**in the culture of Japan at the time, every man, woman, and child would have resisted an Allied invasion even if they were reduced to using stick and stones. Such an invasion, the argument goes, might have cost millions of Allied and Japanese lives, so dropping the bomb might have saved untold lives on both sides.
It might. Then again, it might not.**
_________________
.
Would the Japanese have surrendered without dropping the bomb on Hiroshima?
.
In fact, the Japanese did NOT surrender EVEN AFTER the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.  Even then, they resisted.
.
It took dropping a second bomb before they ended their own immoral madness and surrendered.

Dr Wm. Mattison III at Catholic University in DC is, among other things, known for his treatment of the moral question of the atom bomb. A few of my friends who are in the seminary there say he gave them a lot of pause. Not to spoil, but he does come to the conclusion that it was, even in the light of information known at the time (lest he be a Monday quarterback), not morally permissible.

How many died at Okinawa? Do you know how many would have died if the Allies were forced to invade mainland Japan?  Father Wilson Miscamble, has a bit of a different view. Have you heard it? I don’t think you are right.
http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Hiroshima-Why-America-Dropped-the-Bomb.html

Here’s the real problem—it’s history and how it’s now changed.  In 1941, nations declared war on other nations, not governments upon governments or militaries upon militaries.  Japan—as a whole, through it’s government—delcared war on the United States as a whole, nor upon just its government or military.  That was the “vision” of war in the first two milliennia.  Total war, not differentiating between the populace, the government, nor the military.  Were it just between governments, we’d call a boxing match between leaders and call it binding.  Were it just between militaries, we would set up for a battle and have at.  In fact, we now abhor war when it’s considered nation upon nation—we try to make it military upon military through efforts to spare civilians.  Another reason why diplomacy (government-upon-government “war”) is doing all it can to deter or prevent the capability of nation-states to engage in wars of military against populace (the whole WMD arguement).  Perhaps today, Pat, we can agree that today’s vision, honed by years of reflection, would shy away from the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—but in the vision of war in 1945, the use of a really, really, really powerful weapon was appropriate, given the view of the leadership at the time of nation-upon-nation war.  May we never have to be challenged by that decision again.

The total destruction of hundreds of thousands of non-aggressors can never be morally justified. The circumstances could never have satisfied the criteria for the use of lethal force against persons. The atomic bomb being dropped on cities does not come within any just war theories that comply with the Natural Law or Morality that accords with the Catholic faith. That there may have been some objectively good consequences of the bombs can never be used to morally justify them. The ends can never be the moral justification for means that are in themselves and always morally wrong. There has been a lot of disingenuous attempts to retrospectively justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it is not possible based on objective moral reason, as espoused by the Catholic Church. It is the kind of false reasoning used to claim justification for other intrinsic evils such as contraception, abortion, euthanasia. The bombs may have been dropped to attain a good outcome but the acts are not objectively permissible. Morality, even in times of war and where defence of self and others is required, is rational, internally consistent and thus predictable and applicable to all capable of acting morally. The Natural Law permits deliberate lethal violence in several instances where defence and aggressors are concerned. The obliteration of the populations of two of Japan’s cities does not come within any such bounds.

Some have missed an additional point, so I will restate it here, that with the manufacturing capability of Japan brought to its knees by conventional methods, invasion might not have been necessary.

Well done, Pat.  The immemorial teaching of the Church is that we can never deliberately take innocent human life.  Period.  Firing a WMD at a civilian population center is (and we knew it was) precisely such an act.  We’ve struggled ever since to justify that intrinsically unjustifiable act by ends-justify-means arguments that have been condemned since Paul wrote Romans 3:8.

Appeals to academics like Fr. Miscamble to trump the clear teaching of the Magisterium on the subject of atomic mass murder of innocents are as persuasive as appeals to academics like Daniel Maguire to trump the clear teaching of the Magisterium on the subject of abortifacient mass murder of innocents.  Academics are the favorite alternative magisterium for advocates of dissent from the real Magisterium.

Posted by Danielle: “How many died at Okinawa? Do you know how many would have died if the Allies were forced to invade mainland Japan?  Father Wilson Miscamble, has a bit of a different view. Have you heard it? I don’t think you are right.”

This is the common false dilemma that is raised in this debate.  As though our only possible options were drop nuclear bombs or make a full scale invasion.  Japan was on its knees at this point, could we not afford to explore options before vaporizing civilian cities?  Or would this be better understood as America’s opening move in the Cold War?

Posted by Pat Archbold: “Some have missed an additional point, so I will restate it here, that with the manufacturing capability of Japan brought to its knees by conventional methods, invasion might not have been necessary.”
No small part of which was accomplished by conventional firebombings on a scale that rivaled Hiroshima and Nagasaki for casualties.  It’s bad all the way down, I’m afraid.

