are simply not of the same ilk as Herr Lee. The comparison is offensive. 

That is my point.

convert tom in ohio

The comparison is only offensive because we Americans don’t like to think that those who deliberately targeted children sleeping in their beds in their war on Imperial Japan were engaging in exactly the same consquentialist thinking as James Lee, who wanted to target children sleeping in the womb in his war on environmental damage.

The main difference between the two is that Lee never managed to get anybody killed but himself, while the planners of Hiroshima and Nagasaki managed to deliberately murder thousands of children.  And as a special bonus insult, they used the Nagasaki Cathedral as their sighting target for the bomb, incinerating in a flash more Catholics than all the pagan persecutors of Japan had ever killed. 

As far as I can see, the complaint boils down to saying Lee wanted to kill children for crazy eco-freakery.  The planners of H and N wanted to kill them for more acceptable consquentialist reason.  Bottom line: both intended that children die.  No thanks to either form of reasoning for me.

Anybody who begins with “Let’s deliberately target and murder innocent children so that this Good End can be achieved” pretty much loses me “target and murder innocent children”.  I’m not interested in the Really Good Reason they think they have for doing it.  And I’m really not interested in “Children die all the time in war by accident, so deliberately targeting and killing them is okay.”

‘I don’t know anything about national repentance.  I do know that Catholics can, right now, stop making excuses for war crimes.  As long as they continue to, it’s not something that happened in 1945 that’s the issue.  It’s something Catholics are doing right now.’ I agree that Catholic Christians (I’ll even throw in Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox) should disapprove of torturing prisoners and targeting civilian populations.  These are practices that are contrary not only to Scripture and Church Tradition, but even to that natural revelation of God in the human heart. Rationalizing these atrocites only discredits our denunciations of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia (which atrocities are perhaps more prevalent and represent a greater threat to human life in this generation than our tendency to rationalize torture and indiscriminate bombing).  So-called “smart bombs” may not be as smart as we would like to believe, but they represent some awareness on our part that the “collateral damage” argument is unacceptable. We can’t even get most of our contemporaries to see that an aborted fetus is not simply “collateral damage” in the war for feminine liberation. So, you’re right, Mark; the “issue” is not what happened in 1945, it’s what’s happening NOW. I just hate to see you alienate so many of your own cobelligerents in the battle for the sanctity of human life simply because they fail see things as clearly and consistently as you do. Many of your closest allies may never see waterboarding as torture or Nagasaki as a war crime. Still, they might like to help you end partial birth abortion and genocide against Down Syndrome kids. Is it all or nothing, or is that okay with you?

“You see it in that nutjob at the Discovery Channel whose “manifesto” I link above.  You see it in much of the “Humans are a disease, Mr. Anderson” wing of the Environmental Movement.  And you see it, par excellence, in the abortion zealots.”
Most secular media is dishonest or evil.
The History Channel is also wrong a significant percentage of the time, and therefore not History.
We all must stay close to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to avoid our own error, the error of others, and the intended errors of enemies within the Church. This CCC first printed in the US in March 2000, was not around in 1945.  So people can not be judged years ago based upon the knowledge of today.
We must stay grounded in Truth.
Unfortunately, bad things happen in all wars, and some wars are necessary.
When governments (including the US) have no problem killing unborn babies by paying for their destruction, ultimately they will respect no human life and things will only get worse.  People will only exist for the good of the STATE.
Since Roe v Wade in 1973, - 49,551,703 -  abortions have been done in the US.
These numbers do not include (the recent) Obama Administration support and financial arm-twisting for abortions outside the US.

49,551,703 intentional murders of INNOCENTS in the US (allowed, encourged, or financially supported) by the US Government does not compare to anything else.  Those in power in the US know exactly what they are doing with abortion.
The Atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 - AFTER leaflets of warning were dropped over Japan in their own language so innocents could get out of the cities.  They simply did not believe the leaflets.  The two cities bombed were militarily strategic due to war factories and location, note they did not hit Tokyo.
Further the exact amount of distruction of the Bombs was unknown in 1945.  Atomic bombs have NEVER been dropped since, so anyone comparing this to the known 49 and 1/2 MILLION murders of the unborn is historically out of line.
Since we have had the CCC since 2000 in the US, Catholics are bound by it.

This is the exact verbiage of the Leaflets the US dropped over cities of Japan including Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 1, 1945 called the “LeMay bombing leaflet” or the “Office of War Information #2106”  - five days before the bombing.
- - - “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

To say the US deliberately committed war crimes or deliberately targeted children in Japan in 1945 is just one more Leftist/Liberal/Progressive LIE.  When are you going to learn to check your facts ?
Why don’t you join Al Gore - after all, he told us he invented the internet, and he did get a Pultizer prize for fake global warming while his carbon footprint for his private jet continues.
I’m sorry for anyone who did not pay attention to the 1945 leaflets dropped in Japan.
But I’m more sorry for the 49.5 million innocent babies aborted in the US.  There is no comparison.

