Jimmy, you are a brave man. And a brilliant and honest one. Best of all, you’re right. Prepare to face the consequences. :-)

I like how you pointed out exactly WHY they were wrong to do it. I had never thought of the “holding civilians hostage” angle. It really clears things up.  For me, knew it was wrong after watching Barefoot Gen, and Grave of the Fireflies. The accounts of survivors are beyond horrific. God forbid one of these bombs ever be launched again.

My wife would quite possibly not have been born had her U.S. Marine father been forced to invade the Japanese mainland.  My father, a sailor, would simply have suffered a bit longer with his pre-existing wounds in the theater of operations.  As John Corapi points out, God permits evil so that a greater good can result from it.  Frankly, if I had been in Truman’s place, I would have done it also, and repented later in the midest of the peace, freedom and prosperity that resulted.

Yes, killing civilians is a terrible thing - just like killing 50,000 - 150,000 Chinese (nobody knows for sure) in Nanking, by rape, bayonet, beheading. Just like the hundreds of thousands of Chinese slaughtered by the Japanese across China and many more people of Korea, Indochina, Malaya, Burma, the Phillipines and Indonesia. Just like forcing Japanese civilians to commit suicide rather than surrender to American forces as on Okinawa. Dropping the bomb was a terrible thing - not using it might have worse. Japan sowed the wind. Japan reaped the whirlwind.

Consequentialism: The absolute favorite heresy of the American Catholic, left or right.  Hey!  “Let us do evil that good may come of it” is in the Bible somewhere.  So it’s all good!

Anybody may or may not have been born because somebody’s father, grandfather, etc., may or may not have been involved in something that may or may not have shortened his life. These strained speculative contingencies simply do not, and cannot, determine the morality of any given action.

It is understandable why America would take such action. But by strict definition, the act was an immoral one. This happens in war. That America has apologized and continues to reflect on it is satisfying enough and it would be unreasonable to demand more. And the rest of the world did benefit in one way. Though now a lot more countries have the bomb and so far deterrence appears to be working, though it is not a bulletproof solution. ‘Barefoot Gen’ and ‘Grave of Fireflies’ are great animated films! If anyone likes videogames, pick up ‘Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker’ for the PSP. There’s a lot of great narrated content in there that discusses nuclear deterrence and the cold war and the state of post-WWII Japan.

@ Mark P. Shea

It’s more that mankind has allowed evil to infiltrate the world that was originally free of it, and God now works co-operatively through fallen human beings’ free will and history, and thus must permit humanity and nature to carry out evil actions in order to work some good. There will always be imperfection present on the part of human beings whenever they are involved.

God does not will evil acts to be committed. If evil acts are committed, God may make the best out of a horrible situation. This does not change the intrinsically evil nature of the act of murdering several hundred thousand civilians. The end never justifies any means. The means as well as the end must be moral.

Do we not yet understand that governments will not act in accordance with moral law??  All of the governments that currently exist on this earth are not in any way respecting the laws of God.  This is why we must turn to the Kingdom of God which exists within our hearts and to which we owe our allegiance. As Catholics we must accept that we are to follow Christ who did not resist evil but rather allowed evil to carry Him to His death and His resurrection.  Are we willing to follow Christ?  Are we willing to place all of our trust in God and never resort to violence?  Jesus came to show us how to be human - that our humanity must be totally dependent on God’s will and our trust in that will. This is why the resurrection is the “Good news” of our faith.  No one can take our life - we lay it down freely knowing that this life is not the definitive answer to our existence. Our only vocation is to love to the end and that my friends is where we have missed the boat - we continue to resist evil on our terms - we must embrace evil with love and then and only then will it be overcome!!!

How are nukes any worse than another war crime you fail to mention, fire-bombing Japanese cities?  These were dropped SOLELY for the purpose of killing civilians.

We have the luxury of 65 years of time from the events of the day.  An invasion of Japan is estimated to have cost 3 million lives - American and Japanese combined.  The bombings were evil - but war itself is evil, and the empire of Japan was not innocent in that war. 

What should the United States have done instead?

Does the fact (not mentioned here) that the US heavily leafleted Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and surrounding areas, in advance of both bombings, warning civilians of the impending attacks and urging them to leave these areas (warnings also broadcast by radio), have any bearing on the view that we were “using Japanese civilians as hostages to the war effort” or that it was our intention to “kill massive numbers of the ... civilian population, without discrimination”?

<http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens>

I pose a question to all on this blog: Given that dropping nukes on these two cities was wrong (you’ll get no argument from me),  what should we have done?  No one seems to have addressed this problem.  It is easy to criticize our actions, but what were the alternatives.  I’m not smart enough nor educated enough to have the answer.

I believe you are going to great lengths to split a very fine hair.  All war has always ultimately consisted of “We will take out big chunks of your population if you keep this up.”  As technology has progressed our definition of “big chunks” has changed but the threat is still the same.  Can anyone think of a war that was fought by the two sides just blowing up each other’s stuff?  Truman was brave enough to do the right thing.  We should be grateful and we should pray that soon we will able to elect a president equally good and brave for our time.

Todd - I think I answered your question - what did Jesus do when he was confronted by the ultimate evil?  He FORGAVE and He LOVED - I hate to say it but that is what we are called to do - that is what all of the martyrs of the Church did - they confronted evil with love and forgiveness.  We need to really think about what following Christ means.  I am not saying it is easy or that it make sense in light of our human condition - it is only with God’s grace that we can live out our call to the Kingdom of God.  Hence the Church and her sacraments - there really was a reason that Christ gave His life for us!!

Mark, you once again take the thinnest line of reasoning to make the most outrages accusations, and use the Catechism of the Catholic to hide behind.  “U.S. War Crime?”  It was the Japanese military, that basically ran Japan, and Hirohito, Japan’s sacred leader who were responsible for those deaths, not the U.S. military or government.  The latter did what they had to do to bring that war to a successful ending and as quickly as possible.  The first bomb was dropped on the military headquartered cited and largest railroad center in Japan.  The fact that it took two bombs exposes the inhumane character of the Japanese emperor, who didn’t even call a meeting of his military leaders until after the second bomb was dropped.

Monday morning quarterbacking may be appropriate for football, but it is dangerous when using the Catholic Church for your argument of what happened in WWII, and who is to blame for what.

Sue, do you recognize any distinctions among 1) what we as individuals are called to do, or to not do, in response to evils inflicted upon us or threatened against us _personally_; 2) how we as individuals may or should licitly and morally respond to evils inflicted upon or threatened against _others_; and 3) what governments may licitly and morally do in response to threats against their citizens? I certainly make distinctions among these, as does the Church.

Why all the hand-wringing over the incineration of a few hundred thousand heathen japs? Those subhumans deserved to die so that millions of Christians could be spared. Jesus would have done the same.

Sue,

Would that have ended the war and, more importantly, the killing? Really?

I agree with you. I understand this was a complicated choice etc., but it was still wrong.

Thanks, Carl, for posting the site with the actual text of the leaflets distributed.  For example:

“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.”

Two questions I have (real questions, as I have not made up my mind about the morality of the bombings):

1) Why was it necessary that we invade Japan at all?  Was it possible to negotiate a cease fire leading to peace without demanding unconditional surrender?

2) Do the Japanese have a national resentment against America because of the bombings?  In my lifetime, they seem to have been very friendly to America (perhaps in contrast to the French).

Carl - 1)Yes, 2)Yes, 3)Yes
Todd - It ended THAT war (technically) but has it ended the killing? Really?
God is love - love has already triumphed - we just need to see that more clearly!!

Jimmy, I don’t like to judge Truman and the US military on this issue. We can sit in relative comfort calling them war criminals but our mindsets will never be able to understand what our leaders were going through in 1945.
The Japanese govt would have ordered the Japanese population to kill themselves before the US forces could take control of an area. The majority of civilians on Saipan killed themselves. So if a majority of citizens on the Home Islands killed themselves, we’re talking of millions of people here, far more than killed by the atomic bombs.
Had Operation Downfall been executed, hundreds of thousands US troops would die, and most of the Japanese forces would die, meaning close to a million Japanese soldiers would die.

It is not criminal to defend oneself.  The Japanese killed may more innocent during the war.  They became a peace loving people after they paid the price for starting that war.  According to our Catholic belief, theirs was not just war in that they never really believed they could win it. 
Where is their day of asking forgiveness for all the evil and killing they did in Korea, Chain, the Philippines and Southeast Asia? Where is their sorrow over the murder of prisoners?
Spare us until the Japanese really ask for forgiveness.

Having been written years after August 1945, the CCC is an ex post facto law, which, at least in the case of the U.S. Constitution 9see article VI, is illicit. 

“That made these attacks war crimes.” is 20/20 hindsight.

Pat Phillips

My parents, all my aunts and uncles lived in that era.  All my life I have been told and believed that it was necessary to prevent even more American deaths.

Because the next step would’ve been an invasion of Japan.  I’ve been told that war would’ve lasted ANOTHER 10 years and that’s just against Japan.

Now, if everybody listened to Fatima, then there wouldn’t have been WW2 in the first place.  So there.

It seems to me that an important but unacknowledged assumption has been made in this article, namely that civilian casualties would have been less (even greatly so) had the US not employed nuclear weapons. But the only evidence we have for making this assessment—history—tends not to support this assumption.

As has already been pointed out, the Japanese government ordered its civilians to fight to the death against Allied forces. They bolstered this order not only with the threat of punishment, including death, but also with outrageous fictions about supposed atrocities (including infanticide and cannibalism) that Allied forces had and would commit against any captured civilians. The effects of these threats are amply attested by history: many Japanese (and other) non-combatants killed their children and themselves as Allied forces advanced into their areas, rather than surrender, despite the best efforts of the Allies to assure civilians and combatants alike that they would be treated humanely.

If these facts of history indeed informed the decision to employ nuclear weapons, as _sparing_ many tens or even hundreds of thousands of additional civilian casualties judged likely to result from an invasion (and in conjunction with the concomitant efforts to warn civilians in the targeted areas to leave), does that change the moral calculus in any way?

Very good Jimmy. You articulated your points beautifully, and I believe you are right!

Focusing 65 years of purified hindsight on two days in what was literally a world war lasting for years leads to a logic exercise for the student and little more.  Years of bloodshed and death in the Pacific had shown too well how likely “scaring” the enemy into surrender was.  Countless “widgets” (sic) had been destroyed on land, at sea, and in the air without decisive effect.  Thus, assertions claiming to isolate a single motive for the bombing, which you judge to be evil, reflect an extremely simplistic view of the thinking and decision-making leading up to using those two bombs at that time.  For help in interpreting what “indiscriminate” means in context,  Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (c. 400BC) is a good place to start, followed by some history of World War II. 

I suggest reversing your principle allowing for nuclear weapon use and work very hard on alternative means of resolving those future scenarios.  That could be valuable and morally commendable.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 200,000 Japanese. Okinawa killed 250,000 Japanese and some 12,000 Americans (half from kamikaze). Operations Olympic and Coronet, the invasion of Japan planned for late 1945 and 1946, would certainly have killed at least a million, the majority civilian, plus who knows how many Americans. An air/sea blockade, accompanied by the utter destruction of every Japanese urban center through 1946 would probably have killed over 2 million, the majority from starvation. These figures can be found in any serious scholarly study of the end of the war.

If nuking these cities was a major U.S. war crime, illicit under international law and Church teaching, then we are put in the position of demanding a higher price in blood to salve our consciences. There are times in real life when one must commit a wrong in order to avoid an even greater wrong. These instances arise frequently in wartime. Another example: the terrorist who must be “tortured” in order to find out where the bombs are.

Jimmy, you’re right when you say that we were participating formally in evil when we dropped the bomb. Unfortunately, our participation in evil began almost four years earlier when we entered the war. This is the nature of war. There is much, much evil in it, and we do ourselves a disservice when through our well-meaning but futile efforts to mitigate its evil we prolong it and make it even worse.

I find it difficult to believe that a country which has such a desire for the killing of innocents, whether through nuclear bombing of civilian centers or through abortion of its unborn will be able to inflict these kinds of evils on the world for much longer.  God is merciful, but also just; it’s a shame that people presume on the one, while ignoring the other.  I for one think we’re in for a rather rude awakening, much like the wicked empires of ages past.

It disgusts me with monday qb.  Most of us were not even alive when this happened.  But for me if what USA had to do to end a bloody war that the Japs started at Pearl harbor and let us not forget they Started IT and KILLED THOUSANDS of US military by a sneak attack at Pearl harbor as well as CIVILIANS>  What about the MILLIONS they killed in China, Manchuria how many were raped.  What about the British and other soliders and CIVILIANS who were killed outright as well as the Jap concentration camps.  Sadly USA is to blame for we trained the Jap soliders but their Emperor Hirohito thought to be god on earth and the Jap Military Leaders were the most blood thirsty criminals aside from Hitler and Stalin.
So to say USA was wrong in dropping the bombs, trust me, if today we had to drop a bomb on Iran, Iraq, Afganastain, I would not hesitate to drop it to protect American lives.
Our illegal president/dictator to be, kisses every ones rear end and does not truly support our military.  He has never served a day in any country’s armed forces from his homeland of Kenya, Indonesia and hmmmm USA. So if we all want to stop war then one must destroy the military/political/big business machines/bankers/around the globe.
Now let us not forget how many thousands were killed, harmed, incarcerated by the RC Church (Inquisition remember).  All in the name of Religion. 
I say practice what HE has said, Forgive and sin no more.
But also in the good book, we must protect the innocents.

Should read..“We have many Japanese friends in Japan that we love dearly.

Jimmy, you’ve got to be kidding!  Nothing like trying to take todays standards and applying them to something that happened many years ago.  You forget? that Japan declared war on the U.S..  You also forget that for whatever reason the cities were chosen, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because even after the first bomb, Japan refused to surrender.  Maybe you would like to have been the one to explain to the families of dead servicemen and women why we didn’t choose to stop the war early?  I wonder how many people of both countries would have died and how much more destruction would have been brought down on the Japaneese people if we didn’t use the bomb?  Would we do so today?  Probably not for two reason:1) we know how destructive the bomb is; 2)the other side also knows and would not, I hope, want to risk that event.  Unfortunately, today we are faced with an enemy that does not weigh risk and morals in their day to day Jihadist killings.

It doesn’t matter if more would have died if the bombs weren’t dropped. It doesn’t matter if the Japanese killed more innocents bofore or after they were dropped.  All of this is irrelevant, because we can never commit evil so that good may result. The ends does not justify the means, except for those without basic knowledge of morality.  The dropping of these bombs on civilian centers was a violation of the Just War Doctrine, was inherently immoral, and is certainly a war crime regardless of what good came out of it.  God can bring good out of evil, but it is not for us to commit evil to reach our own ends.

Reading these comments, I’m starting to think some major re-catechesis is in order.

Thomas C. Ambrosia..YOU are a little out of order here…and you make a lot of errors. You could cause a lot of trouble and confusion with your attempt at propaganda.

But Thomas, your “we” makes no distinction amongst moral subjects, which is one of the distinctions I raised earlier. Obviously governments can do some things (for example, arresting and imprisoning criminals, coercing its citizens to pay taxes) that it would be immoral for individuals to do. If we apply to governments all the moral dictates that apply to individuals, then it would and could never be moral to wage war of any kind, with any means. But the Church certainly does not teach that. Obviously there are distinctions and decisions and degrees that factor into the moral calculus of war, that can’t simply be waved away.

8 8 10
I would like to point out that it is truly amazing we beat the heck out of original axis of evil (Italy, Germany and Japan), we spent trillions of USA taxpayer $$ to help rebuild these defeated countries and look at where they are today. They own a good chunk of the USA. When there is trouble in the world who is the 1st to respond, right wrong or indiffernt, yep us dummies here at the USA.  Now I have friends in Japan, China and SQ Asia.  Are they responsible for WWII and the sneak attacks on the USA, NO they were not.  War is made by governments.  No American says go to war, for they know our kin will be on the front lines, never the old men in congress or the president or judges. No their kin very seldom see front line action.  The ones coming back home in caskets and blown apart mentally and physically, are they kin of any of the Dems or Republicans in the House, Senate etc? NO they are not.
So before USA decides to go to another war I say drop the bomb or in lieu of that each and every member of the house and senate and president and their cabinets and their staff go to the front lines 1st and see how lucky they are avoiding getting killed or wounded.
So if I was President and a button could save American lives and lives of our allies and as many innocent civilians, I would not hesitate to drop a bomb before I would send one man or woman to die for another country and on another countries soil. 
We have men and women protecting countries who hate us.  I say to our weeine illegal president, tell the world to go to hell and bring each and every member of our military back to the USA, the heck with Korea, the heck with ROFChina, Japan, Europe etc.
Then when our men and women are home, they can be put on protecting our borders from illegal ailens.  Of course we must get rid of the illegals we have in our white house and government and their kin who cannot prove they are in the USA legally.
I and my family served in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, we lost many of our cousins in WWII and Korea, as well as several in German and Japanese concentration camps.  Too of my uncles were in the Battle of the Buldge and one helped liberate the concentration camps where MILLIONS of JEWS and NON JEWS were killed by Hitlers henchmen.
We will never know the count of USA and Allied military who died at the hands of the Evil Empire as well as civilians.
So warn the civilians by all means, but dropping a bomb or two will end a war, I would do it again 65 yrs after the fact.
I also bet if you did a survey of USA citizens and gave them this choice you would be shocked that a majority would support that effort!
If you have the weapons use them, do not just sit on your arse, how bout it Obama!

According to my own perspectives, The most impressive remain that lies in Nagasaki is the former Urakami Catholic Cathedral of the city… it has now become a local monument of what it still remains from pre-atomic Nagasaki…. a real astonishing piece of History and faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urakami_Cathedral

Posted by Mia Archer on Sunday, Aug 8, 2010 7:19 PM (EST):

Thomas C. Ambrosia..YOU are a little out of order here…and you make a lot of errors. You could cause a lot of trouble and confusion with your attempt at propaganda.

Dear Mia, wish I could say I know you but I do not recall ever having any dealings with you, and I doubt if you truly know who and where I live, and even if so thank heavens we can vent and people like you can do as you please, ditto.
//
As for most Catholics smarter, amazing, tell me this when did Our Lord
Jesus Christ become a Roman Catholic and for that the apostles?
Remember HE was born a JEW and DIED a JEW and never once said he was CATHOLIC or CHRISTIAN.  Now smart catholic tell me where in the BIBLE (not the catholic version) can you prove HE was a CATHOLIC or anything other than a JEW.

By saying CATHOLIC you are one of those sad people who believe everything a priest or bishop or Pope tells you without doing your own honest homework.  How many WARS have been started in the name of GOD or in the name of Religion. I wonder wasn’t the Crusades done in the name of GOD to defeat the Muslims and free the Holy Land?
Is not these wars we are involved in similar in nature with the radical Muslims calling this a holy war against the USA and her allies?
Normally people, smarter than you, would not label themselves just a catholic or would say Christian.  But again what is a Christian.
We know what a Catholic is, brainwashed dummies (I know I am an RC and I respect the church but not its leaders who are as disgusting as our politicians).  I like to think I follow to the best of my ability what Our Lord has expressed to us in the Bible.  Though I falter, just as I am sure you in your perfect ness may falter, I still do my best every day to help anyone who needs it.  Can you say the same way Mia the Catholic?

When we fought Germany, Italy and Japan, we did so for the atrocities they were committing and their sneak attacks on the USA. 
This in sense is the same way why we are fighting today wars we cannot win against regimes who follow radical Islam.

So that is my comments you can say more or not or just move on.
As for me and mine, we will serve HIM and HIM ALONE and not blindly follow a religion or church leaders or political leaders who do not follow what our nation was found on.

Obviously, you ared not Catholic. BUT I AM..! YES, I follow the HOLY FATHER..MY BISHOPS..AND MY PRIESTS..They have never been wrong..!

Now, children!

@ Thomas (from 7:19 pm-) you said exactly the same thing I was thinking. I wholeheartedly agree. I keep hoping someone might have some reason or knowledge to the contrary that will diminish the gravity of the error.

“It doesn’t matter if more would have died if the bombs weren’t dropped. It doesn’t matter if the Japanese killed more innocents bofore or after they were dropped.  All of this is irrelevant, because we can never commit evil so that good may result. The ends does not justify the means, except for those without basic knowledge of morality.  The dropping of these bombs on civilian centers was a violation of the Just War Doctrine, was inherently immoral, and is certainly a war crime regardless of what good came out of it.  God can bring good out of evil, but it is not for us to commit evil to reach our own ends.”