I am a troll sent by Mark Shea (though not intentionally!). I don’t support the dropping of the bomb on Japan.  All the same, there is one argument in its defense not mentioned here, though others have gone over it. That defense rests on the fact of the presence of many innocent people, including civilian women and children, in prison camps or concentration camps of one sort or another, whose rescue depended on being able to reach them quickly, before a last-minute sweep of their quarters by their captors could destroy them all. Such sweeps were quite common in the last days of the war, to destroy evidence of mistreatment and so forth.

I’m especially conscious of this argument because a close friend of mine, Dutch-Indonesian by birth, had parents who were both interned by the Japanese in civilian prison camps. When I expressed my reservations about the decision to drop the bomb, he retorted that this would have meant the death of both his parents, who aside from anything else were on the verge of starvation when the war with Japan ended so abruptly.

There might have been other and less drastic ways of saving such people. There probably were. All the same, I think that the decision to choose this way could be defended, not as a form of doing evil to do good, but of having to choose between two irreconcilable goods, as might a doctor in performing surgery that saved a mother’s life but inadvertently killed her baby. Perhaps that analogy is a bad one and does not work, morally, here. I don’t know, but it is a point to consider.

If Japanese civilians were legitimate military targets then so are American civilians; this was essentially Osama Bin Laden’s argument.  American civilians pay taxes, those taxes pay for military infrastructure, that military infrastructure is placed in the Muslim holy land, that military infrastructure is likewise given to Israel to attack the Palestinians, therefore American civilians are legitimate military targets.  Very slippery slope and I’ve never bought that argument as justification for dropping the bomb.

It wasn’t moral.  One of the most shameful things our country has done in it’s history.  A lot of these arguments assume that all the Japanese people wanted to fight and die for their country and so an invasion would have been unthinkable.  Don’t think this holds water.

This article never mentions the time and money America invested in restoring Japan after the war. Since then, the USA and Japan have good diplomatic relations. Why dwell on the past, which can’t be changed? Why doesn’t this article focus on the positive? It’s just like the race-baters who keep harping on slavery before the Civil War, while ignoring America’s progress in advancing racialequality in the present day—our African-American President notwithstanding. What would this author have preferred we do with terrorists in a post-September 11 world?

One question that was never asked here: was it morally correct for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor?

Yep, you’re right Pat.
It’s not really about the manufacturing capabilities of Japan- it’s all about the non-combatants. You can’t deliberately kill civilians- you just can’t. The argument that every Japanese person was a potential soldier is no different from the “Every Israeli is a potential killer” argument wielded by Hamas to justify attacking civilians.
Any argument about the Bomb has to start and end with the acceptability of attacking civilians- something no Catholic can in good conscience agree to.

Dear Hat Lady: No.

Now here are two questions for you: 

1.  what’s your point?

2.  Are you under the impression that tu quoque is a legitimate defense and not a logical fallacy?

Was atomic bombing of cities justified under Catholic moral teaching? The answer is yes—if the bombing was not intended to kill noncombatants. As it was.

The targets were Hiroshima, a major Japanese army headquarters, base, and embarkation point for the (soon-to-be) battleground in Kyushu; Kokura, a major industrial/armaments center; and the alternate for Kokura, Nagasaki, a big industrial port. These were military targets, “defended cities” in the jargon of international law, and legitimate candidates for destruction. The technology of WWII did not allow pinpoint, surgical strikes like now. You bombed a target and the collateral damage was immense, whether conventional or nuclear. Not to sound callous but the casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less than those resulting from the “conventional” bombing of Tokyo and Osaka.

The U.S. was not out to rack up a body count, it was determined to end the war. The atom bomb provided a face-saving means for the Emperor to get on the radio and announce capitulation. The army wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child. An attempted coup came very close to halting the surrender in its tracks.

The arguments I read here would proscribe any strategic bombing in WWII, and indeed any bombardment or attack on population centers at all, based on a false interpretation of Catholic teaching. The Church clearly teaches that warfare must be carried out against combatants but has never ruled out attacks on an enemy’s warmaking infrastructure. Collateral damage (i.e., innocent civilian deaths) are deplored and must be avoided as much as possible, but war being war civilians are going to die. The moral imperative is not to deliberately aim at them.

With respect Phil, it is not sufficient to simply not intend to kill civilians.  Just War theory generally requires a reasonable attempt to minimize casualties among non-combatants.  Their status under international law is irrelevant to the whole moral question.  I do agree however that their is an unfair emphasis placed on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Osaka and other targets was just as unjustifiable under Catholic moral teaching.

By late 1945, Japan’s navy was destroyed, its air force crippled and much of its army was stuck in China.  Japan itself has few natural resources.  In all probability, America could have blockaded them into submission. 

Further, Japan was willing to seek peace in 1945.  It was the harsh terms that the United States required that kept any real negotiations from occurring.  This also is a violation of Catholic Moral teaching.

Finally, there is some doubt that nuclear bombs convinced Japan to surrender.  There is some evidence that it was the Soviet Declaration of War that finally convinced them that they would be unable to hold out for better terms (even they knew in August 1945 that winning the war was impossible).