Why does there always have to be a comparison? Why can’t killing innocent people (regardless of where in time, space, or geography they are) be wrong and evil? Period.

We all must stay close to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to avoid our own error, the error of others, and the intended errors of enemies within the Church. This CCC first printed in the US in March 2000, was not around in 1945.  So people can not be judged years ago based upon the knowledge of today.
We must stay grounded in Truth.

It was not suddenly revealed by God in March 2000 that you cannot deliberately target and murder civilians in war.

To say the US deliberately committed war crimes or deliberately targeted children in Japan in 1945 is just one more Leftist/Liberal/Progressive LIE.  When are you going to learn to check your facts ?
Why don’t you join Al Gore - after all, he told us he invented the internet, and he did get a Pultizer prize for fake global warming while his carbon footprint for his private jet continues.
I’m sorry for anyone who did not pay attention to the 1945 leaflets dropped in Japan.
But I’m more sorry for the 49.5 million innocent babies aborted in the US.  There is no comparison.

Thanks for that… extraordinary rant about Al Gore.  Not particularly germane to the topic, but entertaining.  Likewise, the weird notion that opposition to deliberately choosing to incinerate children in their beds in wartime somehow means one approves of abortion is remarkable logic found with amazing frequency in American Right Wing Consequentialism, just as the notion that opposition to abortion somehow means one is committed to War Without End, Amen by partisans of the Left.  Very strange.

As to those damned liberal progressives who opposed the dropping of the bomb, these would include Pius XII, Fulton J. Sheen, Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, George Patton and Cardianl Ottovianni, among many other peacenik, dope-smoking hippies.

However, since some leaflets *were* dropped, the wicked uppity children who neglected to read them and obey had only themselves to blame for being incinerated in their beds.  The ends, as Planned Parenthood constantly reminds us, justify the means.

Mark, what is it about the A-bomb drop that just sticks in your craw so bad that you and Jimmy keep on with this subject?  You are right the killing of Innocent humans is intrinsically evil.  The difference then between abortion and war is how the term innocent is applied.  With abortion we know that the unborn is always considered innocent, therefore we can look at it as an absolute.  With war there are no absolutes like that.  We just do not know or have any ability to know the degree of the “innocence” of some of the victims of the bombings.  We in no way will ever know this side of heaven what was in the hearts and minds of those people who made the decision to drop those bombs or for the people of Japan who kept their people in harm’s way.  We haven’t a clue their culpabilities.  The just war theory is incomplete and it will most likely remain that way because there are just so many unknowns that we have no access to.  I find your behavior very uncharitable, because by continuing this dialog you two continue to brow beat your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters.  The bottom line is, Catholics of good standing can disagree about the use of the atomic bombs but we cannot disagree about the intrinsic evil of abortion.  Go find another subject.  This one is too divisive for no good reason.

The bottom line is, Catholics of good standing can disagree about the use of the atomic bombs

I don’t think we can. Killing innocent people (and “enemy”, say, 3-year-olds are definitely in that category) is always and everywhere wrong.

Jennifer:

As I said above, it’s not really complicated.  Rare indeed is the comboxer here who will write to explain that abortion is a tragic necessity which we have to sadly and reluctantly approve because so many women live in poverty, etc.  If they were spouting this sort of consequentialist rubbish about the war on poverty, I’d be telling them it’s consequentialist rubbish and you may not deliberately kill innocent human beings for any imagined good end.

However, as the comboxes here make clear, there are lot of alleged “Faithful Conservative Catholics” who are foursquare in favor of deliberately killing innocent human life when the good end happens to be some American military project.  The issue is not simply the A bombs.  The issue is that the consequentialism which allows Catholics to imagine that slaughtering Japanese children in their bed is A OK with God also allow them to imagine that any similar act of deliberate targeted murder against enemy civilians today is likewise A OK with God.

As long as Catholics are, now and today, insisting that it’s just peachy to deliberately kill children so long as it’s done in the service of some American military project, there is no difference—except in the number dead—between such thinking and that of Planned Parenthood.  The appalling thing is that apologists for such thinking are aware of this and actually think they are making a coherent argument when they say, “But I’m more sorry for the 49.5 million innocent babies aborted in the US.  There is no comparison.”  The logic is, “It’s not mass murder if you don’t manage to kill as many people as Planned Parenthood.”  I’m sure that will fly at the Pearly Gates.

My alternative: How about no deliberate murder of children at all?  Seems more in keeping with Jesus’ actual teaching.

Mark, thank you for spending the time and effort on this issue.  I can promise you that your message is getting across to the ‘younger’ generation of Catholics who frequent this site.