I find it nothing less than terrifying that the type of Catholics this publication would interest have contrary opinions at large. If the supposed orthodox in the wealthiest, most powerful, most free nation in Christendom are so confused then what hope will there be for the future of the world?

I would like to pose a ? to this group.
When reading the Old Testament, how many wars and killings or shall I say slaughter of civilians etc was “blessed” by GOD?
How many slaves were allowed to be owned by the winners (the Jews the Chosen people of God)?
Now granted this was some time ago, but when one looks at wars and conflicts throughout the globe civilians, innocents just like the many thousands who died on 9/11 and who are dying from 9/11 illnesses, how is any war right?

We had our revolution against King to win our independence and to be governed UNDER GOD as a CHRISTIAN Nation not a Catholic, Jewish or Muslim nation.  But with the sound understanding that ALL Religions and beliefs and Non Religious beliefs are allowed to grow in this fertile land.

We sadly had a Civil War, so many men died on both sides.  But what about the women, children who died, burned alive in their homes, slaves hacked to death, because one group felt it was OK to own another human being, which to me could never be blessed.
Yet where was the church on slavery? Silent and they did nothing.

When the wars before the WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc, where was the church on their views.

Did we not have a Warrior Pope to consolidate church power in Rome (let me see was that not Julian who had the Sistine Chapel painted by that young Italian upstart MB)

I do not want bloodshed, but what has happened in history keeps repeating itself.

Until we as a global body of different people work together we will always have bloodshed, due to religious and radical beliefs, skin color, nationality, etc.

Our world leaders are the cause of the problems that we face every day, sadly they are not the solution.

The solution is and always rests with you and me, but our voices and our actions of support must be joint and must be serving for the children of God.

You and I must do everything in our power to help one another here at home and abroad and that means a lot of prayer, sacrifice and chutzpah.

Only when we put our Faith in HIM and think of how HE would handle the problems we face can we truly say we are HIS followers,
Pax

tca..or “pax”...DRIVEL..Where and when did you get your Phd in anything…..?
Yes, I do know who and where you are..! Do I need to prove it..? hahahahaha…! And YES..I will always follow the Holy Father..
Try praying to the right God…!

tca..you are behind the times. Do some current reading. Catch up.
Adios, Amigo..!

As an Air Force ROTC cadet in 1960 during an ROTC class I said that dropping the “bombs” was an act of evil. A month later when I was to receive my commission I was called before a “review board” who challenged my loyalty. The board denied my commission. I appealed and the “review board” was overruled and I subsequently received my commission. Had forgotten about my comment until this article so thanks for reminding me.

Mia
tca..or “pax”...DRIVEL..Where and when did you get your Phd in anything…..?
Yes, I do know who and where you are..! Do I need to prove it..? hahahahaha…! And YES..I will always follow the Holy Father..
Try praying to the right God…!
//
The right GOD?
Gee I was always taught there is only One GOD.
God of the Living.
Wow is that how you really feel.
I bet if your priest saw your replies he would be shocked and would give you a good honest lecture.
As for following a religious leader Blindly, I suggest you really study the New Testatment on false prophets.
Let me ask you, did not Our Lord challenge the rabbis of His day?  Did Our Lord also not show some strong temper/anger at the money changers in the temple etc?
Do you really think HE would approve of this last commentary from you.

Do you think He would approved of this sick following of one man (pope) who has been in error most of his political career in the curia.

Why do you think the church is having such a problem holding and bringing in men into the priesthood? 
Hmm..think it might be the higher ups? how about the dogma that cannot be defended on all fronts, inability to work with other religions etc.
This sick blind devotion to men who have caused such great pain to children by hiding the molesters, or is that OK in your eyes.
Again your 1st tirade was the priests to the pope can never do any wrong.
I guess all those kids are liars?

When folks, such as yourself respond such as you have, you truly do show your faith (or lack thereof) as well as your intelligence.

Since I would not want you to get into any legal issues I would strongly suggest you contact me at my email address below, as your written comments can be used against you in a civil suit for slander/libel.
I really would like to know how you know me, where I reside and what my background is, where we met and all, what churches I go to etc.
Sadly I doubt if you can do that.
TomAmbrosia@gmail.com
If you release such data via this site or any other and it is not 100% factual trust me I have no issue with taking this matter to a judge.

Now good night and be cautious of what you say, how you say it and to whom you say it too.
Lawsuits are very costly.

As for saying PEACE (PAX) I do mean that for you and all.
As for being in our prayers, though I do not know you, I do include people such as yourself in my daily prayers and I ask that HE will enlighten you and make you well in all respects.

Posted by Mia Archer on Sunday, Aug 8, 2010 9:17 PM (EST):

tca..you are behind the times. Do some current reading. Catch up.
Adios, Amigo..!
//
I wonder are you an illegal from Mexico? the Adios amigo comments perhaps give you away.
Maybe I hit a nerve on illegal immigrants in the USA including the current fellow in the white house.

As for current reading, on what subject, I read about 20 books a quarter and numerous papers and news articles, including several from the church.
May you would like to tell me how to reach you, as you are becoming most comical.
A quick search shows you have several issues on letting loved ones pass without pain, and death panels.

Amazing person you appear to be.
Sad I cannot recall you as I know I would remember a person of your mental agility quite well.

It is so nice to see a ?catholic? use the CCC to defend a false premise!
Did you think the rest of us would be too lazy to look it up? Or that we just wouldn’t have access to a CCC? Wrong!!!  CCC 2313 is decrying genocide.  Last time I checked there are still many Japanese alive and well today.  I’ll get to 2314 later.  I have had to type this over and over.  I am now tired.  Get a brain!
In Christ, Kathleen

Hmmm!? 
Never met a WWII vet who thought we should have not dropped the bombs.  Fire bombing of German cities, e.g. Dresden, did as much or more damage.  Turning some of the cities into living furnaces.  OFMs and SJs at Nagasaki offer the irony of the A bomb falling on Catholic communities.  I recall that one or two of the crew of the B29s became Monks, Trappists.  Have also read that crew members of the Dresden missions never recovered psychologically.

The injustice is WWI, which WWII finished, thus creating a spiritual, moral, and physical wasteland of Europe and maybe even America.

Kathleen, I understand that you are tired. You seem to have misread what I wrote. I didn’t quote 2313 precisely because it deals with genocide, which was not in question here. I quoted from 2312 and 2314, which I am happy to invite folks to look up online, here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM

I believe you will find that they were quoted correctly. Hope this helps!

Sometimes, there is no good choice.  Sometimes, the choice is the lesser of two evils.  You may have to shoot the home invader or car jacker without giving him a second or two longer to give you the certainty that he’s just there to rob and not kill.  The enemy already militarized its population in preparation of an American invasion.  Boys were trained to pilot drone bombs to hammer US forces in the same kamikaze way the aircraft pilots did.  The starving, bomb weary civilians were training to deal with the US invaders.  The war weary US, which was looking at the strong possibility of war with the USSR, wanted this war finished ASAP to deal with the push of atheistic communism everywhere.  It’s one thing to regret having to do what was necessary to defend home, to do it with a heavy heart and wish to God it never had to happen.  It’s another thing to let it go to self hate and calling one’s self the villain.  These weren’t revenge bombings like Dresden, or the rape and pillage of Eastern Germany by the USSR.  What other country, upon the total conquest of its enemy, got it back on its feet with its own democratic government and funded its rebuilding to where the conquered beat the conqueror economically a scant 30 years later?  War crime?  No.  Continuing a bombing campaign to reduce Japan to barrenness and starve millions when one had a nuke, or asking 1 million Americans to become cannon fodder (and giving the USSR a good chance to win the world over a crippled US) when you had a bomb to save those lives?  Those would be war crimes.

Thank you, Jimmy, for bringing the teachings of Holy Mother Church to bear on these tragic moments in history. You presented a clear and logical argument on the morality of the bombings. It makes sense to me and I have learned something.  We are so blessed to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in difficult questions, where so many opinions are heard.  We owe so much to holy men such as Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, and now Pope Benedict. They make so much sense and we can learn so much.  May Jesus, Divine Mercy embrace all those serving our country with his love and protection. Heal the injured and grant eternal rest to those who have given their lives.  Our Lady, Queen of Peace, pray for us. Our Lady of America, pray for us.  Patricia

Brilliant Jimmy.  Thank you.

Let’s scale Hiroshima down a few orders of magnitude.  Suppose your neighbor breaks into your house, wants you dead and to take your belongings, whatever.  You engage in a man-to-man fight, initially on your own property, then moving eventually to his own property and his own house.  Are you allowed to shoot his daughter, who is asleep in her room in the neighbor’s house, in order to end the fight?

As far as leaflets calling for evacuation, keep in mind that the Japanese government was ignorant about the weapon’s potential, let alone the public information that the Emperor’s military was sharing with the public.  Even so, let’s look at what would have happened if the leaflets had been heeded: given the absolute lack of resources available to the Japanese people during the later parts of the war and that it was August Monsoon season, pushing 350,000 people into the mountains of Japan would be a death sentence for many/most of them anyhow.

Recognizing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes and not morally justifiable doesn’t make you a bad person or US citizen.

Once America was producing atomic weapons, we could have easily limited their use to Japan’s military resources and personnel, demonstrating our power only against people who were specifically engaged in fighting against us.  That didn’t happen.  We dropped an atomic weapon on large cities.

Which is precisely the point of Jimmy’s argument: targeting civilians indiscriminately along with any military targets in those cities is still unacceptable.

What would help Jimmy is not having my posts on CCC 2312 and 2314 deleted before I can finish them.  They all fit in with 2313.

Now about that genocide in Rwanda or the genocide of the Armenians, i could go on and on. Your right, the US is a sinner of the first order. BUT what are you doing about the major issue of TODAY - the barbaric slaughter of the most innocent in our land - our aborted babies. No, let’s condemn our grandfathers who were dealing with evil bayonet to bayonet. Keep your eye on the ball and look in the mirror. How many babies died while you wrote this piece of self-loathing indulgent myopic essay. There are war crimes committed within miles of your office/home right now and you focus on the evils of a war fought by our brave ancestors. Look in the mirror and disparage the past all you want but ignore the present at your own souls peril. Sounds about right for the times.

PS Vatican II was a war crime - it let moral relativism into each parish and catholic school (of which I’m sure you are a graduate).

Another dog that doesn’t bark is the one that tells the (“whispered” though widely known by American generals) story of Russian ships hurrying toward Japan to claim the spoils of war as it did in Europe (the partition of Berlin comes to mind)and the decision to bomb Japan having a twofold purpose - to hasten the end of the war and prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold in Asia and giving a scary warning as to what they might expect if they got to big for their britches - and it worked for a brief moment - then the race for bigger and better and more numerous nukes was on and the cold war took hold like a house on fire….so much for nobler motivations….but humans are a fallen race saved by Grace should they choose it…So Jimmy has it right - we can’t glory in the tragedy of war and the loss of so many innocents…we have to put it into perspective and be humble before our Lord….

Chris, your reductive analogy merely sets aside, and your closing statement merely assumes, the issue under contention: namely, whether in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US in fact _did_ “target civilians indiscriminately”. (No one here—well, _almost_ no one here, there in fact being a most regrettable instance—is contending that actually “targeting civilians indiscriminately” is in any way acceptable.) Mr. Akin contends that the US did so, but his contention takes no (apparent) account of the historical facts raised as evidence against this contention. It was undeniably _foreseeable_ that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more specifically, the administrative and industrial centers of those cities, which were directly supporting the Japanese war effort) would result in civilian casualties (even though the US tried to minimize them); but if all actions of war that foreseeably result in civilian casualties constitute, _ipso facto_, the “indiscriminate targeting of civilians”, then _no_ war (certainly no modern, mechanized war) can possibly be free of such actions (the US Civil War would for example have to be declared unjust, and Lincoln a war criminal, by this criterion)—but the Church certainly does not teach that. (Note that if one contends that it was the _large number_ of civilian casualties that makes the bombings to be war crimes, not their mere foreseeability, then one both a) introduces the magnitude of probable civilian casualties, and its calculation, into the moral calculus, thus bringing us right back to the contemporary calculations of which of the possible scenarios would result in fewer civilian deaths, which it is difficult for us at 65 years remove to reliably or, given hindsight, justly gainsay, particularly given the evidence presented regarding the likelihood of Japanese surrender and of the efforts the US undertook to minimize civilian casualties; and b) flies in the face of your reductive analogy.)

You also contend—without support—that the US “could have easily limited [the use of atomic weapons] to Japan’s military resources and personnel, demonstrating our power only against people who were specifically engaged in fighting against us.” Could you please justify this statement? Where, precisely, could such a use of atomic weapons have occurred, and _no_ foreseeable loss of innocent lives have resulted? (Now, you may instead say that the loss of innocent lives, while never entirely avoidable, could have been vastly reduced; but if you do so then you again introduce a numerical moral calculus as above, and further assert—again, without support—that your strategic and tactical assessment, at 65 years remove, and purely theoretical, must be determinative to others and is necessarily superior to that of those contemporary with the decision and _actually_, not theoretically, responsible both for the defense of nations against the Japanese aggressor and for minimizing civilian casualties.) And even if we could accept for the sake of argument your assertion that the US “could have easily limited their use to Japan’s military resources and personnel”, you still need to explain why the US did _not_ do so.

A very informative but long article: Why Truman Dropped the Bomb, can be found here:
  http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=2

In war in Christendom, I think a besiged city was given a chance to surrender and avoid destruction. If the city did not surrender it’s entire population was at risk.

The following quote from the article introduces another important issue.

“This brings us to another aspect of history that now very belatedly has
entered the controversy. Several American historians led by Robert
Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the
Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued
day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan’s
conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000
Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war
continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman’s
decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the
aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among
noncombatant civilians in the victim nations.”

Ah, consequentialism.  If we were to extend the logic of “kill evil people in an evil fashion in order to bring about a good,” we might as well arm the masses to take out abortion doctors, or, perhaps more effectively, the politicians who enable them.  Was the dropping of the nuclear bombs a difficult decision?  Absolutely.  Was it an act of moral evil?  According to the Catechism, you betcha.  And we ignore that aspect of the culture of death at our own peril.

In terms of the whole “Monday morning quarterbacking” thing- something doesn’t stop being wrong just because you weren’t there at the time.  And the gravest consequence of us dropping nuclear bombs?  We have no justifiable claim to the moral high ground when lunatics like Ahmadinejad pursue the same kinds of weaponry.

By the way, I am perpetually bewildered as to why Catholics who follow the magisterium in nearly every other case seems in this one to value mathematics over morality.

So what should the Allies have done? According to some of the logic here, none of the war was justified. Should the Allies have let Germany and Japan roll across Europe and Asia? Should the Allies have done nothing and let evil triumph? It is very easy to Monday morning quarterback especially when you have no answers of your own. Of course, the entire war was a tragedy. What gives with the war crimes charges? If you are going to make such a charge about what is probably the most just war in history then I think you owe those who fought an explanation of what should have been done. I think you own an explanation of the moral reasoning for letting millions more die in an invasion of Japan. You need to take your argument to the next step, what should have been done? What would have been the morally correct choice and why?

I suggest that than devoting your considerable intellectual capabilities to arguing “post facto” about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki(did you bother to look at the actions of the Japanese during the battle for Okinawa)you devote your attention to the present government of the USA and the use of tax payer dollars to “abort” on an annual basis many more people than were killed in these cities.

My father, after helping to win the peace in Northern France, traveled from Marseilles to the Philippines to prepare for the invasion of Japan.  You talk about war-weary.  My fellow war babies’ fathers had already been gone from home for years. Fortunately, my dad was involved in the occupation of Japan instead of its invasion.  In Japan they discovered that the civilian population had been training for many months on how to fight the American invaders - including children and grandparents.  Many of the kamikaze pilots were boys who had never flown before their final flights in planes that were not designed to make it back to Japan.  The occupiers also discovered that many more people died in the firebombing of Japanese cities.  I have photos of Nagoya with only a few buildings standing - no A bomb fell there; the damage was done the old fashioned way by Jimmy Doolittle’s boys. 

Ask some Pacific War vets about what they saw on the islands they conquered one at a time.  Talk to some folks who were in the Bataan death march about who this enemy was.  Check out the films of Japanese civilians on the islands leaping to their deaths with their children from cliffs. 

Talk to some elderly Koreans who remember how the Japanese military AND civilians controlled and trashed their country and people for many years.  We saved Korea TWICE - once from the Japanese and at least the South from the Communists.

If we had not dropped the bombs, Japan probably would have lost nearly half their population and its Northern islands would probably have been behind the Iron Curtain that was soon to descend in Europe.

This is revisionist thinking.  Today it is impossible appreciate what was going through the minds of the people who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.  During WWII over 50 million people died.  The Axis murdered, raped, pillaged, looted, destroyed, tortured people with impunity.  They paid no attention to race, age, gender but they did pay attention to religion.  In Germany’s concentration camps 6 million Jews and 5 million others (mostly Catholics/Christians) were ruthlessly murdered.  The Japanese atrocities e.g. Battan death march, the slaughter at Nanking, China and in the Philippines and in Burma and and and.

At the time, and after over 4 years of war, it was estimated that to invade Japan in order to end the war would have cost the lives of approximately 1 million allied troops. 

If one wants to condemn bombing Japan based upon Mr. Akins’ logic then the carpet bombing the European cities, particularly Dresden, designed to reduce their capacity to manufacture war goods and to break their will would also have to be condemned…..I don’t think so.  This is one time I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Akin.

Mike Malone

“That made these attacks war crimes.” is 20/20 hindsight.

It’s called 20/20 hindsight for a reason - it’s usually accurate.

It seems to me that an important but unacknowledged assumption has been made in this article, namely that civilian casualties would have been less (even greatly so) had the US not employed nuclear weapons.

Where do you get that?  How is “It is true that, by instilling terror in the Japanese government, the use of atomic weapons prevented further and, in all probability, greater casualties on both sides” an assumption that civilian casualties would be less?  It’s the exact opposite assumption.

It might help to refer to the relevant catechism (1940s) and not the 1993 edition you use.  The recent one includes, among other things, wisdom gained painfully from World War II.  One clue that should be obvious is the reference to atomic weapons - the handfuls of people who understood them in 1945 were not writing catechisms at the time.  Evaluating the application of “Thou shalt not kill” in the midst of a cataclysmic war defending many nations against theater-wide attacks by Japan and Germany, under the essential obligations and constraints that Carl Hostetter correctly points out, deserves more respectful treatment, given the moral and other complexities involved.  Noteworthy is the number of commenters who don’t like what was done and yet, 65 years later, can find no plausible preferred alternative.

Wow, I can’t keep up but you guys absolutely terrify me.  Have our philosophical underpinnings declined so much?

There seems to be a basic assumption on one side that “Some times you need to do evil so that good may come from it.” (as Mark Sheah pointed out, this is known as consequentialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)

This is never true.  If it was, we might as well support abortion as it is the same argument.  All Catholic moral teaching is based on the truth that the ends do not justify the means.  Right and wrong don’t magically change in wartime.

If anyone chooses to disagree on this one, think long and hard about your reason.  Do you disagree that this act was as has been characterized (civilians where warned, civilians were really military, or similar arguments), or do you disagree with the notion that “the ends don’t justify the means.”

The former, seems open to disagreement and debate.  The later, is placing yourself in a position fundamentally opposed to the teachings of the Church.

Nothing like trying to take todays standards and applying them to something that happened many years ago.

Your not serious, right?  Today’s standards?!?!  You do know that just war theory goes back to the time of St. Augstine, at least?

By “today’s” standards, the bombings would have been considered works of charity.

“If we were to extend the logic of ‘kill evil people in an evil fashion in order to bring about a good,’ we might as well arm the masses to take out abortion doctors, or, perhaps more effectively, the politicians who enable them.”

I don’t accept your “logic.”  I don’t find dropping the bombs evil like I don’t find the firing of a gun evil.  Weapons in the hands of evil people will be used for evil.  Weapons in the hands of good people will be used to defend good people against evil.  There is no doubt in anybody’s minds that they wished someone had a gun in Columbine who could have defended the students against the attack by two other students who came to murder as many as they could.  I don’t think the qualifying condition put forth in CCC 2314 is reasonable or logical.  I think it is put forth without consideration of evil vrs good.