Mark - ditto what bones said

This is not about picking the right side of history or armchair diplomacy. Nuclear weapons remain very much a looming threat on the horizon, and a reminder of the incredible destruction they have wrought in the past is always salutary. Moreover, why does Mark harp on this instead of denouncing the very real atrocity of abortion? Because many, if not most, of his readers are conservative Catholics perfectly aware of of this evil, and indeed on the front lines of the opposition. A good apologist or preacher or teacher wants to challenge you, not pat you on the back for what you already know.

As Mark and others keep on pointing out, this is not just an abstract question of historical analysis.  It is a question for today. 

In 2008, the person who is now the Secretary of State of the United States, was reported to have said this: “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, facing a crucial primary in Pennsylvania Tuesday, said that if she were in the White House and Tehran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would be able to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran.”

Note that she did not say “obliterate all military targets”.  She said that she would “totally obliterate” a nation with a population of 75 million people, the vast majority of whom are civilians and who have nothing to do with the evil policies of that regime (except suffer under them). 

Yet Mrs. Clinton is not the only person who makes such statements.  In fact, there have been reports that President Obama has offered Israel a “nuclear umbrella”—in other words, promising to nuke Iran if Iran attacks Israel.

Since it is clear that Iran would retaliate against any such attack by targeting American or Israeli civilians in turn, the mind reels at the moral deafness of such statements.

This kind of callousness towards killing civilians is precisely the reason that we need moral clarity about the acts of the past.

Your message here is so very vital, Mark, and it’s not falling on deaf ears! Keep up the good work.

Aggressor Japan dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor when the US was NOT at War, killing over 2000 which included some civilians with children
The US warned in writing the people in Japanese Cities. Parents have a responsibility to protect their Children, and sadly made a decision not to.  Civilians were not targeted by the US.

The best thing about the headline of this article is its juxtaposition with the particularly jovial photo of Mark on the NCR homepage sidebar.

Unrelated: the “please enter the word you see below” verification for me to enter this comment is “gave69”. And I thought this was a Catholic site!!

Anne - so, when the US realized that the Japanese were not evacuating their cities, the decision should have been made to not bomb those civilian-filled cities. Deciding to proceed with the bombing without regard for the non-evactation is targeting civilians.

“My alternative: How about no deliberate murder of children at all?  Seems more in keeping with Jesus’ actual teaching.” Sounds great! Where do I sign up?

Sounds great! Where do I sign up?

Good news!  The paperwork is done.  You signed up for natural law when you were made in the image and likeness of God.  You signed up for being a disciple of Jesus at your baptism.  Welcome aboard!

Matt, they did not have the advantage of satellites or other such technology back in 1945.  Otherwise you would be correct.
Nor did they have jet airplanes, or drones with cameras.  RCA didn’t even have the image Image Orthocon Tube, which finally made broadcast-quality TV cameras possible until 1946. 
I agree with Billy - no deliberate killing of children.

Anne, the evacuation of a city is a huge undertaking, that can take many days - the logistics alone are daunting. Where is the population of Tokyo supposed to go? Where are all those people going to stay? What will they eat?

Even assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that they did evacuate: destroying an entire city, even if no one is killed, is itself in some sense “targeting civilians” isn’t it?

To use a smaller-scale analogy: Let’s say there was a house where a criminal lived with his wife and two kids: it’s OK to try to apprehend the criminal, but going into his house with guns blazing - or, say, going in and breaking his kids’ toys (the analogy there being with destroying a fully-evacuated city, i.e., the possessions of innocents) - would obviously be wrong.

I agreed with Mark’s point when this issue first came up, because of course in many cases hindsight is 20/20 and it seems so obvious to me that the deliberate slaughter of innocents is a crime. A bomb in Japan wrong, duh? Well, I do still hold that the action was objectively a grave evil, BUT- I think that it would be wrong to speculate about what should have happened and the wickedness of the perpetrators not knowing exactly what they were dealing with. From here it is crystal clear, but I have no idea what the choices they faces contained at the time when these dire decisions were made. So, I choose not to judge Harry Truman et al.
Fast forward to now- ok, we have a really serious problem when it comes to how to deal with combatants and just war theory. Unfortunately, Mark, according to the USARMY COL Ret. I had dinner with a couple of weeks ago who spent the year 2005 in Iraq, some women and children have become combatants. Those that we as Christians would never condone endangering as potential collateral damage, are now extremely difficult to discern in some cultures and combat situations. I do not know how to proceed in this conversation from here. I do not think it is as simple as Mark states. Unless you mean never bomb the maternity ward of any hospital- I get that standard, but when your enemy uses his or her children as a human shield, or when the enemy recruits and trains children to kill you, then what?  What is a just war when your enemy launches a total war?

Evaculation is a big undertaking, it happens most years during hurricane season on the East cost.  We are told to pack enough food, water and medication, etc for 5 days per person.
Remember that cities were smaller in 1945. If I remember correctly. Records state that the Japanese cities were 300,000 and 100,000.
The leaflets were dropped 5 days prior to the bombs.  Some people in Japan did evacuate.
Jo, is right that most of us were not here in Aug.,1945 and can not judge the situation accurately under their circumstances at that time.  That is exactly my point.
Destruction of a City is wrong as HINDSIGHT.  Today’s (and tomorrow’s ?)technology will hopefully keep that from ever happening again.
When children are used as human bombs or are attempting to kill, people have every right to do what is necessary to defend themselves.
There is a section in the CCC regarding WAR.  See paragraphs 2307 through 2314 based upon GS “Gaudium Et Spes” 1965 and other Church Documents (that you can find on the Vatican Web site).
Little did the Church Fathers know in 1965 that a World Organization (the United Nations) would be heavily promoting abortion in Third World Countries when GS was written.

The following was written by Pope John Paul II in 2000 regarding the original 1965 “Gaudium Et Spes” which gives an idea of the technological changes in the World from just 1965 through 2000.
” 4. Today we re-read those pages in a world scenario decisively changed. How many changes - political, social, cultural - have intervened since that December 7, 1965! The cold war is ended, science and technology have made unprecedented progresses: from the flight into space and the landing on the moon, from heart transplants to genetic engineering, from cybernetics to robotics, from telecommunications to the most advanced telematic technologies. To the factors of change connected to urbanization and industrialization, the incredible increase of the mass media has added to this, they will always have greater influence on the daily lives of men in every part of the world.”
1945 - there we no TVs !  Jo is right again, judging Harry Truman (et al) can’t be done by us since we don’t have 100% of the facts. (Mt 7:1-5)- God will do the Judging.

Anne - Evacuating Tokyo was, as a practical matter, impossible, and this fact would have been plenty obvious to the American authorities, based on daily reconnaissance flights, the absence of the clear, inevitable and unmistakable signs that the city was being evacuated, and so on.

When you say…

...most of us were not here in Aug.,1945 and can not judge the situation accurately under their circumstances at that time.  That is exactly my point

...I would respond that, if your claim is that we can’t fully judge the souls of the people who committed the bombing of civilians, then I can agree with that. But, I would say that we absolutely need to judge the acts themselves as wicked, as Mark does here. It is never morally permissible to obliterate entire cities - period. Full stop.

And saying, as you do, that “Destruction of a City is wrong as HINDSIGHT.  Today’s (and tomorrow’s ?)technology will hopefully keep that from ever happening again.” I’m not hearing condemnation (again, of the act) of the deliberate destruction of civilians. You seem to be saying (and please correct me if I’m mistaken) that, in effect, the primitive technology of the time made committing manifest evil ok. Sort of, well, if we can avoid it, fine; if necessary, however, we can do it again.

Matt - If we can evacuate Miami in 3 days, they can evacuate Tokyo in 5 days.(Tokyo was not involved with the A-Bomb).  Peace failed since Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Your attack on the US is wrong. You take bits and pieces of history and seem to assume that’s all there is.
In an effort to maintain international peace,the Allies formed the United Nations, which officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, and adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, as a common standard of achievement for all member nations.  The US did not want or ask for War.
The US tried to WARN civilians which was unprecedented during any War in the past.
You just use facts that suit you rather than all the facts which are required to constitute the truth.
You have quoted me: “Destruction of a City is wrong as HINDSIGHT”.  The word WRONG is there.  What don’t you understand?
For you to judge and accuse anyone in this conversation of not following the CCC is sinful on your part. (Mt 7)
HOW MANY TIMES do I need to provide paragraph numbers 2307 through 2314 about War which covers BOTH legitimate defense and destruction of cities ?  (I provided this, YOU did not.)
Interestingly both Popes involved in writing the CCC lived during WWII- one in Poland and one in Germany, and have never condemned the US’s actions in WWII the way you seem to be doing.

They wouldn’t have needed to evacuate Tokyo.  It was already in ashes seasoned with the bones of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians, thanks to American fire bombs.

Anne -

I’m not “attacking the US,” and I fully acknowledge the many good things (which you mention) that the US has done in and for the world, including the many just means it used to achieve the just cause of winning the war.

What I am saying is that the US did objective evil in WWII in obliterating cities, and it is worth remembering that evil so that we might repudiate and repent of it - that is, see the ACT for what it was - and thus dispose ourselves to that whole “firm purpose of amendment” thing the catechism talks about.

“Destruction of a City is wrong as HINDSIGHT”

The indiscriminate destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong when it happened and many notables made that case then.  Sure, we can probably assume that HST (and others) thought he was doing the right thing based upon his approach to the moral question of this event but that doesn’t take away from it being wrong even with leaflets that many would ignore anyway.