As for an answer to the ‘conclusion” of your “logic” question concerning abortion doctors, I submit my evidence that weapons in the hands of good people don’t produce evil.  There are ways to deal with the evil of abortion that can and would succeed without “arms.”  The war against babies which started in the courts, can be ended in the courts, and legislatures, if the authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church could only get their pew filling parishioners to stop supporting and voting for the pro-abortion party in the US.  There is where the evil is –the Church’s own people, at the highest levels, to down to the pews, are responsible for continuing to support and vote for the pro-abortion party.  They can’t even see real evil sitting next to them.

I also bet if you did a survey of USA citizens and gave them this choice you would be shocked that a majority would support that effort!

Sadly, I would not be shocked.  A majority would also approve of abortion in one form or another, divorce, and any other number of sins.  So what’s your point?  Obviuosly, simply because a majority approves of an action does not mean it is moral.

“”“Noteworthy is the number of commenters who don’t like what was done and yet, 65 years later, can find no plausible preferred alternative.”“”

Ok, assuming that this was an evil action, the plausible preferred alternative would be to wage the war to the best of your ability without committing an evil action.  It’s not that complicated.

For example, targeting a fleet with a nuke, targeting larger or more isolated military installations to help minimize civilian deaths.  I’m sure that a military mind could come up with better. 

That being said, even if it saves lives in the long run, that doesn’t justify an evil act.  Just like killing the child to save the mother (murder 1 person so that 2 don’t have to die) is not a moral act.  We are not the authors of life, and if those are the only 2 choices, having 2 die is better.  (coralary: It is better to die than to murder.)

“”“It seems to me that an important but unacknowledged assumption has been made in this article, namely that civilian casualties would have been less (even greatly so) had the US not employed nuclear weapons. “”“

The assumption you describe is only important if you are trying to justify the means by the ends.  Immorally killing 200,000 is worse than having 2,000,000 being killed morally.  (isn’t it weird to say “killed morally”?)  The death count is the ends.  The means, are not justified by the ends.

Mr. Akin contends that the US did so, but his contention takes no (apparent) account of the historical facts raised as evidence against this contention.

What about the historical fact that it was proposd to first drop it on an uninhaboted island near Japan as a demonstration, but because we only had two bombs, the US military thought it would not be as impressive enough a demonstration, so they had to be dropped where it would inflict, essentially, terror?

“c matt”, I nowhere see the word “civilian” in the quote you think refutes my statement. What I do see is the words “on both sides”, which in the Allied case obviously doesn’t include civilians. Moreover, the quote you provide was itself a direct response to the statement in Mr. Graham’s article that the bombing “saved the lives of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of American _soldiers and sailors_” (emphasis mine).

If one wants to condemn bombing Japan based upon Mr. Akins’ logic then the carpet bombing the European cities, particularly Dresden, designed to reduce their capacity to manufacture war goods and to break their will would also have to be condemned

Precisely.

You pious temporal provincials dare judge the actions that our ancestors did to preserve freedom in the world. Me thinks you need to understand that the struggle has not ended. How many a bombs would the Japanese used if they had them and we didn’t; how many would germany have used?, our dear ally Russia would have blown up the entire European continent. I’m grateful we had them and used them for one purpose only, to end the war (not conquer and cast into slavery, entire nations). The means gave us the best ends possible in a horrible situation (in which we are heading for again, for men like you, refuse to take a stand against evil and value toleration over freedom). May God save us all. (What a generation of ungrateful, self-absorbed, morons our Jesuits have produced).

CFH,

Jimmy’s analysis does not change whether the lives lost/saved are military or civilian.  In fact, he later states

[Graham’s logic] stresses the fact that the use of these weapons saved net lives.

Whether military or civilian, the4 whole point is that a “net lives” calculation does not justify committing and evil act.  So point to us where Jimmy makes this “assumption” that more civilian lives would have been saved if we did not drop the bomb?  He explicitly grants the opposite.

You pious temporal provincials dare judge the actions that our ancestors did to preserve freedom in the world.

Darn right we do.  That’s why God gave us brains.  Were our ancestors some sort of pure beings who could do no wrong?

We did not have to kill people to show them our strength.  We could have dropped the bomb in a unpopulated area or chosen a strictly military target.  But we chose cities instead, one on the water, one not.

c matt - you are right, God gave you brains and you choose to use yours like its the only one evah. The best and brightest generation for you is you. Congratulations. Most of those ancestors have gone to their judgement, it matters little what your accusations are, God has judged them. I pray for them. I’m grateful you are not God (is that news to you?)

Consequentialism is the (erroneous) idea that one may do evil for a good end. I notice that this is the centerpiece of the argument that dropping the bomb is illicit on moral grounds per se, and therefore a war crime.

Most people here are missing the essential truth that war itself is evil by any moral calculus. It may be justified, but in levying war one must kill, destroy, endanger human beings. Once we have passed the threshold of war, the distinction between licit and illicit becomes very vague.

Bombing of cities in WWII was arguably a crime, but to consider it in isolation from all the millions of other crimes or illicit actions committed by Catholics and others is a travesty. Militarily it was the correct action to take.

To which I would add that our war effort in WWII would have been hobbled, or possibly fatally weakened (meaning that we would have lost the war), if subject to this kind of moral review at every juncture. Half the army would be court-martialing the other—total absurdity. And needless to say the body count would be a lot higher. How would God’s purposes be served then?

“”“Most people here are missing the essential truth that war itself is evil by any moral calculus. “”“

This is an aphorism, not a truth.  War is not inherently “evil.”  War is not literally “Hell.” 

If the choice is “do evil or die” then the answer is simple. Die and enjoy heaven.  In a just war, the (simplified) choices are:

1) Do nothing and watch the people you are obligated to defend die (possibly evil)

2) execute the war morally against the aggressor (not evil)

3) execute the war immorally against the aggressor (evil)

Note that the difference between these choices is what YOU DO.  It is not who the aggressor is, what the aggressor did, what the aggressor may do or any other concern.

In early August 1945 my father wrote to my one grandmother that, after losing a couple of toes to frostbite in the Battle of the Buldge, he was being sent to Asia.
The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child, because their government convinced them that we were cannibals who ate our captives live.  (That’ll probably be what they say in future history books, just as present day history books repeat everything that the Jihadists said about the Crusades.)
And somehow the fact that more civilians died in the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo then in the nuking of Hiroshhima and Nagasaki gets ignored…

“You pious temporal provincials dare judge the actions that our ancestors did to preserve freedom in the world.”

This sounds like the line of reasoning that could be used to convince a Japanese teenager to get into a warplane without landing gear.

@Don Schenk

You are making good points.  They can go towards an argument that the act was not as categorized by the article (and therefore was not an immoral act—not “doing” evil). 

What they cannot do, is go to the point that we say, “because of all these evil things, I can do this evil thing.”  Consequentialism doesn’t work.

I also appreciate the firebombing statements.  If Hiroshima was evil, it wasn’t the most evil thing we did.  We tend to loose track of that.

Red Beard: War is not inherently evil? It is a condition where hate, killing, destruction, fear, and deception rule. You can’t execute a war morally, according to normal Christian standards. To carry out warfare, first and foremost, you must kill people. A warrior is a murderer. Christian moral teaching offers an “exception” clause to this by stating that killing in just wars are not murder. It thus recognizes a state where the moral commandments don’t fully apply.

The problem in this article and in many of the comments on this thread is that normal Christian values are being applied to a very abnormal situation, i.e., war.

To Red_Beard:
Japanese history books don’t mention Pearl Harbor or what the Japanese did in places like Manchuria; did yours?
And while the fire-bombing of Dresden was bad on the Germans, what the National Socialists “peacefully” did to Christians and Jews killed more people.
President Reagan moved from targeting enemy civilians to missle defense and weapons systems that targeted the enemy’s military, not that the do-gooders ever thanked him for it—or complained now that Obama has moved back to holding civilian populations hostage with disarmenant.

@Phil

I’m not sure if I’m reading your post properly (the one where you define consequentialism)  It seems to me that you are saying: “Consequentialism is erroneous, however; in time of war, the ends justify the means.”

Please clarify if I’m not understanding you properly.

“”“You can’t execute a war morally, according to normal Christian standards. To carry out warfare, first and foremost, you must kill people. A warrior is a murderer”“”

This is a foundational misunderstanding of war.  If someone is attacking your children, as a father, you are obligated to defend them; even if that involves killing the attacker.  Killing the attacker would not be murder and would not be murder.  A just war is an extension of this principal.

“”“The problem in this article and in many of the comments on this thread is that normal Christian values are being applied to a very abnormal situation”“”

The terrifying part of this conversations is the idea that normal Christian values would ever not apply.  This is utterly indefensible.

Just to be clear, I absolutely agree that consequentialism doesn’t not work. My purpose here is to test whether it is really true that, as this article claims, the US was specifically targeting civilians by using atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is my argument that the historical fact that the US made every effort to effect the evacuation of those areas in advance of the bombing shows that this claim is at least doubtful.

I’m acknowledging that consequentialism is an error, but we are considering morality in wartime. It seems to me that war, when justified, alters the parameters of morality. Murder is no longer murder, for one thing.

In war, one must choose the “lesser of two evils” on a frequent basis in order to defeat the enemy. Killing innocent civilians is always illicit. So when the enemy advances to assault my squad while pushing women and children in front of them, banking on my Christian morality that I won’t open fire, I do. The attack is repulsed; I have killed innocents.

Happens all the time in one way or the other.

@Don Schenk

“”“And while the fire-bombing of Dresden was bad on the Germans, what the National Socialists “peacefully” did to Christians and Jews killed more people.”“”

You can’t do evil in retaliation for evil.  I’m not qualified to judge most acts in history, but on the moral level, whatever you actively do needs to be a moral act. 

Saying that you are only a little murderer instead of a big murderer is cold comfort. 

Saying that the killing you did was a legitimate form of self-defense under the moral law (not murder and not rationalized by the ends achieved), is another thing entirely.

@Carl F. Hostetter

I appreciate the distinction.  Thank you.  Arguing about how something measures up with the rules is much more interesting (and usually more honest) when people at least agree on the rules (i.e. - don’t do evil).

“”“So when the enemy advances to assault my squad while pushing women and children in front of them, banking on my Christian morality that I won’t open fire”“”

This is interesting.  I think firing would qualify as moral under the principal of double effect. 

Jimmy, when are we going to get a good post about the principal of double effect?!?

I agree, “some of the blogging being done to commemorate the attack is most unfortunate,” yours is one.  I want to address the idea that people talk about civilians as if they were innocent.  People at one time talked about innocent women and children, then it was innocent civilians, and now it civilians, innocent is implied.  I contend that civilians are not innocent in the war effort.  Remember learning about ‘Rosie the riveter,’  women asked to do non-traditional jobs to support the war effort, all Americans asked to do there part in the war efforts, remember learning about those things?  I had a teacher that told us about ‘city black outs.’  He, aged 10 or 11, after the sirens went off, jumped on his bike and rode down the streets where he was assigned to make sure everyone had their lights off or their blinds drawn.  He reported back to,  I an not sure who he said he reported back to, but I think it was the police.  Are the civilians that worked to support the war effort really innocent?  Lets look at the women who worked in the factories making, say making parts for the ‘bombers’ or making parts for machine guns, or the multitude of other things that are used in support of the war, are they innocent?  Well they are not actually fighting in the war, but I don’t believe they are innocent.  What about the women say, who were providing day care for children so other women could work in the factories in support of the war effort, are they innocent?  I don’t believe so.  I don’t believe there are innocent civilians in a time of war.  Innocent children, yes.  Innocent adult civilians, no. I can here people saying they had no choice, they were forced, the country was at war, they had to.  Well that may be so, and they may be less responsible, but not innocent.  And this idea applies to both sides in the a war.  I know people are not going to like idea, but tell me, how can you support the war effort and be innocent?

Your use of the term war crime is disingenuopus. Generally, the law of war is the law of man, not of God. It is changing and reflects evolving norms. The law of war changes based upon perceived military advantage. Is the military advantage outweighed by disproportionate damage to otherwise protected persons places or things? That is a statement of international law. I reject you branding the U.S. a war criminal. Just what our enemies need. The “rear view” moralizing is also a disservice. Obviously the writer has never had the problem of sending men out to die. I have. Was burning heretics a crime? Quit looking over your shoulder to judge others.

My thoughts?  This article is just one more reason why I think you’re a jerk, Jimmy.

@Don J

Your point is interesting, though you are delivering it with an awful lot of rage.

It is true that technically, war crimes are defined by men and not God.  Therefore, it is possible that a moral act can be considered a war crime.  It is also possible that an immoral act in war might not be a war crime. 

I’m usually more concerned about the morality than the legality.

“”“Was burning heretics a crime?”“”“

Assuming that you are referring to the legitimate government applying the death sentence in an unjust manner, that would probably not be a crime (violation of man’s law) but it would be an immoral act (violation of God’s law).

@Orange County Kevin

<sarcasm> Wow, thanks for adding to the conversation. </sarcasm>

I’m not ashamed we a-bombed the Japs. We ended a decades long war of aggression the Japs have waged on all of Asia.

@steve

- I’m not ashamed we used evil means; the ends justified them -

Unabashedly consequentialist.  Are you pro-life?  If so, you are rationally inconsistent, and thereby easy to marginalize.

To further be clear, where in my last post it reads “doesn’t not work”, that is a typo for “does not work”. Sorry for the unintentional double negative!

:-( Yeah, we wiped out a large portion of Japan’s Christian population in Nagasaki… Definitely something we’ll all have to answer for one day.

Optimally good - No. Mistake - No.  I would compare the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a decision to close a watertight door on a sinking ship to save some people aboard while condemning others to certain death so that not all die.  In the ship example, some innocents are “condemned” to death so that others may continue to live.  It is not a comfortable decision to make but a necessary one to avoid an even greater loss of life.  Consider that much if not most of the Japanese population probably would have died (from collateral damage and honor-suicides (many times enforced by the militarists - e.g., Okinawan civilians forced to commit suicide by the Japanese military) had the U.S. and Russia invaded Japan.

Except, Mr. White, that your analogy to be truly apt must include the fact that those still on the sinking ship at the time the door was closed were warned well in advance to get off the ship, but either chose not to or were convinced or forced not to do so by their captain.

I question the assumption by some that dropping the bombs was ‘evil.’  They seem to think it is against the commandment ‘thou shall not kill.’  Well it has only been in the last 20 years or so that some people have taken this as an absolute.  Prior to that it has rightfully been understood to mean thou shall not take the life of an innocent person, tho shall not murder.  That is why self defense is not a violation of this commandment.  However, abortion is a violation of this commandment.  Now, I have a right to defend myself, my family and if it comes to it and I kill someone in that defense, it is not a violation of the commandment ‘thou shall not kill.’  The same applies to nations.  Nations have a right to defend themselves (their people) and their allies.  If in defending one’s country against enemies (other people) and their lives are lost it is not a violation of the commandment ‘thou shall not kill.’  I do not see the dropping of the bombs as evil.  As I would do anything necessary to protect myself and my family, some of what may not be pleasant, nations must do what is necessary to protect their people, some of what may not be pleasant but necessary.  Hard choices have to be made and I am confident that given the information available at the time the right decisions were made.  I do not believe that all of this after the face speculation is good or useful. I do not consider the act to be evil.

@Jon

I think that the act of closing the doors to prevent water from coming in may be different from the act of dropping a bomb to innocent civilians.  The former is definitely moral under the principal of double effect (moral means, moral action, bad known but not willed secondary effect.) 

Jimmy, in thread after thread we’re dying here.  How about a post on the principal of double effect?  Please?

Please note, I’m not sure if I’m convinced that Hiroshima & Nagasaki are as they’ve been characterized (actively targeting innocent civilians).  As has been pointed out, where we going after civilians?  Were the civilians warned?  Were the civilians part of the military machine and therefore perhaps not “innocent”? 

Can any of these arguments really stand against CCC 2314 quoted in the article?

I don’t know.  I do know that my gut is to defend our troops, which isn’t exactly a logical argument.  I also know that the argument people make over and over that “the ends justify the means” doesn’t work if you are a Christian.

Interesting that the comments seem to divide into those with some experience of war and those whose chief experience is discussions in a classroom.
An interesting book to read is Eric Lomax’s RAILWAY MAN. He was made a prisoner of war by the Japanese early in the war. {If you believe waterboarding is a new technique, you will learn differently].
As the war neared its end, instructions were given by the Japanese High Command to kill all prisoners of war. It was the same High Command that attempted to prevent Hirohito’s order to the troops to surrender.
Another difficult element to ponder is quite simply that for Catholics, death is not tohe end.
It is all to easy to judge after events at which one was not present. Actual presence and knowledge of all the elements gives weight to the judgment.
To whose who assert that the bombings were war crimes, a simple question: whom would you have made to stand trial?

“”“As I would do anything necessary to protect myself and my family, some of what may not be pleasant, nations must do what is necessary to protect their people, some of what may not be pleasant but necessary. “”“

Yeah, but if there is a man attacking you, you don’t have the legitimate right to actively kill 4 innocent bystanders to try and convince him to stop.  You do have the right to kill him.

If the US government acts aggressively, that doesn’t immediately mean that all US citizens are aggressors and therefore fair game.

Except, Mr. White, that your analogy to be truly apt must include the fact that those still on the sinking ship at the time the door was closed were warned well in advance to get off the ship, but either chose not to or were convinced or forced not to do so by their captain.

Nagasaki was warned of the bomb? Even though if was Kokura and not Nagasaki that was the intended target? Please.

The comments seem to divide between those who have had some experience of war and those whose experience is chiefly that of discussions in a classroom. The latter find it to attribute moral guilt. If it be the case, will they then give up all the benefits that have derived from the U.S. success at ending the war?

Some further insight is to be found in Eric Lomax’s RAILWAY MAN. He was made a prisoner of war early on. At the end of the war he learned that the officers of the POW camps had instructions from the Japanese High Command to kill all prisoners. It was the same Japanese High Command that attempted to prevent the broadcast of Hirohito’s command to surrender.

As has been pointed out, a sin [war crime] is always an individual act. Who should be put on trial?

There are those who believe that the use of the bombs was a masterstroke, ending in three days a 60 year old war of [rather vicious] aggression. The use was a prudential judgment.

We all need to review history to make better decisions. All war is brutal. All civilizations have been involved in them. I am offended that this is referred to as an American War Crime when they knew when they (the Japanese) bombed Pearl Harbor they meant to
take over the U.S.  Their leaders put our leaders in a positon of reaction. Also years ago the Japanese crucified a number of priest. The priest had lived there for years until someone brought them to the emperor’s attention. At which time he had them crucified on poles about a mile apart and left hanging on the main road near Nagasaki.
—All war is bad especially when innocent men are crucified.
Another example is our Lord who was crucified for expiation of our sins; in the war against good and evil - He wins for us.

I certainly don’t condone war but its very complicated. The U.S. is not guilty of war crimes by participating in war as they were attacked. And this action ended the war between the U.S. and Japan. We were at a point of possibly loosing to the Japanese. I am glad that the U.S. did help rebuild Japan and I hope that we can continue to rebuild our countries relationship. I expect my government to protect me from enemies from other countries. Those that attack us expect it too.

RED_BEARD..i THINK YOU ARE A real HUMAN BEING..TOO MANY PEOPLE TODAY CAN’T QUITE MAKE IT INTO THAT STATUS, SINCE IT REQUIRES THE ABILITY TO FEEL FOR OTHERS..

I permit myself to add a note. If you continue with this kind of simplifying moralizing, you will come to be mistaken for the other National Catholic R…

Mr. Akin, you must do some heavy lifting in the moral thinking department. Try Cardinal Newman’s GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. That will develope some mental muscles.

The casuistry here is getting a little thick. For goodness’ sake, who determines if a war is “just” in the first place? The Pope? Your parish priest? The individual, the government? Are those arguing for an absolutist, non-consequentialist morality in war aware of the gap between abstract theorizing and life-and-death decisions that often must be made instantly? I wonder.

When Sherman bombarded Atlanta in 1864, the Confederates were livid at the inhumanity and “un-Christianness” of it. Was it a war crime? The city was full of innocent civilians, and the accuracy of Civil War artillery was ridiculous at long range. How about Petersburg and Richmond as well?

The fact is, if the war itself is unjust according to Christian moral precepts every violation of the moral law (i.e., murder) stands as actual sin. The converse is not true: if the war is just then every violation is not automatically licit. Looked at from the theologian’s lofty perch, one innocent civilian killed is one too many, but from the trenches or the command post such fine distinctions are simply impossible to make.

Short of direct divine intervention, the war in the Pacific was going to end in a bloodbath regardless of serious consideration of these principles. It was a terrible choice that Truman made, but it also kept the most people alive on both sides. Hence I deem it a moral decision in wartime.