I have a question.  Way above, Mark S states that “Fulton J. Sheen, Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, George Patton” were against ending the war by using the A-bomb.
Were they against the bombing at the time or shortly after, or years later?
I did search the internet for some time, and could only find wacco folks trying to prove a point one way or the other.
Does anyone have any solid and reputable quotes from these people they can provide a turthful LINK to? (Personal opinions of folks who did not live back then are not what I am asking for?) 
Thanks for good “links” on the subject.

Anne,

I don’t believe anyone here is trying to say that those men who are responsible for the destruction of those cities are in hell. Rather, they are simply saying that those acts are objectively evil and should in no case be defended. What we can say is that they were foolish or ignorant, at the very least, to do what they did.

Your insistence that it is wrong “in hindsight” is quite a dangerous one. If it is wrong in hindsight, but not wrong then, what does this say about the nature of moral truths? Well, since the act is no different, the only difference is some subjective frame of reference. Are you willing to risk objective moral truths for this distinction? But if moral truths are objective, then whatever is wrong in hindsight was also wrong then and there. Distinguish between the judgment of a soul and the judgment of an act, not between the judgment of an act then and now. And the latter allows us to say that, had those men not been fools, they would have understood the bombing to be evil. Further, we can say the conditional: IF there were no insurmountable obstacles to their intellect or will concerning the knowledge and decision to act in the way they did, then they committed grave sin. Any defense in this case, if it is to remain a faithful Catholic one, must remain a defense of the person and not the act. But that defense would have to prove that the perpetrators were invincibly ignorant or lacked complete control over their wills, which is a tall order. We do better to simply stick to the judgment of their acts, which are condemnable; they are so now and they were just as much so then.

So someone please help me understand this…

We start with the given that it is wrong to attack and destroy a city, regardless of any potential military advantage gained thereby. Superficially, this sounds like a problem with quantity (i.e. it is wrong to destroy an entire city). But is it OK to destroy half the city? One quarter? One eighth? What is the approved ratio (if any), and the rational behind it?

The only thing unique about an atomic bomb in contradistinction to conventional bombs is scale.  Since scale cannot be a moral distinction, Mark either would have to acknowledge that he is wrong or that all bombs are intrinsically evil.  Also, this issue has been addressed by the Church, has it not?  I don’t think the Church concluded the use of atomic bombs is intrinsically evil.  If I am wrong, please inform me of the source information or document so I may read it.

I missed the inclusion of Dresden in the blog.  Sorry about that in my previous posted comment.  I guess then, Mark does posit that the use of bombs in general is intrinsically evil.

In a just war, not any and every bomb, but bombs that wreak wanton havoc on noncombatants and areas that are not specifically munitions and war-machine related. Those are immoral. Fire bombing is immoral, napalm is probably immoral, mustard gas is immoral, nerve agent is immoral, etc. At least that is what I think, and I understand him to be saying something similar.

Jason - To say that Mark is saying that all bombs are immoral is not a fair reading of his argument. Bombs are tools of war; dropping one on a tank? Licit. Civilian neighborhood? Not so much.

I’m having a hard time believing this is even up for discussion. Are we really debating the permissibility of incinerating cities full of civilians? On a Catholic blog??

I think on some levels, from the arguments/debates I have had over the A bomb issue, that the crux of the question is the definition of ‘combatant.’ Some think the case could be made that all of Japan’s citizenry were combatants because of their devotion to their emperor and their willingness to sacrifice all things for his will. I have no idea about that, I have never studied their culture- I know nothing.
There are a number of complicated questions in this that bear thinking through, here though. And I’m a convert-no philosphy training and I did not stay at West Point long enough to get the class on Just War theory.

1. What is a combatant in any given conflict? Does it matter from our perspective as the one trying to determine a moral action whether our enemy intends to destroy us by any and every means including using their general citizenry as shields and weapons. In that case, are we then in a case of total war, and what then is the primary objective and what are the moral parameters?

2. Considering current technology do we have the responsibility in war to act only as microsurgically as necessary to remove reasonable threats to our national security, and how will we determine these actions in light of the enemy building nerve gas manufacturing faciliites inside children’s hospitals, for example?
3. As Catholic Christians, as American Christians, do we have an obligation at any point to fight at a lower capabillity and potentially allow ourselves to be destroyed because we are unwilling to choose an immoral course of conflict? If we face a situation where the enemy has chosen to follow a course like the one the above for example then what? Have we met our match in this life?

I think these complicated questions are very much worth discussing and defining. My son is now a West Point cadet- he will have to make decisions like this someday.