Just curious, my Uncle Bus was one of the physicists that worked on the Manhattan project, so should I be ashamed of him or not?  I’ve been trying to follow this thread to some logical conclusion but there seems to be none.  I don’t think anyone inside or outside of the church can say definitively whether this was right or wrong, hence all the back and forth.  Maybe it’s best if we all leave this subject alone.  It’s the past.  It can’t be undone.  We’ve made our reparations.  It’s time to let God forgive us for our culpabilities.  Anything else borders on scrupulosity or self loathing.

Jennifer: Amen.

@Phil,

Why does it offend you that I apply the proper label to your form of moral reasoning?

“”“It was a terrible choice that Truman made, but it also kept the most people alive on both sides. Hence I deem it a moral decision in wartime. “”“

You have said again and again: the ends achieved where the best possible, therefore (or hence in this case) it is justified.  The ends have justified the means.

In every and all cases, I will bitterly cling to Christian moral principals.  (though, as a sinner, I will probably do it badly.)  There is NO case where doing evil to achieve good is a good act.  You are either rationally consistent, or you are not.  Being consequentialist in war time but not in peacetime is inconsistent.

For me, I’ll reject the falsehood of consequentialism at all times; if I don’t I won’t have a leg to stand on when explaining the pro-life position.

“”“Are those arguing for an absolutist, non-consequentialist morality in war aware of the gap between abstract theorizing and life-and-death decisions that often must be made instantly? I wonder.”“

I’ve been blessed to never experience it.  I certainly hope that dropping a nuke is not an instantaneously made decision.  That being said, Truth doesn’t stop being true in times of war.  Truth doesn’t stop being true when one must act quickly.

Phil asks: “who determines if a war is “just” in the first place? The Pope? Your parish
priest? The individual, the government?” I’m not sure this is germane to Jimmy’s article (he focuses on the issue of whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were _war crimes_, not whether WWII was just), but the CCC states (2309) that: “The evaluation of these conditions [i.e., “the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine”] for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

“”“Anything else borders on scrupulosity or self loathing. “”“

I don’t know if the bombing was right or wrong.  I do know that if consequentialism is the rationalization we use to justify yesterday’s decisions, it will probably be the rationalization we use to make tomorrow’s.  I certainly hope that we can do better than that.

Andy writes: “Nagasaki was warned of the bomb? Even though if was Kokura and not Nagasaki that was the intended target? Please.” Yes, it was; see the link I provided above: <http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens>. Kokura was indeed the _primary_ target, but Nagasaki was the _secondary_ target.

The use was perhaps a close call by The U.S., but a correct one. If you admit that the military resources destroyed were substantial, and the lives saved well in excess of the resulting casualities ; then in my judgement the matter can be viewed as similar to situation where a women has surgery to remove a deadly cancer and as an undesired byproduct she loses a fetus.  No question that I glad I did not have to make such a call personally.

With all respect, Jennifer, the comments on this post itself are the reason why we shouldn’t leave the subject alone. Honest, good, and well-meaning people back then were able to convince themselves that deliberately targeting non-combatant men, women, and children was justifiable. As evidenced by the comments on this post, honest, well-meaning, and otherwise faithful Catholics today are apparently able to make the same mistake today.

Yes, Jimmy’s exercise is Monday-morning quarterbacking—and there’s nothing wrong with that. Coaches and players in fact do spend weekdays drawing up their plans and plays carefully. Sometimes you’ve gotta make gut-calls in the middle of the game, but a team that goes in without any plans at all doesn’t last long.

Of course war is an emotional, confusing, messy business. That’s exactly why we should figure out our moral principles carefully and logically now, so that we can do our best to hold on to them when times get tough and confusing.

“Paul J J” writes: “We did not have to kill people to show them our strength. We could have dropped the bomb in a unpopulated area or chosen a strictly military target. But we chose cities instead, one on the water, one not.” I don’t agree. If the purpose (well, one of the purposes) was to demonstrate to the Japanese government that their hardened defense were of no avail against the US’s new nuclear weapons, only attacking and destroying such hardened defenses could demonstrate this conclusively. Water bombing would prove nothing to the Japanese government, nor would bombing remote areas: they would have no sure way of evaluating the damage caused. (Nor, for that matter, would we.) And that assumes that the bombs (we had only two) would detonate, which was never a given until they actually did. If we’d announced a demonstration of our new destructive capabilities, invited the Japanese government to observe, and then the device failed to detonate, it would only have emboldened them to further resistance. And finally, I note again that we had only two bombs: if we’d squandered even one of them on even a successful demonstration in a remote area, that would have left us with only one chance to succeed subsequently if the Japanese failed to capitulate (which in the event they did until we also bombed Nagasaki). (Another purpose was to make strategic strikes that would clear areas of defenses for a subsequent invasion if Japan refused to capitulate, which purpose would also not be fulfilled by bombing water or undefended, non-strategic areas.)

“Bear” writes: “Honest, good, and well-meaning people back then were able to convince themselves that deliberately targeting non-combatant men, women, and children was justifiable.” But i contend that the truth of this statement, i.e., that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually constituted “deliberately targeting non-combatant men, women, and children”, has not yet been established; and further that it is a difficult position to maintain in light of the efforts made by the US to effect an evacuation of the targeted areas.

I agree that Nagasaki was not called for. As I recall, there was already a power struggle within the Empire of Japan to surrender, but the first seems both a tragic and terrible result of the course of the war, where the Allied fire-bombings…  of Tokyo caused more causalities than the both bombs combined (something Jimmy Akin doesn’t mention in his critique) and the execution of the Manchuria operations by Japan severe civilian harm as well.

One could, by this stretch of logic, argue against the many civilian causalities of the Afghan war because of the heinous civilian attacks of 9/11. War is rarely if ever just. The one’s who get maimed or killed are not the ones who make the decisions ultimately. May God have mercy on our souls.

Jim, You have to remember God wipes out cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) and nations (Israel), and even almost all of humanity (the Flood) in the blink of an eye using his power and man’s power.  Nothing happens without God’s permission!!!  You also need to read the book of Ezekiel and learn how God used the nations to bring death and destruction to Israel and other nations and he will continue to do so in the future (his plan is being implemented).  It Ain’t Over Yet.  Just remember if God did not want it to happen he would stop it.

Jimmy,

You are right about this.

~ A conservative Catholic.

Isn’t there something inherently dangerous in taking a regulation and applying it retroactively with an eye towards current feelings?  “... is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes [CCC 2314].”  The mere mention of atomic, biological, or chemical weapons shows that this was modified after the evolution of such weapons and as such should be seen as a warning to future Catholics and not a condemnation of past decisions. 

Consider slavery - “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.  It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. [CCC 2414]”  Yet, “And Abraham took Ishmael his son and all the slaves born in his household and those purchased with silver… [Genesis 17:23, The Five Books of Moses, Robert Alter]”  Should we as Catholics now condemn Abraham for doing what is against our Catechism?  Should we feel guilt for actions he committed, including (but not limited to) the keeping and exploitation of slaves?  Which path is more constructive - wailing and gnashing teeth and rending garments for events which we had no control over, or firmly taking our faith in hand and following in Jesus’ footsteps to the best of our human ability?

Red Beard, you say that I am endorsing consequentialism, the ends justify the means justification for immoral acts. Not so. The atomic bombings are considered morally doubtful, but not illicit. They were as moral as any other bombing of a populated area in WWII. The argument can go on forever, but essentially it was considered licit at the time, with the military technology available, to bomb defended urban areas containing enemy factories, troops, headquarters and other legitimate targets. (Hiroshima, by the way, was the HQ of the Japanese army defending Kyushu which was slated to be assaulted a few months later. The bomb killed over 20,000 combatants and destroyed the headquarters in Hiroshima Castle.) We did not have guided munitions to attack specific buildings at that time in any case, hence true precision bombing of military targets was ruled out.

It is not an abandonment of moral considerations of the act, or consequentialism, to carefully judge the certain or likely politico/military effect of an action. We are not justified in immoral acts, even in wartime, but in war the normal ethical code is virtually impossible to maintain. It often comes down to a choice between “immoral” acts, with the criterion being the least bad result.

“”“Just remember if God did not want it to happen he would stop it. “”“

And the philosophy on this thread keeps getting worse and worse…

Jimmy,

Hopefully you’ll see this…

I think you’ve correctly applied Catholic moral teaching and Just War…to the wrong problem.

Consider the following:

1.  Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets because of defense industries contained therein.  The Japanese didn’t have many large scale factories, they had a network of small shops.  Furthermore, the workers in defense plants are engaged in belligerent behavior, and are legitimate targets under international rules of war.

2. The invasion of Okinawa cost over 200,000 American and Japanese lives.  The atomic bombings of both cities together was roughly the same number.  The fire bombings of Japanese cities (see item #1 above) cost approximately the same number.

3. An invasion of Japan would’ve cost 5 times those numbers.  Among those casualties would’ve been a significant number of non-combatants (women and children) who were being trained as suicide bombers.

4. Even after the atomic bombings, the Japanese War Cabinet was split on continuing the war.  It took the Emperor’s personal intervention to end it.

Given two bad choices…land invasion or continuing the destruction of Japan from the air…the Allies chose the least worst choice and actually minimized the casualties among non-combatants and combatants alike.

This was a terrible, but morally licit, decision to end the slaughter with the least killing.  “No killing” was simply not an option, and any other choice would’ve resulted in more killing.

@Phil

Your last post is the most promising.  I can agree with (or at least understand) a lot of what you are saying here.  I especially like when you say: “”“We are not justified in immoral acts, even in wartime, “”“

It is your last sentence that I have to disagree with:  “”“It often comes down to a choice between “immoral” acts, with the criterion being the least bad result.”“”

As a Christian, it is never acceptable to intentionally commit any immoral act.

Japan began its war on the world around 1933, and continued to murder occupied citizens in occupied nations as well as POWs up until the end.  Whadday gonna do to The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the largest slave empire the world has ever seen, sing “Where Have all the Flowers Gone?” to ‘em?

@Phil

I guess this would all be clarified if you could explain why one must choose between two immoral acts (as opposed to not acting or finding a moral way to act).  The only possible explanation I can come up with is that you choose to do evil to achieve some better end.  In that case, it is the definition of consequentialism.  If there is another reason I am missing, then please point it out.

@Maximus

You are pretty convincing until you phrase it as the better of two bad options.  It is either a moral act or an immoral act.  If it is a moral act, it can be done even if it has bad side effects.  If it is an immoral act, it cannot be done even if it has good side effects.

Perhaps “bad” in your post doesn’t mean immoral.  In that case, I think it is an argument that can stand to Christian moral principals and I thank you for it.

Red Beard, we are never justified in immoral acts. But in wartime, we must sometimes commit them. You seem to believe that you possess the ability to refrain from immorality in war. I assure you, you are most mistaken.

A recent example: the enemy (terrorist) leader is located at his home. You can order the airstrike or not. If you do, innocent civilians are sure to die, an immoral outcome. If you don’t, innocent civilians will be assassinated by the still-living terrorist. The information about the target is only good for another hour or so. What is the moral decision?

Your answer, based on what you’ve been saying about avoiding consequentialism and judging every action morally, is that you will not order the airstrike. But that is an immoral act in itself, as it ensures innocent deaths while avoiding your culpability in inflicting innocent deaths in the very act.

@Red_Bear

You’re right, “bad” doesn’t mean “immoral” in this case…but for the sake of clarity, let me re-state:

“Faced with the choice between two terrible, but moral acts: land invasion costing 500,000+ lives, and continued destruction of Japanese cities from the air, the Allies chose the least worst, but moral, option: a heavy blow to compell the Japanese to end the war.”

It was a moral choice because the cities were legitimate military targets, and the civilian casualties were unavoidable when attacking those targets. (Aquinas called that the Principle of Double Effect if I’m not mistaken).

“Red_Beard” writes: “If it is a moral act, it can be done even if it has bad side effects. If it is an immoral act, it cannot be done even if it has good side effects.” Actually, neither of these statements is an adequate presentation of Catholic moral teaching. Two examples will suffice: 1) It is a moral act to read the Bible. But if I read the Bible to the extent that I neglect all my duties to health and family, that is immoral. 2) It is an immoral act to directly cause the death of a person. But if a person is threatening my life, or the life of another person, it is indeed moral for me to kill that person if necessary to defend myself or others from him. Actual Catholic teaching on the morality of acts is much more sophisticated than your simplistic presentation.

@Maximus,

You got it!  Thanks for bearing with me and clarifying it.  I think your last post very clearly illustrates the distinction I’ve been trying to make.  @Phil, this is the piece you are missing. 

The act of killing the terrorist is (at least in this example) a moral act.  That act has known good and known bad consequences.  If there are proportional reasons, you can do that act morally.

You never intend to kill the civilians, though you can foresee that effect.  The act itself is to kill the terrorist, not to kill the civilians.  This is a subtle, yet crucial distinction.

I’m not sure whether or not Hiroshima qualifies under this principal, but at least Maximus is putting forward a rational argument that a Christian can legitimately hold.

What if we warned them in advance? What if we showered them with leaflets saying we were going to destroy the whole city and they should leave?

@Carl,

I am definitely simplifying here and I accept the correction of your first example.  In the second example, I must protest that killing a man is not immoral.  Murdering is.  If a man is attacking you, the act of defending yourself is a moral act, even if it results in the attacker’s death.  You are not committing an immoral act.

Ok, so to get out of my oversimplification.  An act has 3 parts:

1. the act itself

2. the circumstances

3. the intent

The Church teaches that all three must be good for the act to be good.

The aspect of this that I’ve been arguing is merely that if #1 is bad, the act is bad. (a subset of the Church’s position.)

@Chris

Then that is a point in favor of the argument for the act’s morality.

That’s definitely better, “Red_Beard”. Now, Jimmy’s contention is that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes because, he asserts, the intent of the bombing was to kill innocent civilians. (And I agree, btw, that if this really were the sole or chief intent, it would be morally unjustifiable.) Bringing all this back around to the original article: do you agree with Jimmy that this was the (either sole or chief) intent of the bombings? If so, what support do you have for this view? Do you think Jimmy has adequately supported this view? And how do you account for the fact that the US both leafleted and beamed repeated radio warnings into the targeted area urging evacuation, and did so for a least 5 days before the first bomb was dropped? (These are rhetorical questions, I’m not asking you to answer them, “Red_Beard”, just illustrating what I see as the real issue and problem with Jimmy’s article.)

I can only say that I am glad that the Japanese, who now have the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb, have not since World War II got it into their heads to drop a bomb on any of us!  Their restraint is merciful and exemplary.  Now, they are the real good guys and what we did will always be known as questionable.

War crime?  That’s PC nonsense.  Don’t you understand how profoundly the Chinese suffered from the 1937 Rape of Nanking through 1945?  Maybe millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Malaysians, and other Asians don’t matter to you?  Japan committed horrendous war-crimes, and crucified entire nations.  Even if the atomic bomb had been fully understood at that point, it probably would have been used; nothing else would have derailed the ruthless Japanese war machine.

Hey Red Beard, I’m pro-life. The Jap government wasn’t. Think Pearl Harbor and Nanking. Our a-bombs helped these fanatics see the virtue of the pro-life cause. The Japs haven’t tried anything like what they used to do in 65 years.

Once again the ‘new age’ catholics, after their liturgical dances, prefer to stare longingly into their belly buttons and then the pool of popularity for amusement. Please , our past has been redeemed, worry instead about your eternal soul. Pay no attention here, move along, Jesuits at work, Nothin’ to see.

I do not think a pretty basic question has been answered in any of the comments above (although I could have missed it):

Did the Vatican condemn the bombings at the time they took place?

“I can only say that I am glad that the Japanese, who now have the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb, have not since World War II got it into their heads to drop a bomb on any of us!  Their restraint is merciful and exemplary.  Now, they are the real good guys and what we did will always be known as questionable.”

If people are going to start launching nuclear weapons for atrocities committed against them in WWII, the Japanese will be destroyed by the Chinese long before they get to us.

@steve dalton

The pro-life statement has nothing to do with the atomic bomb, merely with whether or not consequentialism is tenable.  If you embrace consequentialism (“the ends justify the means”) you must acknowledge that it is better for a mother to murder her unborn child than to die with her child from some pregnancy ailment.  (2 dead vs. 1 dead, measured just by the consequences, the decision is clear.) Therefore, a consequentialist will either be rationally inconsistent or pro-death; he can’t be really pro-life.

Those civilians hated us, and many worked and fought against us and would have destroyed us if they could have, it was them or us, I am not happy we had to kill so many lives, but both my grandparents fought in WW-II, and what if the war hadn’t ended like it did with the bombs? maybe they might have been killed, then I would not be here myself, or,,, maybe the japs would have gtten the bomb before us and we could have lived under their evil empire as their servants, look how they treated the chinese, how civilized were the japs? Did they have mercy when they bombed Pearl harbor? Did they have mercy on us in battle? Destroy their people,their will to survive and fight and end the war, sometimes you have to become temporarily worse then your enemy and do things that seem inhumane, and do this to end the destruction of human life, then after the conflict go back to peaceful ways, I think the bombing was the best call they could have done at the time, the japs were cruel and would have done it to us in aheratbeat if they ould have, and if they did we wouldn’t be having this debate here.

@Fuquay Steve

<sarcasm>Yeah right, this is the liturgical dance crowd. </sarcasm>

@Kathleen

Just because someone acts immorally to you, that doesn’t give you the right to act immorally back.  Didn’t your mom teach you this?

I can’t find the word “consequentialism” in my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (i980)or in my Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994 Imprimi Potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).  Even my spell check doesn’t recognize it.  So where did it come from and why is it being used in this discussion? Especially in conjunction with “prolife,” i.e., abortion?

Please read the following again: Posted by Sue Andrews on Sunday, Aug 8, 2010 3:39 PM (EST): Do we not yet understand that governments will not act in accordance with moral law??  All of the governments that currently exist on this earth are not in any way respecting the laws of God.

You can argue for and against so-called war crimes, whether these included the firebombing of hundreds and thousands of innocent women and children in Hamburg and Dresden or the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what is apparently being totally overlooked in all these commentaries is that it is not so much the wars that are evil - the much greater evil is the actual agenda, behind the scenes, of evil warmongers. Wars are seldom fought for the reasons that propaganda will have you believe - vide for example the war on Iraq because of WMD (weapons of mass destruction - never (!!) found). History is a very unreliable guide to the facts of what Warlords or international Financiers, Oil Barons aspire to. THAT is where the real evil lies. Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted as supposedly having said once: “History is but the lie that we agreed to”! So, don’t argue about the wars, worry about the sinister powers behind the scenes that instigate wars for their own evil aims and gains. Pax Christi.

Kathleen- If it is a sin or vice to protect the lives of untold thousands of innocents (extrapolated into millions by today) and introduce freedom to millions that never had it, I trust our Lord will consider that when He judges. Anyway, go ahead and dig up truman and put him and all those that voted for that administration (i wasn’t even born yet) on trial and judge him (you are God after all, right?)- meanwhile, others are being killed TODAY in your hometown (and they truly are innocent). Where’s your outrage? This discussion is pointless drivel that makes this generation inactive, uncaring and in need of a good confession. Elitism is a terrible disease. Go to an authentic priest for confession and do something positive (I know that goes against most post Vatican II priests teaching but try, you’ll feel better).

@stillbelieve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Basically, it is the messed up philosophy that “the ends justify the means.”  Holding this philosophy is incompatible with being pro-life.

I’ll check it out.  What is “being pro-life?”

Read_beard claimed,
“Therefore, a consequentialist will either be rationally inconsistent or pro-death; he can’t be really pro-life.”

Unless of course there is a more important consequence than mere death. This of course is what the Church claims. Catholic morality is consequentialist in this sense. If you are obedient to God, the consequence is the acquisition of the end of your being, viz. the beatific vision and celestial paradise.

Perhaps you mean to argue that consequentialist action is that directed to some end other than God?

I guess my confusion is, how does consquentialist morality differ from teleological?

@stilbelieve

Ok, “being pro-life” may have been too ambiguous.  I intended the term to mean “being opposed to direct abortion in all circumstances.”

@Jeff

We are getting deeper into this subject than just the distinction between the belief that “the ends justify the means” and the Christian answer that “the ends do not justify the means.” 

According to wikipedea, teleological ethics are a subset of consequentialism, but I’m not expert at this fine of grain.

I do not understand your argument.  Are you saying that one leads a moral life in order to attain heaven (good means to attain a good end - of course oversimplifying Christ’s activity in our salvation) and that this is a form of consequentialism?  Are you claiming that Catholicism is consequentialist just because they will a good end?  Clearly Christianity rejects the ordinary form of the consequentialist argument (bad means to attain a good end = good act).