Well folks—there is simply no way to place ourselves back in thqat place and time.  We are a product of our place and time.  Truman was a product of years of uninitiated warfare and the ensuing death, destruction, and ulimate sacrifice of American youth.  We cannot know how that burden is multiplied to the commander in chief, who is forced to decide what to do with the bomb.  Were the Japanese as devoted and as casual about the slaughter of innocents as was commonoly believed at the time?  Would the landing on the mainland be as bloody and drawn out as predicted?  Is the life of the next American draftee any less valuable than a Japanese civilian of any age?  If so, why?  If death and destruction is unavoidable in one form or another, was it wrong to decide in the favor of OUR children? My father was among those training for the next landing, so I selfishly do not question Mr. Truman.  I appreciate his willingness to decide.  I do not think the weight of it all was lost on him. That he was forced into a moment in history where he would be forever tied to the results of HIS actions at least insulated him from any suffering over second guessers. To us it is a thought,a conjecture, a rhetorical excercise, but to Harry Truman and the American people of that day, it was a hard reality that many more people would die before peace was possible.  That so many would die so suddenly, efficiently, and locally was no more horrible to the world at large than the alternative—certainly in Harry Truman’s world.

Paul - While I would agree that judging the culpability of the decision-makers of that time is a fool’s errand, we need to be clear *now* on the objective nature of the act itself, so that if (please, God, no…) some similar situation comes up in the future, we will have the benefit of the clarity of hindsight and the clearer thinking that comes with it. “Look, guys - we’ve already talked about this. Destroying cities is off the table: given that we know 100% that that is the wrong decision and is never permissible, what *are* some alternatives we can consider?”

Well—in hindsight,I think Mr. Truman made the right decision.  The objective is to avoid being driven to that crossroads. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a losing proposition.

Well—in hindsight,I think Mr. Truman made the right decision.

Incinerating a city is morally permissible?

What are you talking about Matt?  War is horrible. Whether in the form of the bomb or the invasion, a great number of casualties were a certainty.  Truman chose the lesser of two horrible evils…AND he saved the lives of his fellow Americans.  In this day and age we don’t think in such jingoist terms that an American life is worth more than any other—nor should we…. BUT when we are talking about the commander in chief—who holds those lives in his hands, I think we allow him to make the decision in favor of HIS boys. I suppose (completely) that Truman understood the gravity of his dilema and the eternal implications of his decision. 

I, myself, have no desire to seek out such responsibility. I am a peaceful man.  That others are willing to take that burden up on my behalf humbles me, and leaves me in no position to judge them.  My nephew is soon to return to Afgahnastan, and I pray for his safety daily.  I pray that he is more a warrior than I could be.  I pray that he does not hesitate before the foe.  I want him home.  I am unapolegetic about my desire to see him safe and sound.  I suppose completely that my attititude would be the same were we somehow transported back 65 years and were aware of the choice before the powers that be. “Drop it. Get it over. Get them home.”  I do not anticipate that exact circumstance occuring ever again. That, too is a prayer.

Paul - while war is horrible, doing evil to end a war, no matter how attractive the option, is never permissable. You can never do evil (and knowingly, willfully and deliberately incinerating a city filled with, among others, several thousand toddlers who have not had a chance to learn to pronounce the name of the country they live in, qualifies as intrinsically evil if anything does) that good may come of it.

War is terrible, yes. It is about as close to hell itself as anything can come this side of the Great Divide. Truman faced some tough possibilities in the summer of 1945 - I acknowledge that. But targeting innocents can never be done, no matter how attractive it might seem, no matter how quickly the Japanese surrendered (and, purely for the sake of argument, I’ll grant for the moment the position that that the nuclear bombings forced Japan’s surrender.)

It is not permissible, period.

Please help me understand, in the grand scheme of things, on a scale of our human march out of the ashes and into the dust, how the Japanese toddler is to be valued any more than the American conscript?  Truman was AT THAT MOMENT, that particular and unique crossroads.  He could have delayed the nuclear age, but for how long, at what cost? Someone was going to have to sacrifice greatly, horribly, to bring the war to its final, inevitable conclusion.  The suffering was inevitable.  Truman was forced with the decision, and he made it.  I submit that he was fully aware of the implications, that he would have to answer to the Lord, our God, and to future generations.  As a product of the shortened war—my father never got further from home than San Antonio—I am in no place to judge. The Lord, our God, has reconciled Mr. Truman’s slate to his own justice, I am sure.  It is my hope and prayer that Mr. Truman has been or will be absolved.  I don’t really pretend to understand God’s perspective on time or much else except as explained by Jesus Christ or the Magisterium. I know how I am commanded, and I submit with all my heart.  I will not judge your response to his grace, nor will I judge those who acted on my behalf, long before I was born. At this point, I can add nothing more to the discussion.  If the topic requires further clarity, I would ask another reader to provide.  God bless us all.

Re the following:

“Please help me understand, in the grand scheme of things, on a scale of our
human march out of the ashes and into the dust, how the Japanese toddler is
to be valued any more than the American conscript?”