If the ends and the means are all that we are measuring (which I believe to be true up till this point) then one who does good means for a good end wouldn’t be a consequentialist unless he argued that the good means where good solely because of the good ends that they attain. 

To a Christian, a means can be good or bad in itself.  (deontological?  At this point, I am out of my depth.  Perhaps we should stick to simpler language.)

Hey Kathleen, your posts are great and spot on. It’s a pity that too many of the posters, (including Mark and Jimmy)don’t understand the simple concept ‘the Japanese Empire was evil, seeking to control all Asia, no matter how many people they had to kill’. Simple mortals like you and me understand a simple concept like this, highly(?) trained Catholic apologists do not.

What this comes to is that there are a limited number of choices.  And when making difficult choices the one that does the least harm, takes the least amount of lives is the moral choice.

“”“What this comes to is that there are a limited number of choices.  And when making difficult choices the one that does the least harm, takes the least amount of lives is the moral choice. “”“

<sarcasm>So kill that baby in that mother’s womb.  That way you get the smallest body count.</sarcasm>

“”“[they] don’t understand the simple concept ‘the Japanese Empire was evil”“”...

<sarcasm>so we can do any evil thing we want to them and still be the good guys!  How great is that!</sarcasm>

To Red_Beard:
While doing evil in retaliation for evil is never justified, neither is ignoring your duty to protect other people.  You may feel that we had no right to invade Europe in the 1940s, but we saved the lives of the innocent civilians who were still in the death camps waiting to be executed.
And as for “nuking” Hiroshima and Nagasaki, doing so saved both Japanese and American lives since it gave the Japanese a reason to surrender.
And because it then wasn’t neccesary to ship my father to Asia to fight in a long, drawn-out land war, that probably saved his life so that he lived long enough to sire me.  Maybe you self-righteously feel that he should have been killed and that I shouldn’t be here, but I have to disagree.

No,R_B, I don’t think that is how the thinking goes in your above comment responding to “doing the least harm, saving the most amount of lives.”  The tone is off.  The way to proceed with what has to be done concerning the issue you bring up is to say, “We will proceed to try to save both lives - knowing that we won’t always be successful.”

Jimmy,

One more vote of confidence. Thank you (and others) for defending the truth.

@stilbelieve

But what you are proposing, is doing good.  It is saying that even if the consequences of doing good are likely less ideal (2 die, vs 1 die) than doing evil, we will do the good and hope for the best.  This is the type of morality I have always been defending.  You do good.  You don’t do evil.  The end.

As Catholics, there is a sense that we are going for the best consequence.  It is far better for 2 to die than for 1 to lose the state of friendship with Christ by becoming a murderer.

Japan was not a signatory of the Geneva Convention and its conduct during WWII often displayed total distain for human life (e.g., the Bataan Death March, et al). The decision to use nuclear weapons could not have been an easy one but(considering the thousands of lives that were saved by not invading as the Japanese defended their God-Emperor), it seems to have been the right one. No one could possibly claim that this was not a Just War and one wonders when the cited provisions in the Catechism were added (after WWII or after the Vietnam War, in which the actions of the Vietcong were often overlooked, but not the American soldier)?

“”“While doing evil in retaliation for evil is never justified, neither is ignoring your duty to protect other people.”“”

Completely agree.  Following your duty is a good act, not an evil act.

“”“You may feel that we had no right to invade Europe in the 1940s, but we saved the lives of the innocent civilians who were still in the death camps waiting to be executed.”“”

I think we were obligated and justified.  The act was good.

“”“And as for “nuking” Hiroshima and Nagasaki, doing so saved both Japanese and American lives since it gave the Japanese a reason to surrender.”“”

So there were good consequences of the act that no one is denying.  I aknowledge them.  They are just not sufficient to justify the means.  The means needs to be acceptable in it’s own right, which may or may not have been in this case.  (See maximus’ post for a good justification)

“”“And because it then wasn’t neccesary to ship my father to Asia to fight in a long, drawn-out land war, that probably saved his life so that he lived long enough to sire me.”“”

I am grateful for all good that God brings out of all circumstances.

“”“Maybe you self-righteously feel that he should have been killed and that I shouldn’t be here, but I have to disagree.”“”

Don’t you think that this is a little harsh?  I am proposing that the philosophy of consequentialism is incompatible with Christianity.  The Church has explicitly condemned it over and over again.  I am pointing out rational flaws with the argument that “the ends justify the means.”  Do you really see this as me willing you to never be created?

For the record, I’m glad your here and I’m sorry if you feel that I am attacking you.

@Bob

I think that making a legal argument that this was a war-crime would be difficult.  The real question is whether or not it is a moral act.  I am seeing legitimate arguments on both sides.  My only point is that none of the legitimate arguments can be summed up as “the ends justify the means.”

The arguments attempting to justify the dropping of the A-bomb seem to come down to these:

1. THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: if we didn’t drop it, more people would have died in an invasion of Japan

2. TWO WRONGS MAKES A RIGHT: The Japanese did far worse crimes / they started the war

3. FALSE OR QUESTIONABLE “FACTS”: the cities were legitimate military targets / they were warned beforehand / no active military or church leader condemned the action at the time / civilians in those cities were not really innocent since they contributed to the war effort / we “had” to so this because Japan would have never surrendered otherwise (see also 1.)

4. “THAT’S MY COUNTRY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!”: America’s a good country / we should trust our leaders / my father was somehow involved in this

5. IRRELEVANT: We can’t / shouldn’t engage in “Monday morning quarterbacking” / you can’t “judge” Truman / this is “revisionist” / we shouldn’t apply “today’s standards” / Jimmy’s a jerk / should spend his time condemning abortion in America (see also 3.)

6. SIMPLY BIZARRE: The normal rules of morality do not apply in wartime / sometimes you “must” make an immoral decision / God can bring good out of this (true, but . . . )

Since the only kind of argument that could possibly justify the bombing is a claim of “double effect” and none of these arguments come close, I’d say that those attempting justification have yet to make their case.

Conversely, how moral would be the act of committing soldiers to invade, knowing full well that thousands more would die on both sides, when one has the means to limit the number of deaths by using such weapons?

@Bob,

But you can legitimately intentionally kill an aggressor (enemy military in a just war).  You cannot legitimately intentionally kill an innocent.  It can’t be as simple as total death counts.

1) We should be talking about this for the reason that ‘bear’ stated. Evaluating actions when we’re no longer in the emotional state gives us the opportunity to prepare so the next time the question arises we’ll know what is right.

2) There are two theories being thrown around that need to be clarified a) The ends justifies the means and b) the principle of double effect. (a) is never acceptable and (b) is, however they may appear the same. If a man attacks those I’m obligated to defend, I must defend them. If the attacker has his three small children with him I’m not allowed to take them hostage and harm them to stop the attack (b). If the attacker is hiding behind his children and the only way to stop the attack is to aim at him (potentially hitting a child) it is OK to fire (a)

In both cases the children die; however in one the children were deliberately targeted and in the other they were the unintended side effect of targeting the enemy.

3) A war is an extension of this, because the one legit reason for the government existence is to protect it’s citizens. Based on Just War theory, WWII was a just war for us to enter into. The US had the obligation to protect and it needed to enter into war to do so.

Based on this, bombing (any type at this point) a military target is a legit action. If that military target is in a city, actions should be taken to minimize civilian casualties, and here number games come into play. The weighing of the importance of a military attack versus the number of casualties. The desire to kill as few as possible aught to be there and it is no longer “consequentialism” at this point to try to minimize causalities.

However, what you CANNOT say is “The enemy has done X so I can do Y”. That is revenge.

4) If the US dropped the bomb on civilian targets to scare the Japanese then it would be doing wrong. However, based on different accounts of how the Japanese fought (to the last man, woman and child), it seems unlikely. If you don’t expect them to surrender if you invade, why would you expect surrender after a couple big bombs? It doesn’t appear it was happening even after the first city was bombed.

It would seem to be far more likely that their intention was to target military targets that happened to be in a city.

5) Whether or not the a-bomb was legit at that time (before current technology and the prohibition in the CCC) is another debate.

@Christina

Remarkably well stated.  Thanks!

What Mr. Akin may not know is that the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito, had placed the entire Japanese populace under the Code of Bushido; this obligated every man, woman, and child in the Empire to fight to the death to defend the islands.  General Douglas MacArthur knew the consequences of Hirohito’s dictate:  unless MacArthur could display such overwhelming force that contesting with it would have been to throw one’s life away with no hope of honor, the Allies would be obliged to slaughter every last subject of the Empire.  The Empire was evil and had to be defeated.  America possessed no other weapon suitable to the goal.  The attacks were regrettable, but we had no reasonable other choice.  War crime, my adam’s apple.

Innocent is hard to define, let alone sense when in combat. During this time in WWII, children were taught to strap on explosives and jump in front of tanks. Women, as well, were expected to repel the invaders. As many as a million people were estimated to potentially die in a Japan campaign.

I’m wondering what we would be writing about if Japan or Germany had dropped the A-bomb on us.

Sam Schmitt asserts that its is “false or questionable” to say that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned before the bombings. The evidence for this fact is here: <http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens>. Mr. Schmitt, on what basis do you claim that this evidence is “false or questionable”?

The issue no one mentions is that Japan had asked for terms of surrender through Russia, if I am not mistaken. It was the “unconditional surrender” insistence from the US that totally repelled Japan to the final stage of fanaticism. It does not matter that Hiroshima had the largest? munitions factory (as I have read in others accounts, Nagasaki did not. Two thirds of Japan’s Catholics lived in this one city. These were civilians, women and children. NO EXCUSE if you are a Catholic to support this.

Read Robert Moynihan’s excellent articles at his Inside the Vatican blog on this issue.

A quote from Oppenheimer is chilling: “We are become as gods, destroyers of worlds.”

— J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad Gita after watching the first nuclear explosion in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945

Kelso, if your statement were true, then all any aggressor forces would have to do is hole up in any town or city that had Catholics in it to avoid any chance of being defeated militarily. That is clearly absurd, and no part of Catholic teaching. (Also, you’ve misquoted Oppenheimer: what he said was, “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”)

Since this thing about leafleting keeps getting mentioned erroneously, I’d like to place it in context.

As the site Carl F. Hoestetter links to says, the leaflets contained a list of 33 possible cities chosen as targets to be bombed in a few days.
More leaflets were dropped in the same vein after Hiroshima (but now referring obliquely to the bomb that had already been dropped).

Now, it’s WWII, you’re a Japanese citizen, and your city is on the “list.”  You should evacuate!  But where, exactly, do you go?

Perhaps you’ll be like Tsutomu Yamaguchi.  He survived the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, managed to get to a different city despite his injuries, and was telling his boss what had happened.  The boss was angrily denying that a single bomb could have destroyed a whole city, when a ghastly, deadly light illuminated the scene—because Mr. Yamaguchi had fled to Nagasaki.  Which, you recall, was the *secondary* target for that day’s bombing.

Telling people in 33 different cities in a landlocked and war-depleted nation that they ought to consider evacuating is more a tool to induce hysteria than a kind gesture of concern for innocent life.

“Where, exactly, do you go?” Anywhere that isn’t one of the listed cities.

For even more context, speaking to the issue of intent (which lies at the heart of any claim of morality), here is the text of the leaflet: “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.”

Note that if Tsutomu-san had heeded the leaflet, he would not have been at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki when the bombings occurred.

Japan fought on because it wouldn’t accept unconditional surrender and the Soviet Union wanted a piece of Japan, so it decided to foresake its non-aggresson pact with Japan.

You can also read the text of the leaflets dropped after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki here: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html>. Again, this goes to intent, and so must be assessed before passing judgment on the morality of the bombings.

I personally think the Lord is still punishing us for these acts. I don’t think a Christian people could feel at peace which such extreme acts. And you can call me naive, but I can’t see Jesus approving that.

There is a serious problem with the argument that “more people would have died if we hadn’t dropped those bombs.” To say that is to say that it is ok to kill innocent people in order to try to save the lives of other innocent people. And that is “the ends justify the means” mentality, and “doing evil to produce good,” neither of which are allowed by our faith. And this is exactly the kind of reasoning that people use now to justify abortion and wicked research on human embryos. “After all, if we just take these lives, other people will be better off, right?”

In my opinion, no supposed benefit can justify doing such an evident evil.
No one in his right mind would expect that the entire population of those areas would have or could have evacuated before the event…

PS, Intention does not determine the morality of an act. It speaks to culpability, perhaps, but does not change an inherently evil act to a good act. For example, some people procure or do abortions with a “good” intention to be “compassionate” to women (they actually believe this, frighteningly enough), but the fact remains that abortion is objectively evil in every case. That a good intention can never make an evil act good is a basic Catholic moral principle.

Let me add that a bad intention can render a neutral or good act bad (such as when one gives someone a gift but only in order to lure the person into some sin, but a good intention cannot make an evil act good!—sorry for hogging the comment space….i’ll shut up now!

“Anonymouse” writes: “No one in his right mind would expect that the entire population of those areas would have or could have evacuated before the event…” That is absolutely right, nor has anyone argued that anyone had such an expectation. But by the same token, neither is Jimmy arguing that it is never permissible to take an action that causes the death of innocent people. What matters is intent. Jimmy argues that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was _intended_ to kill innocent people. I have offered evidence that counters this claim. My position (based on what I have read and seen thus far) is that the _intent_ of the bombings was to completely and assuredly destroy hardened military and industrial targets in those cities (which could not be done _assuredly_ by non-nuclear means, as the prior history of bombings in WWII amply demonstrated), so as to 1) convince the Japanese government that even their hardened defenses were no match for our new capability, thus giving them even more reason to surrender quickly; and to 2) make a subsequent planned invasion of Japan (should Japan fail to capitulate) as easy and quick as possible. The death of innocents, while obviously foreseeable and unavoidable, was an unintended effect of the selected action, and one that the US made extensive efforts to minimize. As such, in my view (until and unless other evidence as to intent is brought to bear, or the evidence I’ve posted refuted), the bombings were neither immoral nor a war crime.

“Anonymouse”, yes, it’s true that intent does not _in itself_ make an act moral or immoral. But it certainly does form _part_ of the evaluation of morality. And _in this case_, Jimmy’s claim that the bombings of Hiroshima and and Nagasaki were war crimes _hinges_ on intent. Jimmy claims that the bombings were war crimes _because_ it was the US’s intent to kill lots of innocent civilians by this means (and he specifically denies that the means are themselves necessarily immoral). Whereas I claim that the US’s intent was not what Jimmy claims, but instead was to effectively, certainly, and quickly cripple Japan’s military defenses—with to be sure the unintended but unavoidable side-effect of civilian casualties, which however the US sought to minimize—and I have offered evidence of this, thus countering the basis of Jimmy’s argument. (As I have said above, if I thought Jimmy was right about the _intent_ of the bombings, if it _really was_ the sole or even chief intent of the US to kill lots of innocent citizens, then I would agree with him that the bombings were immoral; but he has offered no evidence in support of his claim of intent, and I have shared evidence that it was not the intent; and so I do not accept Jimmy’s claim.)

First of all, I’m not trying to get into a discussion about whether the intention of the US was good or bad. I can’t judge that. I am speaking only to the proposition that one must know intent before determining the morality of an act. That proposition is not correct as a general or blanket statement. One does not need to know the intention of a person having an abortion, for example, to know that the act is evil. So, if such a bombing is inherently evil (let’s presume for the moment), a good intention on the part of the bombers does not affect the moral status of the act. It may, however, affect our judgement of the culpability of those who did the act… as does whether they were in extreme fear, etc…

Also, I’m familiar with the principle of double effect and all that, but personally I think we ought to be careful in applying that to a situation in which millions of people were foreseeably and even by the standards of warfare quite possibly totally unnecessarily incinerated - and where the intent of the bombers is not crystal clear either.

PS, obviously I believe the act was evil, and I am trying to point out the immense flaw in the “it saved lives, didn’t it” argument…. not to mention that, in my opinion, a disinterested evaluation of the act, including its foreseeable effects and its actual effects, violates the just war principles…as did the bombing of Dresden…as would any bombing which indiscriminately afflicts entire populations of civilians.
All this in my opinion is a hornet’s nest to discuss and debate in…but I also wonder why there is so much effort among some folks to justify these bombings? That makes me wonder… Even if one does not think it a war crime, what would be so horrible in admitting that some other choice or approach would have been or could have been better? I don’t direct that last query at anyone in particular, just wondering. It’s not like our country never makes any mistakes!

And yet, “Anonymouse”, Jimmy’s article, and his conclusion, hinges on _intent_. And since the comments section of an article are intended for comments _on the article_, discussion of intent certainly seems appropriate to me….

Yes, discussion of intent is appropriate. But it is good to have clear what the actual place of the Catholic understanding of intent fits in. And if necessary we can go from there to critique his whole argument….

Also…comments on the article can lead to side discussions, of course…such as discussion of whether the act is inherently evil and therefore the question of intent may be moot. I presume Akins reads the comments and he is bright enough to pick up an interesting thread if it strikes him. Anyway, interesting back and forth!

Jimmy, I want to offer you sincere thanks for this article. I have been contending for 40 years—- for my whole adult life—- that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes: not arguing from pacifism; nor from a false supposed moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Japanese intentions or conduct of the war overall; nor from special esoteric strategic angles unprovable from the record extant; but simply because the intentional destruction of noncombatants, reckoning their deaths as an intended plus, a potent element in the psychological success of the mission, is murder.

You said it more clearly and more simply than I ever have. I appreciate your work and hope it will bring a needed moral insight to many sincere seekers.

OPEN INVITATION TO JIMMY AKIN & MARK SHEA:

You are hereby cordially invited to attend the Annual Reunion of the 58TH BOMB WING, 2OTH AIR FORCE on September 22-29, 2010 in Windsor Locks, CT. at the New England Air Museum. Although not directly involved in dropping the atomic bombs (that was the 509th Bomb Group) these men heroically flew the B-29 Flying Superfort in fire-bombing raids over Japan. According to your logic, they also participated in “war crimes”, and have the right to defend their actions against your repeated public accusations. Will you have the decency to attend and allow these remaining few men to defend their honor, and those of their deceased fellow crewmates?

http://www.neam.org/58th/reunion.asp

Julianne Wiley writes: “the intentional destruction of noncombatants, reckoning their deaths as an intended plus, a potent element in the psychological success of the mission, is murder”. But is this what happened? What evidence do you have for this?

The atomic bombing of Japan was NOT a mistake or a war crime.

All the Japanese cities were legitimate targets and we should have dropped a hundred atomic bombs rather than invade Japan and lose any more American lives.

The number of civilians killed is irrelevant. In modern warfare, a worker in a factory is as legitimate a target as the factory. The fact that the worker’s families were close by is too bad for them.

When my son was three, I got to introduce him to General Chuck Sweeney who flew “Bockscar” on the second atomic bomb drop. I thanked General Sweeney for his service and my being there to meet him. My father was scheduled to be a landing craft driver in Operation Downfall in October of 1945.

The Islamists warring against the US do not see the distinction and neither should we. If you seek the destruction of the US whether overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly, you are are a legitimate target. If you object to your families getting killed as collateral damage from killing you, stay away from them.

Nice to see that a handful of “conservative American Catholics” have the ability to recognize a war crime.

Pre-Invasion estimates of American casualties were in the area of .5 million.  (The invasion would have been almost exclusively Americans). In hind-site we had grossly underestimated the manpower,aircraft and armor we would face on the home islands. Estimated Japanese casualties ran as high as 5 million.  The Japanese had hoped to get a conditional surrender that would keep their monarchy and military as intact as possible.
To Truman, who only had brief notice of the development of the bombs, it was a no-brainer.  500,000 American casualties was unacceptable—especially if it could be avoided. I contend that his only intention was to save American lives.  I don’t believe he had any hand in picking the targets.  If some generals picked the targets out of malice for civilians—may they burn in hell for their intentions. Both cities were legitimate military targets. I refuse to believe that the ‘collateral damage’ was intended by the ‘decider’, Truman.
When the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Japanese war council was meeting and one of their generals was arguing that USA only had one of those terrible bombs.  When the news of the 2nd bomb was announced it still took the Emperor to break a tie between those favoring surrender vs continuing the fight to the death.  Our decision was just.