At no point in this argument has anyone discussing the immorality of the bombings of Nagasaki, HIroshima, and the fire bombing of Tokyo argued the value of a Japanese soul over an American soul. The bottom line question is really who is a combatant and therefore justly attacked, and what is a munitions contributor and therefore justly attacked, and in a just aggressive action what are the parameters for destruction. Ugly questions to even have to ask, but necessary.

“Truman was AT THAT
MOMENT, that particular and unique crossroads. He could have delayed the
nuclear age, but for how long, at what cost? Someone was going to have to
sacrifice greatly, horribly, to bring the war to its final, inevitable
conclusion. The suffering was inevitable. Truman was forced with the
decision, and he made it.”

I think this is a red herring argument. and a straw man argument. The reality is that some actions in war can be immoral, while fighting in the same war might itself be moral. Every action is accomplished in a specific moment in time and most have an objective and subjective aspect. Objectively speaking the wholesale destruction of cities and the killing of those traditionally understood to be noncombatants- women and children- by the one doing the killing, are immoral. In my mind there remains a question as to whether or not all of the Japanese could have been considered combatants in that circumstance and whether or not total war is ever justifiable or moral. Whether or not Truman did the best he could with what he knew or could have made a better choice is not a question we can answer, but we will someday, as this commenter stated, know the answer completely at the Judgement.

Now the inevitability of extremes is not even a potential argument because it is a prediction- you can use statistics and potential projections to try to make educated decisions- however, as Catholics we always subject these human means to supernatural principle for guiding our decision making- or at least i think that is what God is hoping we will do. And I do not think I commit a sin of presumption when I say that. If you read the Bible about the many many unsurmountable odds men and women of God faced in battles, you will see regularly that they won not by relying on human means and effort but by relying on God and standing fast with what is right. This may sound naive, but I think that applied in WWII when the United States was fighting primarily as a nation, for good and right, but it did not justify what occurred with the A bomb. There is NO way we can know if there might have been another less destructive course of action, because no other action was taken. We can only, now, looking back from where we are in time- and ahead with the challenges we currently face, through the clarity of the infallible moral guidance of the Church know in some measure what is acceptable and what is not.

I think hashing this through in blog comments is difficult but it makes us think and dialogue and even though it is not perfect and sometimes creates a great deal of tension among people of goodwill. More and more everyday people like us face little decisions with far reaching moral impact-I think it can be very productive to talk through this kind of stuff in some measure even in a stilted forum like blog combox.

Matt – You say,

“Jason - To say that Mark is saying that all bombs are immoral is not a fair reading of his argument. Bombs are tools of war; dropping one on a tank? Licit. Civilian neighborhood? Not so much.
I’m having a hard time believing this is even up for discussion. Are we really debating the permissibility of incinerating cities full of civilians? On a Catholic blog??”

I’ll ignore the patently self-righteous tone of your statement and simply counter with, “yes”.  Further, my comments are fair. There I said it.  I am not sure what that means.  Can you define fair for me please?
Why is dropping a bomb on a tank okay but dropping a bomb on a factory that builds tanks or parts to make the tanks not okay?  What if the enemy tanks are all rolling through an urban neighborhood?

The very idea that the sole purpose of dropping bombs on cities in WWII was simply to incinerate the city is, putting it mildly, a stretch.  While bombs are a tool of war, so also are the economic and industrial institutions of a society or nation.  That’s the reality and if you restrain your tactics in attacking your enemy’s capacity to sustain war, then you’ve lost before you’ve started.  To state it differently, cities are a tool of war, and always have been.  The notion of war that you are now describing is mere fantasy. I cannot believe this even up for discussion.  On an adult blog???

Why is dropping a bomb on a tank okay but dropping a bomb on a factory that builds tanks or parts to make the tanks not okay?

This was precisely Bin Laden’s reasoning for killing civilians working in the headquarters of two major centers of the Military-Industrial complex.  Congratulations!  You’re thinking like Al Quaida!

What if the enemy tanks are all rolling through an urban neighborhood?

As a general rule, people evacuate battlefields.  But if you are asking, “Suppose the enemy has taken my daughter hostage and is using her as a human shield?  Can’t I *please* grab my rifle and fire a bullet through her heart in order to kill the enemy?” then I suggest there is something faulty with your moral reasoning.

Oh.  Wait.  You’re asking if you can fire your bullet through somebody else’s daughter.  Hmmm…. Nope.  Still wrong.  You can’t deliberately target and kill innocent human beings, merely because you don’t happen to know them.

The very idea that the sole purpose of dropping bombs on cities in WWII was simply to incinerate the city is, putting it mildly, a stretch.

Um, not familiar with Dresden, are we?

Your moral reason appears to be “As long as somewhere in the rubble was a ball bearing factory, it’s okay to carpet bomb a civilian population center for the express purpose of incinerating thousands of children in the bed and inspiring terror in the population” (which was the main purpose of bombing Dresden).

To state it differently, cities are a tool of war, and always have been.