If it were a “war crime” - with which nobody agrees - then it pales into insignificance the crimes the Imperial Japanese Army would have visited on our troops.
Just as they did in Nanking.
Just as they did throughout the war in the Pacific.  Far too many captured American airmen were beheaded by the Japanese Army.
It is a fact of history that the Japanese Army was willing - and ready - to fight to the last man, and that the civilian population was for the most part, willing to follow them.
“The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war ...”
Of course they were acts of war.  That war is called World War II.  For us, it began on a quiet Sunday morning in Hawaii.

Well,Jimmy is clearly profoundly ignorant of that fact that Japan itself had its own nuclear weapons program going throughout the war….having purchased a cyclotron from Univ of Cal at Berkeley in 1938 (how’s THAT for irony?)..and had built a working reactor on the Korean peninsula and was being supplied with enriched uranium oxide from the Germans by submarine on a regular basis…in an attempt to build what it called the ‘genzai bakudan’...and Japan would surely have used it against us had the succeeded in developing it before the US did….had we chosen to proceed as planned with the invasion of the Japanese home islands with Operation Olympic in November of ‘45 and Operation Coronet in the spring of ‘46,that would very likely have given Japan sufficient time to complete their atomic bomb for deployment an cost the Allies untold thousands of needless combat deaths…..my own father was on Okinawa with a USN occupation team at the time,and his unit was involved in planning the scheduled invasion and occupation of the home islands,and a lot of them didn’t think they would survive that….so “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” brought my father home safe and allowed me to be born subsequently…this analysis has all the arrogant pomposity of 20-20 hindsight without considering the context of what was known about Japan’s own intentions…so given that you’re so utterly ignorant about the Japanese nuclear program during the war,Jimmy,I suggest you take your uninformed moral theorizing and stick it.

You are historically foolish.  First, the dropping of the two atomic bombs was justified by the predicted casualties based upon Japanese resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Estimates of over several million Japanese and 500,000 Allied casualties were expected. Second, the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities produced the same level of death and destruction with conventional bombing. Third, the Japanese as the Germans (well learned by the Allies after WWI)needed to be brought to their knees in total abject defeat to prevent further future conflict. Also, both the Germans and the Japanese were working for a usable Uranium bomb, do you think they would have failed to use it? Lastly, we are men not God, the failure of our leaders to use all available means to end this terrible war would have been a greater crime.

The church has tried to protect civilians since the 11th century, at least.
Then the peaces and truces they called didn’t work and they ended up sending unruly knights on crusade.

It is soft headed to absolve civilians of responsibility. If they had done their job keeping their government in line, Americans would not have had to go thousands of miles away to fight them off. In the 20th century we have made soldiers jobs almost impossible by trying to protect civilians who become combattantants at night.

Carl, read the text of the leaflet again, especially this line: “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.”

So—33 of Japan’s cities will be attacked.  Tokyo was already being firebombed.  More than sixty cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, as bombing runs were made on other cities as well—according to one historical source, 180 Japanese cities were bombed by the US in 1945 alone—but the root of that data is contained on a Japanese historical site which I can’t read, so I can’t verify its accuracy.  Again, I ask—where were the citizens of those 33 cities, many of them tied to a daily wage at a local job and barely surviving as it was due to food shortages etc., supposed to go?  To one of the 180 cities that had already been bombed multiple times that year—some of them more than 100 times?  To starve to death in a burned-out rural area?  And all this, with the chilling words that the US couldn’t promise that *only* the 33 listed cities would be attacked?

Here’s a quote to ponder: “United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.””  Note that the report does not say because of their military activities or the presence of troops—a strange ommission, if either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were intended as primarily military targets.

The quote comes from here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html and the page is worth reading for those interested in this discussion.

Well done, Jimmy! You have just appointed yourself the Peacenik-in-Chief. Is this by way of offering your graces to The One so as to get a daytime job in Defense? Or even a bid to become the next SecGen?

Erin, if we accept—purely for the sake of argument, mind you, since you’ve offered nothing but your say-so to back up your claim—that civilians in the targeted areas truly had no where to evacuate to, then your argument against bombing those areas is equivalent to an argument that we should not have attacked Japan by any means whatsoever: because even a land invasion would have required those civilians to evacuate the area or (given the nature of modern mechanized warfare) suffer huge numbers of casualties. Any one of which would, by your calculus, render the invasion immoral. Further, your argument would apply to a very great many other sites of WWII battles (and those of other wars), where cities had to be attacked despite the presence of a civilian population that (if we apply your criteria of destruction of surrounding areas) had no where to evacuate to (e.g., Berlin) and which in any event were foreseeably guaranteed to result in civilian casualties. Indeed, it is hard to see how virtually any action of modern mechanized warfare could possibly be moral, or how any Catholic could ever, morally, be a member of the armed forces in time of war. And yet, the CCC certainly does not prohibit Catholics from being soldiers….

Unfortunately it all leads back to the greater evil conundrum. The results of dropping the A-bombs were horrible. The fire bombings were at least as devastating. At least 86,000 civilians died that evening. Pictures of Tokyo after the fire bombings showed a devastation at least as great as that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. After significant loss of civilian life from fire bombings the Japanese government became even more resolute in their intransigence. The Japanese people themselves were an integral part of the war effort and were being organized to repel any invasion. The Japanese military leadership turned their civilian population into military targets. On balance Truman had little choice. There would have been much more death and misery, on both sides, if the bombs had not been dropped.

Here, BTW, is the full text of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey referred to by Erin: <http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects>. The particular quote occurs in chapter 4: <http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-4.html>. I’ll let the reader decide the determinative value of one off-hand line in a report written by those not involved in the decision to bomb, or the target selection, and tasked only with an analysis of the effects of the bombing.

The US and allied forces used a tactic of carpet bombing civilian centers in both in Europe and Japan from the start. These bombing missions mixed incendiaries with high explosives to terrorize and demoralize the civilian populations of the axis countries by killing large numbers of non-combatants. More people died in one bombing raid on Tokyo’s civilian population then in the detonation of the a-bomb over Hiroshima. So this leads me to the question of total war: Is the civilian population part of the war effort if a country or group is waging total war? Are the civilians giving aid and support to their troops and country? Does a farmer, seamstress, clerk or munitions worker give direct support to the country they belong too? If the answer is yes then these people become part of the war effort and therefore can be considered targets. It is interesting that the US has a separation of church and state, this fact alone moves the US outside the rule of cannon law and places the US in the position of being Caesar, we must remember to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. We as Christians must live our lives as God prescribes and not feel guilt at what Caesar does.

I think that the perspective offered in the link below (from a Catholic who is a military historian) gives a better overall and realistic perspective to all of this.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/350930/Two radiances: 1945#Post350930

“”“Well,Jimmy is clearly profoundly ignorant of that fact that Japan itself had its own nuclear weapons program going throughout the war…”“”

“”“he dropping of the two atomic bombs was justified by the predicted casualties based upon Japanese resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa”“”

“”“There would have been much more death and misery, on both sides, if the bombs had not been dropped. “”“

Translation: the ends justify the means (In fairness, @pacific_water’s post may be an argument that it was a moral means, I’m not sure how it was intended)

“”“If it were a “war crime” [] then it pales into insignificance”“”

Translation: they where worse than I was so I can be bad to them.

“”“this analysis has all the arrogant pomposity of 20-20 hindsight ... stick it up your guilt ridden liberal”“”

“”“You are historically foolish”“”

“”“Well done, Jimmy! You have just appointed yourself the Peacenik-in-Chief. “”“

Translation:  Attack the man because we are too childish to attack the argument he makes.

All in all, I think that this is rather telling.  If there are so many good Catholics who defend the morality of Hiroshima, then could you guys please work on making arguments that a good Catholic can take seriously?

Hey, all—ignore the website I linked to above.  I’ve been informed they’re a Holocaust Revisionist site.  The quote from the US Strategic Bombing Survey is accurate so far as I know, but I don’t support the revisionists’ views in the least.

Red_Beard:
Read sections 2265 and 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Imprimi Potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).
And before the 2004 US elections Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the US bishops to remind them that “...it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the deth penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Since you’re such a self-righteious pacifist, mayvbe you might want to write to the pope and demand that he excommunicate that Cardinal Ratzinger—I doubt that he would, though.

@Don Schenk

<sarcasm> I can tell that you’ve read all my posts on this thread and understand my position</sarcasm>

“”“Since you’re such a self-righteious pacifist”“”

Seriously, Don?  -4 points for reading comprehension!

I affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Out of that agreement, I am asking that those who defend Hiroshima & Nagasaki make an argument based on Christian Moral Principals, rather than basing their arguments or logical fallacies and consequentialism (which has been repeatedly and universally rejected by the Church).

My own opinion (as previously stated) is that I want to believe that it is an acceptable act in my gut, but there have only been a few legitimate arguments to that effect on this thread and I’m not sure that any of them can ultimately be harmonized with CCC 2314 quoted in the original article.

So, trying to understand how or if these acts can be harmonized with the CCC makes me anti-CCC, anti-Just War, anti-Capital Punishment, anti-Self Defense, and anti-Ratzinger?!?  That’s really your argument?!?

“...I’m not sure that any of them can ultimately be harmonized with CCC 2314 quoted in the original article.”

What was “quoted” in the article was only part of what 2314 says.  In fact, what was quoted in the article is actually in quotation marks in 2314.  And it is footnoted GS 80 (double S overlayed) 3.  (Maybe someone can tell me what that footnote means).  The rest of 2314 reads without quotation marks saying: 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.

I don’t necessarily disagree with Jimmy’s article, but I pose these questions:  (1) why was it okay to kill conscripted Japanese soldiers but immoral to kill Japanese civilians? (2) could there have been a scenario where Japanese civilians had culpability for their nation’s war and were thus not innocent, were they morally targeted? (3) if civilian populations can have such culpability, how do we measure it? (4) and because all modern warfare has innocent casualties, is modern warfare immoral per se?

Can anyone tell me why Japan was so stupid as to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place? Was it because the US had launched an embargo against Japan, denying them certain resources, oil and metal? Was it because the US was pushing the Monroe Doctrine in the Pacific? Having taken Hawaii and the Philippines, and other islands by force?  Was it because the US had joined Britain in freezing Japanese assets in our country? I have also read that Admiral Yamamoto was educated by the Salesians and that he was a Catholic, at least baptized one. And why was a huge naval base sitting sitting out there in the middle of the Pacific in such a vulnerable position? And why wasn’t the base warned when our State Dept already had intercepted the news that an attack was imminent? And, again, why did we not accept Japan’s offer and negotiate a surrender “with conditions” when they petitioned that?

@stilbelieve:

The footnote “GS 80 #3” means see paragraph 3 of section 80 of Gaudiam et spes.

Here is Gaudiam et spes: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

It appears that the paragraph numbers differ in the version of GS on the Vatican web site and what is there presented as paragraph 4 is the intended one.

Thank you Jimmy A.  The context in which the quote from CCC 2314, used in this article, and the remainder of what is written in 2314, which was not published in the article, coupled with reading the footnote from GS 80 - 3 causes me to say the headline of the article is not deserved.  CCC 2314 contains a quote from a passage written in 1965 from the Second Vatican Counsel.  Therefore, 2314 was written after the Second Vatican Counsel.  The Counsel did not condemn the actions of WWII concerning the dropping of the two atomic bombs.  The intent was not to look backward and be judgmental or condemning of that decision and action, but to look at the present conditions in the “modern” world and the future, because of the spread of such armaments.  Therefore, according to the writings of the Church, mentioned above, the use of the atomic bombs to end WWII can not be justly labeled an act of evil, nor a war crime to be condemned.

Mr. Hostetter:

“Mr. Schmitt, on what basis do you claim that this evidence is “false or questionable”?”

Allow me to clarify. Although they were warned (along with 32 other cities) that their cities were going to be bombed and destroyed destroyed, they were not warned of the atomic bomb. On might wonder if that would have been believed anyway (although there had been previous atomic tests.) But one can also question the effectiveness of such leaflets: the Japanese may have thought they were propaganda, they already knew that their cities were in danger of being bombed - they had been in a war for 4 years by this point - but what were they supposed to do about it? Have 200,000 people live out in the mountains for an indefinite period? As it turns out, they had only 6 days to leave.

The bottom line is that the fact we warned the people of these cities does not take away the basic wrongness of the action.

See also:

http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm

Virtually no one at the time knew what an “atomic bomb” was (and no one knew for sure what its effects would be), so using those terms would have been less than useless. The citizens _were_ however warned that these cities were in danger of being destroyed, and that they needed to evacuate. To be sure, not everyone was inclined to believe this, but that doesn’t change the fact that the US made every effort to warn citizens to evacuate. That argues _against_ the notion that the purpose of the bombing was to kill as many innocent citizens as possible. (If that _were_ the goal, why issue any warnings at all?) As such, I cannot accept your conclusion-assuming assertion that “the fact we warned the people of these cities does not take away the basic wrongness of the action”. It may not; but I’m not yet convinced that it does not.

Jimmy,

God Bless you for your witness to Jesus, but in this case you are wrong.

Do not become the arrogant intellectual you despise.

When faced by an immoral, atheistic evil, we are called to defend innocent life.

When you have placed your life on the line to defend innocent people, then & only then, can you comment on right & wrong from the safe haven of your office.

Jesus taught us;

“Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” (Mt 5:27)

Santa Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Dear Carl F. Hostetter—- President Truman knew the atomic bomb was a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction; the fact that he chose this weapon, demonstrates that he intended indiscriminate mass destruction.

Many have argued that the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths contributed spectacularly to the overwhelming psychological impact that brought the war to an end. I have a hard time imagining that this was unintentional.

However, “I have a hard time imagining” does not constitute an apodictic argument.  It would help if I could quote statements showing intent.  I’m looking, and I will get back to you.

Thank you for asking this challenging question.

“President Truman knew the atomic bomb was a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction.” I expect that is true: it certainly _can_ be that (though it need not _necessarily_ be, as even the CCC seems to allow); but I submit that this is precisely why the US took such pains to urge civilians to evacuate as to drop millions of leaflets and broadcast radio warnings every 19 mins. for at least 5 days in advance of the first bomb. And again I ask: if the intention was (solely or chiefly) to kill large numbers of innocent civilians (or of other persons, for that matter), why did they bother issuing warnings? Why didn’t they just bomb any of a number of cities with vastly larger populations (like Tokyo), and without issuing any warning whatsoever?

Tactical bombing can be licit (can-be, not always-is), but terror bombing is not. It’s really that simple. As Jimmy Akin demonstrates, terror bombing was the intention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; tactical bombing was not the aim. Attempting to save lives on net smacks of consequentialism and utilitarianism, which the Church generally does not accept as proper moral paradigms.

“As Jimmy Akin demonstrates, terror bombing was the intention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Where and how did Jimmy “demonstrate” this? He’s certainly asserted it (more than once), but I have yet to see his evidence for this claim (and so can’t evaluate it). Further, as I’ve asked repeatedly, if this was in fact the (sole or chief) intent, then why did the US take such pains to urge civilians to evacuate as to drop millions of leaflets and broadcast radio warnings every 19 mins. for at least 5 days in advance of the first bomb? Why didn’t they just bomb any of a number of cities with vastly larger populations (like Tokyo), and without issuing any warning whatsoever?

Today, we are spoiled.  A typical military strike’s success is measured in targets per sortie.  For every round of ammunition used, one target is taken out.

In WW2, and for most nations of the world today, this is not possible.  Success is measured in sorties per target.

In WW2, a “precision” bombing tareting a factory or military installation would involve many sorties.  The entire payloads of several B52’s could be expended, destroying several square miles of a city, and yet the target of the operation be left intact.  Ground based options (tanks, RPG’s, and mortars) were not much more accurate

In WW2, by the time a descision was made to use any military option against a target, indiscriminate destruction of wide swaths of land and population surrounding the target was already accepted.  The decision came down to which option offered the least risk and achieved the most benefit.

In most of the world today, this is still true.  We in the US and rich industrialized nations can afford the luxury of popping a GPS guidance unit on a 500lb concrete practice bomb to take out a single building without touching its neighbors.  Countries using Russian and Chinese gear don’t have that option. 

We can use laser guidance to drop a 250 lb bomb down a ventilator shaft, but anywhere but the 21st century USA or europe we would be looking for larger bombs so we had greater assurance of damaging out target should we miss it by 100 yards or more.

Before criticising the decisons made two generations ago, I think a realistic look at the realities of what their options were is in order.  Whether this decision was right or wrong, all of the participants of WW2 had already resigned themselves to indiscriminate destruction before entering the fray.

I just have to disagree.  There is no reason to account atomic weaponry in some moral calculus to which other weapons are not subject. They are weapons, period. Others have already referred to the firebombings of Tokyo in particular; is napalm morally superior to uranium? 

I would further point out, that unlike any other time of conflict, by 1945 the Imperial Air Force was so decimated that bombing runs were not only planned well in advance of their execution, but the bombings would be preceded by lealflettings advising civilians that 1) the city was going to be bombed on such-and-such a day 2) they should evacuate and 3) that the Allies were not at war with them as civilians, but the ruling military junta.

You want a moral war? How much moral can you get than telling people to get out of town before the bombs fell?

PS—Hiroshima was a target because it was the HQ of the Japanese Navy. Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding and ship repair center. They were legitimate military targets.

“It was scaring Japan into surrendering by threatening (explicitly) to do this over and over again and inflict massive damage on the Japanese population. In other words, to make them scared that we would engage in ‘the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.’”

Jimmy, one, the evidence does not support your claim. 

You also ended your article claiming, “That made these attacks war crimes.”

Two, they were not “war crimes” in their day and age.  No difference in RESULTS of carpet bombing and atom bombing except less potential casualties on our side.

Three.  The use of atomic bombs in WWII was not condemned by the Church then or now. 

And finally, four, your CCC 2314 “argument” is hollow because the decision and action taken by the US in WWII was not governed by Church doctrine which didn’t exist until several decades later when various nations had atomic bombs.  CCC 2314 was meant for the “modern world,” not the WWII generation.

Thank you for the exercise.  I always enjoy discovering the truth.

To Carl F. Hostetter: I think I see your point now.  Since the U.S. military intended for 100,000 - 200,000 non-combatant people to evacuate from their cities over the course of several days, their deaths by bombing were inadvertent.

I just remembered (4:04 a.m.) that a young Pittsburgh, PA woman once told me that she had prayed that her unborn baby would just go away.  Thus the baby’s demise at Allegheny Women’s Health by suction abortion was inadvertent.

I might have thought it probable that selecting suction abortion demonstrated that you intend suction abortion, just as selecting a weapon of indiscriminate destruction demonstrates that you intend indiscriminate destruction.  But now I realize my mistake:  I have underestimated the capacities of the human mind.

If your morals or religious texts find fault with doing everything possible to defeat an enemy who attacked us, then it is your morals and religious texts that are at fault, not the dropping of the bomb.  Your arrogance is stunning, even for a holier-than-thou religious type: you would sit on your throne and sacrifice American lives (those who would have died to continue fighting the war had the bomb not been dropped) to save the lives of those who attacked us.  Easily done when it is not you or your loved ones at risk. 

My family had loved ones who would have been the first ashore in the invasion of Japan.  To me, the lives of every single person in that morally bankrupt nation known as Imperial Japan do not add up to the single life of my Grandfather, my uncles, my aunts on the support ships indiscriminately attacked by Japan, etc. 

Even after TWO atomic bombs there was so much Japanese support for the continued slaughter of Chinese, Americans, and everyone else who got in the way, that a coup was attempted to overthrow the leadership that announced Japan would surrender.

Our so-called religious leaders regularly stand in front of congregations and preach the righteousness of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and every soul in those cities because of their evil.  Imperial Japan made those cities look Angelic by comparison.  Nuclear destruction is Hell in a very real sense, and Japan worked for over a decade to bring Hell to its shores.

@stilbelieve: “”“Therefore, according to the writings of the Church, mentioned above, the use of the atomic bombs to end WWII can not be justly labeled an act of evil, nor a war crime to be condemned. “”“

The statement that “the Church has not explicitly condemned this act therefore you cannot justly call it evil” is not really a fair statement.  The Church isn’t in the business of authoritatively ruling on every single act.

@mark “”“When you have placed your life on the line to defend innocent people, then & only then, can you comment on right & wrong from the safe haven of your office.”“”

This is a logical fallacy that is used against me in almost every abortion debate I get into.  I’m not an unwed mother so apparently I can’t tell her that cutting her baby into little pieces is wrong.  This argument doesn’t hold.  God gave us intellect and expects us to use it.  (Thank you for your courtesy, by the way)

@stillbelieve:”“"your CCC 2314 “argument” is hollow because the decision and action taken by the US in WWII was not governed by Church doctrine which didn’t exist until several decades later when various nations had atomic bombs.  CCC 2314 was meant for the “modern world,” not the WWII generation.”“”

You might be right on culpability, but not on morality.  The Church makes a statement based on the moral law written on the heart of man.  This means that morality is not defined by what generation you live in (though we can fine-tune this language if you want to talk about the old and new covenants).  That law is unchanging. 