Osama?  Is that you?  Goering?

Thanks for that Machievellian bulletin.  And yet, in spite of your wisdom, the Church says:

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 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.

This does not, despite your straw man argument, means that “bombs” per se are immoral.  It does mean that deliberately targeting and murdering civilians is.

Astounding to see, yet again, a Catholic laboring to justify maximum murder.

Mr. Shea - 

Per your comment, “You can’t deliberately target and kill innocent human beings”, would you please clarify:

Are you proposing that the WWII rules of engagement for the US military should have prohibited (any & all) actions that could potentially have killed “innocent human beings”? 

Also, can you please provide a working definition of “innocent human beings”?

Thank you.

can you please provide a working definition of “innocent human beings”?

No, John. I think I won’t.  Your insistence on definitional games and on fake perplexity tells me you aren’t interested in a real discussion.  If you are bent, as you clearly are, on insisting that deliberately intending to incinerate a little girl in her bed is fine, all the ASCII in the world will not change your mind, because the problem is not in the intellect, but in the corrupt will.  Instead, I will pray for you and bow out of your fruitless attempt at sophistry on behalf of cold-blooded murder of innocents.

Mr. Shea -

I appreciate your prayers. I will also pray for you.

I offer this post as a courtesy before moving on. In response to my post asking two questions, not only did you fail to answer either but you leaped to a most incorrect and unjust set of conclusions regarding my beliefs in this area. Had a civil discussion been possible I believe you would have learned this a few posts hence.

Have to agree with John—and your language is a little self indulgent, Mr. Shea.  You are clearly enjoying writing it, more than anyone could enjoy reading it.  I am happy that you were not in a position to disuade Mr. Truman from the commission of his act of cold blooded murder. I would not be unhappy had you been.  As the future son of an 18yr old medical coorpsman training for the invasion of the mainland, I simply would not be.

Mark is following the catechism as he has quoted it here for us to ponder - all the arguments in favor of mass destruction of civilian areas are moot in the face of the catechism - end of story - wrestle all you want but the church has spoken…no amount of justification will make the murder of innocents “correct”....a hard pill to swallow for some but to be honest there are many hard pills in this life…suck it up and move on:}

Melinda T.  I know how I am commanded, and I embrace all that is set before me.  I pray that the decision set before Truman does not recur.  I simply refuse to condemn him for choosing which horrible, brutal path, once chosen would allow the world to emerge from eight years of self destruction into peace.  There was no life saving option. You and I are charged with a certain response to God’s grace.  Truman had his charge, and a greater responsibility to the world than you and I will ever face.  Did Truman not pray over this decision?  I think he did.  Did the Lord abandon Truman in an hour of need?  I think HE did not.  Given the situation, ALL of it, I think Truman, a Southern Baptist, acted with prudence and justice. I think he was willing to face hell itself to bring the war to an end. I think he understood the consequences. Let us strive to uphold the sacred dignity of all human life in this day and age.  There are struggles apleny without rewriting history. Let the dead bury their dead.

This has been an interesting debate.  And no one here knows exactly what went on regarding the decision making to end World War II IN 1945.
But Mark S. has done a fine job getting us off the very serious topic of today by writing his article the way he did.
ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, and EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH is MURDER.
Since 1973,- 49.5 Million abortions have taken place in the USA.
Any society that does NOT respect human life, can expect anything from their Government in the future.
Catholics may not support: Obama, H. Clinton, N. Polosi, J. Biden, J. Kerry, O. Snow, etc., for denying innocent persons the right to live by their strong support and promotion of taxpayer funded abortions.
This support for abortion by these politicans is both inside and outside the US.

Anne : I agree completely.

I still say the whole problem with this specific article is one of apples and oranges. The difference between the two positions, Mr. Lee’s and Mr. Truman’s, is sufficiently large to say Mark muddied the waters by treating them as the same.

The heat of the ensuing discussion lends weight to my argument.

Agreed, Tom.  Had anyone taken your initial comments to heart, the whole thread could have been avoided.  Still, I think it provided some light along with the heat.  I used to be in favor of the death penalty, and it was discussions like this that led me to obedience, and eventually, understanding.

Thanks Paul: Opposing the death penalty costs nothing in my college professor world. Opposing abortion makes you a total outsider. The death penalty is a relatively small issue for all the attention liberals give it. More people die from bad traffic signs every year than do from the death penalty. That some states practice it changes humanity, ok, but not like abortion does.

As Catholics we are opposed to the death penalty and abortion, but for different. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, and deciding for it or supporting it in any way is always sinful, whereas decisions about the death penalty are prudential in nature. The distinction is important and must be upheld.

I’m curious as to why it’s always the Devil behind things. Is it too hard to consider that maybe people are just sometimes misguided or intent on negative actions? Why is it always the Devil? Are we afraid to take responsibility for our own actions?

must look at this to your friends   for less