The CCC argument states that the means is immoral.  If that is true, then the means have always been immoral.  They are not saying that only the results or circumstances are immoral, which would leave it open to interpreting based on circumstances.  The only legitimate argument is that the means that took place in this instance, where not the means that was described in the CCC, which is what @Carl is exploring.

Now, you are right in that there is no way that the decision makers could use the Church’s wisdom as it wasn’t written yet.
 

@Mark Alsip   “”“If your morals or religious texts find fault with doing everything possible to defeat an enemy who attacked us, then it is your morals and religious texts that are at fault, not the dropping of the bomb.”“”

Seems to be a rather juvenile philosophy to me.  If we take you at your word, we can nuke Afghanistan off the map because of 9/11.  (“everything possible to defeat an enemy who attacked us”)

Do you honestly believe that there is nothing that is illicit? If not, perhaps it isn’t that our morals are at fault, but rather that yours do not exist. 

I hope you just mean that “the ends justify the means”, rather than “anything is just.”  It is still a bad philosophy that is incompatible with Christ, but at least it has some small limiting factor on what evil it justifies.

Red_Beard, the point is Jimmy’s headline, and conclusion in the, article have no moral validity.  And the effect of his article is to besmirch the good name of the US.  I don’t know if that was his intention or if he just wanted to provoke us.  What I don’t like is his using our faith as justification for his claims.  It’s a sore spot with me.  You see, I have seen the evil effects of people using our faith to conjure up “beliefs” among us for purposes other than their state intent.  I’m talking about people at the highest levels of authority in the Church in our country.  The most egregious has resulted in the continued murdering of the unborn, something that you are very upset with, as am I.  But now their actions have resulted in even more devastation extending beyond the murdering of unborn children to where they are affecting every aspect of our own lives from economics and our personal living standards to our personal health care, destroying our peace of mind in the process.  They are using us, the flock, for their personal grievances.  The worst offender came up with his deceitful use of our faith because he wanted to “keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.”  As a former south Chicago, Irish Catholic, pro-union liberal Democrat, converted to a “right wing conservative” in my thirties because of a year of embryology, the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade and the party of my parent’s support of abortion, I am offended.  But if his arrogance to use my Church for his personal political concerns was confined to how it affected me, then that would have been bad enough.  But it wasn’t.  What he singlehandedly did was take the good heartiness of the Catholic faithful and use it to save the liberal left and their pro-abortion party by developing the concept of a “consistent ethic of life,” thus giving us the murderous Democrat Party we are all suffering under today.  It wasn’t a coincidence that this deceitful “worst offender” of using our Catholic faith for his personal prejudices was the head of the Archdiocese of Chicago.  Chicago, the most corrupt Democrat city in the country, which you are now just getting a taste of, nationally.  The perpetrator of this was none other than the “smug” Cardinal Bernardin (Don’t blame me for his “nickname,” he got that from his mother).  Now, there is a REAL crime I’d like to see Jimmy write about.

Continuing a thought from a previous comment…

“If the attacker has his three small children with him I’m not allowed to take them hostage and harm them to stop the attack (ends justify means). If the attacker is hiding behind his children and the only way to stop the attack is to aim at him (potentially hitting a child) it is OK to fire (double effect)

In both cases the children die; however in one the children were deliberately targeted and in the other they were the unintended side effect of targeting the enemy.”

1) Situation: Lets suppose the three children are three different heights. Aiming at the attacker’s head would kill one child, his chest would kill two, and his feet three. You would want to aim at the location most likely to stop the attack and also most likely to harm the fewest children. So the obvious choice is head right?

Well no. Let’s say your aim is about as good as mine (and barns would be safe). Aiming at the head would have the greatest chance of missing completely and you would instead go for the chest. Or, to switch it up, lets say you have great aim but are armed with a shotgun (which has a wide hit area). Given a lack of other options it is permissible to use the available weapon to accomplish the duty given to you to defend the innocent.

2) Reasoning: When explaining yourself afterward it would be acceptable (if unavoidable) to explain the choice of a chest target over the feet in terms of lives saved. To say you were doing and evil to avoid another evil (firing at the feet or head) would not be a correct assessment of the situation. You were required to defend and were doing good “defending” which had the undesired side effect of killing several lives, so you planned the attack such that there would be limited damage to yourself, the attacker and the children. That is what we are called to do as Christians.

3) Law: Now, 20 years later you are armed with a sniper rifle and in the same situation you could aim for the head and potentially harm no children. The cops tell you that you can no longer use a shotgun and they would be right, because there is now a better option that harms fewer lives.

4) Intentions. Let’s suppose the decision that day was to aim for the chest and two children died along with the attacker. If the thought is “I’m glad they all died the scum - they did X, Y and Z and deserved destruction”, then those individuals have committed “murder in their hearts.” It would also not be acceptable to condemn the attack unless direct evidence exists to show it was intended to terrorize. However, it is completely acceptable to question and debate so that minds are well formed to think about the proper response to a future events and other topics (for example, abortion could be better defended if we exercise our brains with questions such as these).

5) A-Bomb: If the defender chose the target for strictly psychological reasons he would have aimed for the “feet” (I think of 9-11 where the targets were chosen for non-military reasons). If the attacker wanted to “just have them all die” he’d have ignored/tortured/killed those who survived. At this point though I must stop for I am not a military historian, nor am I familiar with war technology and strategy.

If we got a bunch of military strategists together they could probably come up with a viable plan that wouldn’t involve using the a-bombs, simply due to the innovation that comes from multiple ideas/people and 20/20 hindsight. However, these resources would not have been available at that time and whether it was the acceptable decision at that time involves considering these and other limitations.

6) My position: 5 years ago I thought the a-bomb was sad, but necessary, then someone showed me the CCC section and I accepted that it was wrong. I came to believe even more strongly over that time that it was wrong due to other observations. This thread has surprisingly (considering how many have ‘murdered’ countless Japanese by their words) pushed me into the “undecided-leaning towards necessary” category.

@Christina,

  You are very eloquent and reasonable.  Could you expound on 6?  I’m not sure what you mean by: “”“(considering how many have ‘murdered’ countless Japanese by their words)”“” 

  Do I understand that you are back to your initial understanding from 5 years ago based on the principal of double effect?

@stilbelieve

I think you might be right about the legal term “war-crime,” but I really have to disagree that the rest of his article holds no moral weight.

A Catholic really isn’t free to disagree with the statement: “”“Dropping nukes to deliberately kill civilians? Bad thing.”“”

Though they are free to argue about whether or not this is really what occurred in Japan.

“”“Now, there is a REAL crime I’d like to see Jimmy write about. “”“

Me too!  I think that the greatest problem the Church faces is the evil within.  We need to do everything we can to ensure that we stay true to what She actually teaches so that we don’t become part of that problem.

Christina, you’ve outlined my own thinking very well. Thanks.

@Red_Beard

RE: “...considering how many have ‘murdered’ countless Japanese by their words.” I was referring to Jesus’ teaching on murder by anger in Mat 5:22, but accidentally combined it with 5:28 (adultery in the heart). There have been several commenter who have tried the path that the Japanese ‘deserved’ this or it was OK/good *because* they were ‘evil’. I do not know the commenters’ hearts, but their words do not reflect charity and cause me to emotionally side with the “a-bomb was wrong”.

However, calling it a ‘war crime’ without direct evidence causes an emotional reaction the other way. There may be some, even a lot, of people who consider psychological impact the motive, the administration may have even considered it to some extent (to not consider it would be a neglecting to analyze all the facts before deciding), but given the circumstances it seems unlikely to be a major factor. For it to have been a war crime it would be necessary to choose one city over another based on it’s psychological impact, knowing a better military target or weapon existed. However, this doesn’t make sense given the planned invasion. If anything it appears that it was a miracle that the Japanese had the psychological reaction that they did.

Finally, since making decisions based on emotion is not desirable, the step by step reasoning emerged to help me sort it out. I’m at a point where it is conceivable that the a-bombs were necessary and legit to use given the available means at that time. However I do not know if there were other more ‘military worthy’ targets, if there were less residential targets, or if there were other legit weapons/strategies that could be used. Because I don’t know, and will probably never have the time to fully explore, I cannot come firmly down. My initial position of 5 years ago was more firm - I now admit to ignorance.

Their are two great divides in the logic over the a-bomb thing. One side (the side I’m on) gathers the facts and comes up with a logical premise. The Shea-Akins side starts out with the premise that the bombing was a war crime and cherrypicks the facts to fit its premise. This later means of logic is strictly ideological and dishonest. What I would like to know is why S&A, being Catholic apologists, are reasoning this way?

Setting aside what I think is the misplaced war-crime rhetoric, the argument I see here is:

It is immoral to deliberately target and kill innocent civilians in war.

The WWII A-bombs deliberatly targeted and killed innocent civilians.

Therefore, the WWII A-bombs were immoral.

How is that illogical?  You can criticize the substance, but not the logic, IMO.  I.e., as I mentioned above, were the civilians innocent? etc.

@steve dalton

You really live in your own little world.  It seems to be a very entertaining one though. 

You can’t see anything but your own ideas.  You seem to have difficulty conveying those ideas.  The one thing you don’t lack, is the will and ability to lash out at anyone who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t agree with those ideas.

@Stoneman,

That is a very concise representation of the logic of Jimmy’s side.  Thanks.

@Christina

At this point I’m nitpicking but precision is important.

When you say that it may have been “necessary”, are you saying that the act was moral (or neutral) and there were compelling reasons to do it?  (principal of double effect applies - as opposed to it being an immoral act necessitated by consequentialism)

I totally agree with you on the emotional sides of the issue.  It takes real effort to look for the truth when your gut or emotions are leaning heavily in a particular direction.

“A Catholic really isn’t free to disagree with the statement: “”“Dropping
nukes to deliberately kill civilians? Bad thing.”“”

We are in agreement on that statement.  But that is predicated on some future event, not the one that took place in 1945.  If Jimmy presented some future condition, like what should be done if Iran nukes Israel, then CCC 2314 is relevant.  Applying 2314 to 1945 is wrong, just like being arrested for something some 45 years latter that wasn’t against the law when you did it.

Fair enough given how it was misused, I appreciate the desire for precision in logic.

- It is necessary for me to defend those I’m charged with protecting.
- Harming the enemy will be an undesired consequence that I want to minimize
- Using this weapon in this manner produces the minimum damage to myself, my enemy and my charges. (picture finding the minimum of a 3D function)

Ergo it is “necessary” to use the weapon in this manner. Perhaps a better word would be ‘prudent’?

@stillbelieve

“Applying 2314 to 1945 is wrong, just like being arrested for something some 45 years latter that wasn’t against the law when you did it.”

1) Since Catholicism is dealing with moral law, written into the heart, even if it is ‘codified’ later, the earlier is still in some way responsible for transgressing it. For example, Cain was guilty even though “Thou shalt not murder” was not yet in stone.

2) What got me to reconsider this part of the CCC was the notion that “indiscriminate is wrong” applies to a time when “discriminate” bombing is possible. I began to wonder where the line between indiscriminate and discriminate actually was and realize that it depends on the ability to discriminate (thus my analogy with attacker/children and type of weapon).

I think a distinction can and should be made between technically applying today’s CCC to 1945 retrospectively (the ex post facto argument) versus the application of the general moral truth that the intentional killing of innocent life is, always has been, and always will be immoral.

Everyone is very well spoken, which is incredibly odd for one of these thread.  It is quite a pleasure!

@Christina, Thank you for clarifying, I do think that you’ve added a great deal to this conversation and I respect your position.  I have been unsure but I think I’m leaning more into the idea that it is an immoral act. I can’t tell you how nice it is to talk to an intelligent and honest person you disagree with!

Christina, “the earlier is still in some way responsible for transgressing it.”

That is true and why those who had to make that decision did so after evaluating all options and potential consequences.  I do not agree with Jimmy the main purpose of dropping the bombs was to kill as many as possible as a show of force.  It is a disservice to those who had to make that decision, and to their heirs who may have read this article or this thread.  Unlike the NAZI gas chamber guards and those associated with it, I think the men who made that decision and those who had to implement it did suffer with it.  To use CCC 2314 to look back on that decision is not charitable, especially if you agree that the statement quoted in the teaching that Jimmy used in the article was without the context in which it was made.  It was made in the context of the modern era with multiple nations having atomic weaponsm, and was direct to them. 

I don’t think Cain suffered in making the decision he made.  Further more, carpet bombing had the same results as the A-bombs, it was standard operating practiced advanced after WWI.  Therefore, the use of a “new and improved” way to defeat the enemy that could bring an end to hostilities, to save lives of both the enemy and our own people is the moral thing to do. 

And finally our nation has pursued the technology to be discriminating in using atomic weaponry, even to the point of building a weapon that could destroy “indiscriminate” rockets carrying atomic weapons headed for our country and our allies, shooting them down before they had a chance to detonate over their targets, probably large populated areas.  I wonder – did the US bishops and the Catholic Church support this proposal of President Reagan’s and the majority of Republican Congress members?

“”“Further more, carpet bombing had the same results as the A-bombs, it was standard operating practiced advanced after WWI.  Therefore, the use of a “new and improved” way to defeat the enemy that could bring an end to hostilities, to save lives of both the enemy and our own people is the moral thing to do”“”

So carpet bombing civilians and nuking civilians is essentially the same.  You take that to mean that this makes nuking civilians moral, but it really just shows that carpet bombing civilians is immoral.  The fact that it was standard operating procedure is not really an argument for its morality.  You are just pointing out that A-bombs weren’t our only mistake.

“You are just pointing out that A-bombs weren’t our only mistake.”

No, I am pointing out that this is a phony moral argument.  The Church had no comments on carpet bombing or A-bombing for decades after WWII.  If it was immoral then, why did she not come up with CCC 2314 while it was happening or soon there after instead of waiting until 1987?

The answer is because the threat of that occurring became more of a reality with the number of countries now able to do it.  In our “modern” time, she had to address the issue.  Trying to overlay their decision to what was done forty-sum years earlier, when they did not try to make that statement themselves then, means this is an exercise in meaninglessness, as long as you are making the Church the referee.

“”“if it was immoral then, why did she not come up with CCC 2314 while it was happening or soon there after instead of waiting until 1987?”“”

There was no CCC until then. :o)

“There was no CCC until then.”

Au contraire, my friend, I’m looking at my 1958 Life In Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith.  The Fifth Commandment does not include war in their listing of sins (a-h) against the Fifth.  The question following that list is interesting.  It asked: Is it ever permitted to take the life of another?  The answer is: Yes.  To kill in legitimate self-defense is not sinful.  The state has the right to punish serious crime with the death penalty.  To take part in a just war (one in which the cause and the means are just and in which there is reasonable hope of success) is not against the fifth commandment.”

The bombing of Japan cities with the express purpose of demoralizing the Japanese population had its genesis in the bombing of European cities for the same purpose. Churchill and Hitler were going after each others civilian populations for several years before the United States entered the war. Bombing of civilian population centers was established precedent and accepted war policy by numerous nations by the time the United States began firebombing Japanese cities. War is hell and I for one am glad we fight to win. However, what I find immoral is Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s manipulation of Japan in order to precipitate the strike on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt stands responsible for millions of deaths and is as guilty a war criminal as Hirohito. Any current history of Roosevelt’s years in the White House maps his political movements designed to bring the United States and Japan into conflict. Americans all over the country were against entering the war, until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew only an ignoble act of war against the United States by Japan could get Americans behind the war effort. He, and he alone, is responsible for all of America’s war dead. He is responsible for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by setting up the game pieces on the board. Truman was only playing the end game Roosevelt had already strategized.

“”“Au contraire, my friend, I’m looking at my 1958 Life In Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith.”“”

Perhaps I was too tongue in cheek, this isn’t the CCC, it is a different book.  There was no magisterial-wide summery of all the Catholic faith (of the faith, by the authorities in the faith) until the CCC.  All the principals were out there, and others had done great summaries, (like the Baltimore Catechism) but not by the Magisterium.

Before the CCC, you had a lot of documents that were frequently hard to understand and you had a lot of unofficial explanations.  The CCC is the official explanation and it is a wonderful gift. 

None of these details really pertain to your argument as I understand it.  You are saying, “The Church didn’t condemn it explicitly, so neither can you.”  That doesn’t hold.  The Church isn’t in the business of judging every particular act.

“There was no magisterial-wide summery of all the Catholic faith (of the faith, by the authorities in the faith) until the CCC.”  What about the Roman Catechism, AKA the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)?

“You are saying, “The Church didn’t condemn it explicitly, so neither can you.”  That doesn’t hold.  The Church isn’t in the business of judging every particular act.”

Not quite.  I’m saying that to “condemn” the US for using the atomic bombs to bring an end to the war with Japan is not fair or charitable, let alone, right.  It is not fair, charitable or right because; one, the premise of Jimmy’s article is incorrect, and 2, the Church “standard” by which he is judging the US action was not codified for what was done, but for what COULD be done with the expansion of atomic weapons to numerous countries. 

I would add one other thought.  Since the Church never condemned the act of using those two A-bombs when only the US had them (and by the way, that was some “particular act” she chose not to “judge’) her silence concerning WWII throughout all those years is the lead that today’s “Monday morning quarterbacks” should follow.  Post 2314 was not a look backwards, but a look forward to what could happen, and is directed to the “modern” world, not the past. 

Thus, Jimmy’s argument is unfair, uncharitable, and not right.

@Carl

My point, which wasn’t really important, was just that the CCC wasn’t yet written.  The Roman Catechism, as I understand it, was primarily for the education of priests, not for the Church as a whole.  I suppose I never made that distinction.  Either way, it really doesn’t matter and I’m sorry my imprecision is taking up this much bandwidth.

@stillbelieve

Thanks for clarifying your argument.  I don’t agree with you at all, neither in your interpretation of the intent of the CCC nor in your assumption that jimmy’s application of the CCC (if I acknowledge your understanding of the intent) is unfair, uncharitable, and not right.  Actually, I suppose the “not right” (factual correctness vs moral correctness) one might stand.  Even if he’s wrong, that doesn’t make him uncharitable or unfair.

@stillbelieve

In this thread, a papal condemnation was alluded to.  In the other thread it was quoted extensively.  In neither thread did they provide a link to the original source.  I don’t think it is safe to assume that the acts were not condemned, we need to do some more reading.

I’m afraid I do agree with “stillbelieve” that Jimmy is being uncharitable. (Which it pains me to say, because in every other context in which I’ve encountered Jimmy’s writing, he’s the very model of caution, clear reasoning, and charity, which is what makes me respect him and his work so highly.) A charitable examination of this issue would _begin_ with the statement of CCC 2309 not “The evaluation of these conditions [of just war] for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” and would examine and present the historical record and the deliberative process of “those who have responsibility for the common good” that went into the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But _very uncharacteristically_ Jimmy has done none of that here. He _may_ have done so “behind the scenes”, as it were, but if so he shows none of his work here. He simply asserts that the bombing were motivated by the desire to kill large numbers of civilians and thus terrorize the populace and the Japanese government, and makes no mention whatsoever of the effort the US made to get civilians to evacuate and of the strategic value of the two cities as military centers and targets. _That_ I find is most uncharitable (even if I should eventually be convinced of his conclusion).

That should read “CCC 2309 _that_”. (Wish I could edit my posts!)

Your logic is flawed, sir. First off, the Japs were preparing their entire population to fight in the event of an invasion of the Jap mainland. Housewives were instructed to sharpen their broomsticks into spears. So it could reasonably be argued that Japan’s entire population were combatants.

Additionally, despite all the wishing it were otherwise, there is no such thing as a noncombatant in a country at war. When 2 nations go to war, their entire populations are involved in the war effort and thus involved in any attacks upon each other. Just as all Americans were responsible for dropping the bomb, all Japs were responsible for the acts that led to the dropping of that bomb.

“”“Your logic is flawed, sir. First off, the Japs were preparing their entire population to fight in the event of an invasion of the Jap mainland. Housewives were instructed to sharpen their broomsticks into spears. So it could reasonably be argued that Japan’s entire population were combatants.”“”

So, by your logic, would war be the moral time to sneak into enemy orphanages and start slaughtering babies?

“So, by your logic, would war be the moral time to sneak into enemy orphanages and start slaughtering babies?”

C’mon, J_B! (LOL) 

I have clarity, and understand better what I believe.  I’ve had my say and am starting to bore myself.  So, it’s time to see what trouble I can cause in some other thread.

@stilbelieve

Sorry, that was directed at Rob Wood, you and I may disagree, but you sure aren’t that crazy!

I respect your views on Catholicism, but your grasp at WW2 era Japan is very lacking.  You should research what the Japanese govt was doing to prepare its civilian population to repulse the invasion by American forces.  If I am not mistaken our govt at many times asked for Japans surrender and even after the first bomb was dropped they still did not surrender.  It is great to sit in the 21st century and have no fear of having to invade Japan to decide whether this act was immoral or a war crime. The bombs saved U.S. lives and countless Japanese lives also.

If dropping of the bombs during WW2 were a war crime so then also were every crusade.  So that would make the Holy Father a criminal.

“”“The bombs saved U.S. lives and countless Japanese lives also.”“”

The ends do not justify the means, therefore, you need a better argument to defend these means. (A few have been made on this thread)

“”“If dropping of the bombs during WW2 were a war crime so then also were every crusade.”“”

Why?

To stilbelieve: High time to look for greener pastures, too; you have made your point (the only pertinent point regarding the blogger´s utterly flawed premise and fallacious construct) very well early on. The rest is a sideshow.
All that is needed now is for the real Jimmy to come out and dis-appoint himself as the Peacenik-in-Chief. Obviously and due to other commitments, he did not have the time to write his usual blog entry. So he asked his busybody alter ego, Red_Beard, to deliver, which is why this moniker is all over the place here. Red_Beard, however, presumably a low-performing undergraduate doing social studies, let Jimmy down badly and produced a period propaganda piece worthy of a commie fellow-traveler.
Now, this is a predicament for Jimmy: he did not write it, yet the scandal-mongering, loony headline carries his signature. So I call on the real James Akin to come clean, put this sorry episode behind him, and get down to some meaningful work for the Church. The truth shall set you free, indeed.

@Al Rich

Dude, you made my day!  Thanks for the laugh!

I wrote a paper defending the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t think, though, I now feel the opinions I felt while writing that paper so strongly anymore. I did not know the Catechism said that:

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes [CCC 2314].

So what did Jesus say and do?
He praised the faith of officers in the Roman occupation army, and on the cross promised Paradise to the felon who confessed the justice of the death penalty.
“The ruler does not carry the sword in vain; he is God’s servant…” (Romans 13:4)

Re: A Million Dead Americans to Invade Japan?

General MacArthur was appointed commander for the invasion of Japan. Prior to the bloody fighting on Okinawa he estimated U.S Casualties at 125,000 (10,000 KIA) for a 4-months campaign. At the same time the Red Army was estimating its casualties for a projected invasion of Manchuria to also be 10,000 KIA. Both the Russians and the USA faced about 1.2 million Japanese each. After the Battle of Okinawa MacArthur revised his casualty estimate downwards to 105,000. When the Russians did invade Manchuria they destroyed the Japanese Army in a month long campaign at a cost of about 11,000 KIA.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Re: Why Invade or Nuke Japan?

Imperial Japan, an island nation totally dependent on imports for industrial survival, was a menace because of its superb Navy and large Merchant Marine. However in August 1945 both the Imperial Navy and Merchant Marine were, in the main, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean courtesy of the U.S. Navy; and Japan itself was under close blockade by US Fleet submarines. Imperial Japan no longer poised a threat to its neighbors. The Church forbids wars of revenge or conquest. There was no military or moral justification to either invade or nuke Japan.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Re: Who wanted to Nuke the Japs?

It is interesting to note that not a single major combat commander, to include the Bomber Barons, was enthusiastic about nuking the Japs. Indeed the more bellicose US Commander such as Halsley and Patton were outraged. Only Marshall appeared neutral about this matter. To their eternal credit every General and Admiral who graduated from either West Point or Annapolis and held combat command opposed nuking the Japs. Now many 21st Century Catholics think it is part of the Catechism.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

JOSHUS chapter 6
And to Joshua the Lord said, “I hsve delivered Jericho and it’s king into your power.  ...”
...They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old,as well as oxen, sheep and asses.

This was ordered by God. It is in the bible!

It sounds alot like the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fire bombing of the Japanese.
You people seem to forget that Japan was allied with Hitler and Mussolini.

Anyone have the same feelings about almost leveling Germany.
Remember Adolph Hitler was running it!!!

Re: The Danger of living by the Old Testament

“This was ordered by God. It is in the bible!”
When Christ walked among us he gave us a New Testament wherein he commanded that we love our neighbor, love our enemy and forgive 7 x 70 times.
“You people seem to forget that Japan was allied with Hitler and Mussolini.”
You seem to forget that the USA is allied with Planned Parenthood and slaughters 4,000 of its children a day. What makes us so different from Imperial Japan. Maybe someone will come along quote the Old Testament and nuke us too?
God bless

Richard W Comerford

Re: Anyone have the same feelings about almost leveling Germany.
Remember Adolph Hitler was running it!!!
And, since Roe v Wade who has killed more innocents? Are you saying the USA should be “leveled” too?

Nice try Richard but it doesn’t work!
Throwing in the red hot issue of abortion which has NOTHING TO DO with the discussion at hand is truly pathetic, cheap, cheesey ... ad nauseum.
If you are going to post how about doing so in a meaningful way!!!

Re: “Throwing in the red hot issue of abortion which has NOTHING TO DO with the discussion at hand is truly pathetic, cheap, cheesey ... ad nauseum.”

There is nothing “pathetic, cheap, cheesey” about either 6.5 million murdered European Jews or 50-million murdered American children; or the murder of Japanese and German noncombatants by American nukes and bombings. All three holocausts are violations of the 5th Commandment.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

“”“the murder of… German noncombatants by American nukes and bombings. All three holocausts are violations of the 5th Commandment.”“”
So now your position is that we nuked the Germans???
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christ said, ” I did not come to bring peace, but to set mother against daughter, father against son,.... This is from the New Testament, since you don’t approve of quotes from the Old Testament.  Why don’t tell us what chapter and verse?  You do have a bible don’t you?  A non edited Catholic bible???

Re: Inability to Copy and Paste

“the murder of… German noncombatants by American nukes and bombings. All three holocausts are violations of the 5th Commandment.”“”
So now your position is that we nuked the Germans???

Correct copy and paste:

“or the murder of Japanese and German noncombatants by American nukes and bombings. All three holocausts are violations of the 5th Commandment.”

Practice that copy and paste!

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Re: Justification for Mass Murder

“Christ said, ” I did not come to bring peace, but to set mother against daughter, father against son,.... This is from the New Testament, since you don’t approve of quotes from the Old Testament.  Why don’t tell us what chapter and verse?  You do have a bible don’t you?  A non edited Catholic bible???”

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ command us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemy, to return good for evil and to forgive 7 x 70. He did not command us to engage in teh murder of noncombatants.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard:  Peace is indeed the best state mankind can attain to.

Unfortunately, while it takes only one to make war, it takes two to make peace.

“Turn the other cheek” works only as long as the other guy isn’t going to rip it off your face.

Since people want to go off on tangents, there is not the slightest doubt that A-bombing Japan was the only way to end the war.  The Japanese were ready, willing, and able to fight to the last man - and woman, and child.  Our generals were preparing another 200,000 men to attack Japan.  The casualties on both sides would have been horrific.

We neen only look to what Japan did in the city of Nanking to see what they were capable of.

As for bombing Dresden, we - and the British, who were full participants - realized afterward that it was wrong, that it was a bad decision.  But you can’t un-drop bombs, and neither of us did that again.

And today’s enemies are not honorable men.  They hide behind women’s skirts, they hide among innocents.  But at least we can say that we do not murder innocents deliberately, as did Islam on Sept 11.

To say that you are totally against war in any form is a valid position.  Quakers have felt that way for a very long time, and they do not serve in combat.

But those totally against war should stand aside and pray, so that the rest of us may fight to give you the freedom to do so.

Re: Just War

“there is not the slightest doubt that A-bombing Japan was the only way to end the war.”
Every major WWII US Combatant Commander to include the Bomber Barons, disagrees with you.
“The casualties on both sides would have been horrific.”
After Okinawa MacArthur estimated 105,000 US Casualties to include 10,000 KIA over a 4-month campaign.
“We neen only look to what Japan did in the city of Nanking to see what they were capable of.”
And take a look at an abortion mill to see what we are capable of - 4,000 American children murders every day by Americans.
“But you can’t un-drop bombs, and neither of us did that again.”
Tell that to the civilians killed by US Bombs in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Iran,Iraq, Yugoslavia and now Libya.
“And today’s enemies are not honorable men.”
And Hitler was?
“But at least we can say that we do not murder innocents deliberately”
Only 4,000 a day - every day.
“To say that you are totally against war in any form is a valid position.”
No it is not.
“so that the rest of us may fight”
You are fighting? Where are you fighting?

““The casualties on both sides would have been horrific.”
After Okinawa MacArthur estimated 105,000 US Casualties to include 10,000 KIA over a 4-month campaign.”

Am I to understand that you do not consider those figures “horrific”.

“And take a look at an abortion mill to see what we are capable of - 4,000 American children murders every day by Americans.”

You are right, but that argument is irrelevant to the “just war” thread.

““And today’s enemies are not honorable men.”
And Hitler was? “

Try not to say what I’m thinking.

““To say that you are totally against war in any form is a valid position.”
No it is not.”

OK, I yield.  It is irrational to be totally against war in any form.

““so that the rest of us may fight”
You are fighting? Where are you fighting? “

I did my turn.  Did you?

Re: Just War II

“Am I to understand that you do not consider those figures “horrific”.”
10,000 KIA is much better than the one million KIA figure usually given to justify nuking the Japs.
“You are right, but that argument is irrelevant to the “just war” thread.”
Not if the right to wage unjust war is based on the purported moral superiority if the USA.
“Try not to say what I’m thinking.”
The lack if honor on the prat of an enemy does not justify hos murder.
“I did my turn.  Did you?
‘You fought in the great GWOT? You were an Army or Marine Grunt?

There was no wrong in using nukes on Japan in World War II. It saved millions of more lives than it killed. It was NOT MURDER!!!
While asking for peace they secretly were planning on attacking the US.
I was in the Air Force for 18 years. After Grenada my unit got a letter thanking us for saving over a thousand lives.  It was very moving seeing that letter with over a thousand signatures on it.
Richard you aked someone else if they were in service.
What service did YOU DO???

Just War III

“There was no wrong in using nukes on Japan in World War II.”
The use of weapons of mass destruction on cities is specifically condemned by the Catholic Church not only as a violation of the 5th Commandment but as an intrinsic evil.

“It saved millions of more lives than it killed. It was NOT MURDER!!!”
The US WWII Combatant Commanders disagree with you. The action was quite unnecessary.

“While asking for peace they secretly were planning on attacking the US.”
You are misinformed.

“I was in the Air Force for 18 years.”
You did not finish your Twenty? Strange.

“After Grenada my unit got a letter thanking us for saving over a thousand lives.”
Really? Remarkable An Air Force unit saving 1,000 lives in a ground campaign. What was your unit?

“It was very moving seeing that letter with over a thousand signatures on it.”
Wow. All on one letter? Amazing.

“Richard you aked someone else if they were in service.
No the relevant post stated in part: “But those totally against war should stand aside and pray, so that the rest of us may fight to give you the freedom to do so.”

What service did YOU DO???”
I am not the one claiming military service in order to justify mass murder.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

<<<The US WWII Combatant Commanders disagree with you. The action was quite unnecessary.>>>
This is BS!!!
I didn’t do 20 because I was in a very bad auto accident.

I was stationed at Charleston Air Force Base during the little Grenada war. My unit won Outstanding Unit Citation out of the whole Air Force that year!
I didn’t pull the trigger but I helped make it possible which accrues blood guilt just the same as if I had.
Where in Church records was any Pope or other Church leaders who condemened the use of the A bomb in WWII? 
The CCC wasn’t written until into the time of the Pontificate Of Blessed Pope John Paul The Great!!!

Just War IV

“This is BS!!!”
You are misinformed. Consult Mr. Google. Not a single WWII, major, US Combatant Commander supported nuking the Japs. Only one (Marshall) was neutral on the subject declaring it an alleged political decision. (God forgive him.)
“I was stationed at Charleston Air Force Base during the little Grenada war. My unit won Outstanding Unit Citation out of the whole Air Force that year!”
Your unit must have shot down a lot of Jap Zeroes down that year?
“I didn’t pull the trigger but I helped make it possible which accrues blood guilt just the same as if I had.”
No. You certainly were not (I was a trigger puller - 7th and 10th Special Forces Groups.)But do not take that blood guilt thing upon yourself. After all ou worked side by side with the civilian contractors doing te hsamejob.
“Where in Church records was any Pope or other Church leaders who condemened the use of the A bomb in WWII?”
As a matter of act the Vatican (Pius XII) condemned the destruction of Japanese cities by nuclear weapons.
“The CCC wasn’t written until into the time of the Pontificate Of Blessed Pope John Paul The Great!!!”
So? Are you saying what is right and what is wrong changes over time? The Commandments are in fact flexible?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Nice to see you aren’t a civilian.
<<<You are misinformed. Consult Mr. Google. Not a single WWII, major, US Combatant Commander supported nuking the Japs. Only one (Marshall) was neutral on the subject declaring it an alleged political decision. (God forgive him.)>>>
I never use Google.  I want links to these so called facts! I don’t have months or years to sift through Google.

<<<“I was stationed at Charleston Air Force Base during the little Grenada war. My unit won Outstanding Unit Citation out of the whole Air Force that year!”
Your unit must have shot down a lot of Jap Zeroes down that year?>>>
Being a smart ass!

<<<“I didn’t pull the trigger but I helped make it possible which accrues blood guilt just the same as if I had.”
No. You certainly were not (I was a trigger puller - 7th and 10th Special Forces Groups.)But do not take that blood guilt thing upon yoursself. After all ou worked side by side with the civilian contractors te hsamejob.>>>  Yes you do, when ever take another man’s life you accrue blood guilt.  That is why King David was not allowed to build the temple.
You are not resposible for what the civilian contractors did.  But what you saw made you bitter and cynical.  There is help for that. I’m not talking shrink either. There is confession and spirtual counciling with a priest. I know I went into the Chapalincy after Charleston.

<<<The CCC wasn’t written until into the time of the Pontificate Of Blessed Pope John Paul The Great!!!”
So? Are you saying what is right and what is wrong changes over time? The Commandments are in fact flexible? >>> Until something it is declared to be a sin it is not. 
The effects of the A bomb were not known. They even let our own soldiers watch testing of the A-bomb which turned out to be a very bad idea.  We did not just have a powerful bomb.  Bombing Japan ushered in the atomic age and of all it’s horrors. It also kept the following cold war from becoming hot. Nuclear hot. The Russsians did not use it and neither did we because of the near total destruction of both countries would have insued.  Checkmate!  So it has been ever since.  These days we just have to worry about rouge, failed states and/or nuts jobs using it.
What you saw in service will haunt you the rest of your life.  Turn your suffering into good.  Offer it up to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary to make reparation for the sins of the world. You won’t feel it at first but it will help you in the long run. You will see.
In Christ, Kathleen

Just War V

“I never use Google.” 
No wonder you are so misinformed.

“Yes you do, when ever take another man’s life you accrue blood guilt.”
The Catholic Church does not teach so.

“The effects of the A bomb were not known.”
Why do you think the USA dropped one bomb to destroy an entire city?

“What you saw in service will haunt you the rest of your life.”
No. It does not.

Cornweford,
In my universe google provides links that report that the may have been a debate in the USA over Hiroshima, but not the unanimous opposition that you fantacise.

Just War VI

“may have been a debate in the USA over Hiroshima”
What debate? None of the Major US Combat Commanders were consulted.

“but not the unanimous opposition that you fantacise.”
Name a single US Combat Commander stated after the were Japs nuked that it was necessary to end the war. They used words Like Murder and “barbarianism” to describe it. Indeed the more aggressive the Commander (Halsey, Patton) the more they were disgusted with the mass murder of a civil populace by atom bomb.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

<<<“What you saw in service will haunt you the rest of your life.”
No. It does not.>>>

Your lying to yourself!

Just WAR VII

“Your lying to yourself!”

What is it with you people and your PCSD? I have served both as an Army Special Forces soldier and a police tactical officer. My comrades were saner than most. Off duty they led normal lives. You do not know what you are talking about. Most war crimes are committed by executives sitting in safety thousands of miles away from the action. THEY probably are haunted.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Kathleen: “Your unit must have shot down a lot of Jap Zeroes down that year?”

Not very charitable.  We haven’t used “Japs” since the end of WW II.

Finally, it seems that - as usual - neither side is going to change its position.  Those who think it was a “war crime” will have to think about the thousands upon thousands who would have been killed had the war gone on for another year or two.

No one under 60 years of age should have any right to make a judgement about what happened in WW II, from Pearl Harbor to the end of the War in the Pacific and the end of the War in Europe.

Just War VIII

“Not very charitable.  We haven’t used “Japs” since the end of WW II.”
And yo uare teh one screaming for their blood? It is a Frogman thing. I was an SF combat diver. The Japanese diver who worked with us on a task referred to the North Koreans as “Japs”.

“the thousands upon thousands who would have been killed had the war gone on for another year or two.”
In August 1945 there was no reason to either invade or bomb Japan.

“No one under 60 years of age should have any right to make a judgement about what happened in WW II”
Tell that to the Poles. I am glad to know that you approve of the Western Allies turning over half of Europe to Stalin. The Ten Commandments are timeless.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

God bless

Richard W Comerford

One last thing (there usually is a last thing).

Erin: “Telling people in 33 different cities in a landlocked and war-depleted nation that they ought to consider evacuating is more a tool to induce hysteria than a kind gesture of concern for innocent life.”

Please try to think things through.  If our primary target was Hiroshima, and we dropped leaflets in Hiroshima, what would the Japanese reaction be?  Evacuate Hiroshima?  Possibly, but the Japanese Army was the controlling power.  They would have sent the whole air force to guard the city and shoot down whatever planes we sent.  They would have reinforced anti-aircraft batteries.  The war would have dragged on.  And on.

If our real target was Nagasaki, and we leafleted Hiroshima, that would have proved that we were simply not interested in saving lives.

Leafleting 33 cities made it impossible for the Japanese military to split their forces.

I note with some disgust that you refer to the Institute for Historical Review.  I know of that site. It is a pro-Nazi, anti-Jewish hate site.  I thought they’d gone under years ago.  If that’s where you get your information, you have my deepest sympathy.  Their current campaign: “Free Demanjuk”.  I had to go there to see that they are still under the same rock.  Not I’ll have to have my PC decontaminated.

For anyone else, do not go there.  Find out about the IHR here:

About IHR
“Once a leading voice in the international movement to deny the Holocaust and vindicate Hitler and the Nazi regime, the Institute for Historical Review has been in decline for several years.”

Southern Poverty Law Center on IHR

“... the page is worth reading for those interested in this discussion.”
The page is not worth the time of day.  I can only hope you do not really believe what they teach.
“In 1978, Willis Carto, founder and head of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby, based in Washington, D.C., spun off a new organization called the Institute for Historical Review (IHR).”

About the IHR
“The IHR was wrested from Carto’s control about a decade ago in a dispute over money left to the organization by Thomas Edison’s granddaughter (the Edison family and Thomas Edison himself were anti-Semites). Since the early to mid-1990s, effective control of the IHR has been in the hands of Mark Weber, who is the alumnus of several neo-Nazi organizations, including the NSDAP/AO (based in Nebraska and headed by Gary Lauck) and the National Alliance (once the largest neo-Nazi organization in the U.S. and headed by the late Dr. William Pierce, who wrote The Turner Diaries , the Bible of the far right).”

Thank you for your article; IMO American Catholic intellectuals/writers with rare exception (Dorothy Day, the Berrigans, etc.) have been absolutely afraid to critique-even to recognize-American war crimes and Imperialism on any level or from any historical period-let alone the present.  This of course does not include those who areso dastardly as to be on board with these travesties.

They will not even condemn the Spanish-American War, the wars against the Plains Indians, or the “Banana Wars” of the of the 1910’s, 20’s, and 30’s.  We have not even talked about WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Contra Wars, etc.  To be a true Catholic, you must be an anti-Imperialist.

Those bombings were NOT war crimes!!