My grandmother, from Arkansas, whose 17 year old son (her only child) was serving in the navy in the pacific said about the bomb was that it was shameful.  That it would never have been used in Germany or any other European country, it was only because the Japanese people “weren’t like us” that the bomb was dropped, she said that the fact that the US put those of Japanese heritage in camps but not those of German heritage proved that.

Phil (or anyone else),

I ask in all sincerity, what is the Church’s teaching on how the morality of actions is ultimately to be judged? In other words, are they judged on their intentions or on their foreseeable results? In light of your comment (that “collateral damage is deplored and must be avoided as much as possible…. The moral imperative is not to deliberately aim at them.), and assuming that it is an accurate statement of magisterial teaching, it is not immediately clear to me how one resolves the question of what to do about an enemy’s warmaking infrastructure that is built (deliberately or not) in intimate proximity to a large civilian population. In fact, one of the possible answers seems almost to invite the enemy to intermingle civilian and military functions in order to discourage attacks.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

So if Phil’s house were a legitimate target for destruction, it just wouldn’t matter if Phil’s wife and children were inside?

One of the great unexamined assumptions is that pressing for unconditional surrender is somehow legitimate in it’s own right.  This was a new idea- as progressive, secular, and confusingly ‘democratic’ as anything else existent in the modern state. Hiroshima was not anything that can be justified under the just war doctrine.  Indeed, Christendom would not have identified this total war- unconditional surrender paradigm as even remotely acceptable.  This is how the progressives always get the drop on traditionalists- they change the meaning of the word you assume you know, and a few generations later, even the traditionalists are promulgating ideas that serve the progressives.

I think Pat is right here. 

I would tend to be very forgiving of the people who made the decision about using nuclear weapons - they were making decisions under stress at the conclusion of a bloody multi-year war and they did not necessarily have properly formed consciences (given the novelty of the destructive power of the bomb it’s not anyone had really thought through the implications).  So their culpability may be significantly reduced and we should cut them a lot of slack.

But after the fact it’s possible to evaluate the moral questions more logically and with better information, and thus to conclude that the decision was wrong morally. 

The point made by many here that containment was an option is a very good one.  It is good that Japan unconditionally surrendered but it wasn’t necessary to end the war and destroy Japan’s war-making capacity.

In addition, I’d point out that it was an option to simply drop the bomb on an isolated, relatively unpopulated part of Japan.  The destructive power of the weapon would have been demonstrated.

Shorter Phil: In a hostage situation, shoot through the hostage to kill the hostage taker, then say you “intended” to kill the hostage taker and that the hostage was “collateral damage”.

Same logic as the abortionist who says he doesn’t “intend” to kill babies.  He just intends to free women.  The baby is just collateral damage in the liberation of the woman.  Japanese babies and children were likewise collateral damage when we aimed a nuke at Urikami Cathedral (the bombardier use it to site the bomb), which was obviously a military target.

@txlassy: my husband was in WWII and I lived near a debarkation camp in NYS that held Italian prisoners of war….so the government did hold other prisoners besides the Japanese. All bombs kill innocent civilians but this one was the biggest, killing the most at one time. It did end the war sooner than later…which was not a war between just the U.S. and Japan….it was a WORLD WAR with bombs and killings in all the countries. War is horrible and a part of the evil in humanity….it will always be with us, as said in the Bible “There will be wars and rumors of wars”.  Will arguing this subject today bring more peace in the world…I doubt it…we have even worse things today to “kill” with
{if your grandmother was talking abt the Japanese being different meaning a different race, then what abt our friends at the time, the Chinese of the same race as the Japanese.}
.....

@Sue: txlassy was not referring to POW’s, of which there many more German and Italian POW’s than Japanese, but rather the internment of many thousands of American citizens of of Japanese ancestry.  There were some attempts to track those of German and Italian ancestry, but nothing like what was done to Japanese Americans.

Why do we argue this question today?  Because the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still haunt us and arguably have kept us and others from ever resorting to the use of Nuclear weapons since.

Sue, MarlandBill is exactly right, my grandmother was talking about the shameful treatment of Japanese Americans.  I am sorry that I didn’t make that clear.  She didn’t think we would have ever dropped it on any of the white European nations.  I, like I imagine most of us here, was not alive during WWII to experience the attitude of the people then, so my grandmother to me is a glimpse into that time.

Mark - are there any circumstances in which it is justifiable to bomb a military target in close proximity to a civilian populace?

Thanks!

Rich,

Whatever the concept of war, the just war doctrine was around more than 1000 years before WWII, and what was done to Japan simply doesn’t meet the standard.

L. Legault,

It is an interesting consideration.  But it only affects the ends part of the argument.  No appeal to the magnitude of the good of the ends of an act can ever justify the act if the means are immoral.

Phil,

There are a couple of problems with your argument.  The first is that the US made it clear that killing civilians *was* part of the intent.  The act was meant to be demoralizing, in part because of the impact on civilians.  The next part is that the principle of double effect only applies if the good achieved outweighs the evil.  The manufacturing facilities could have been destroyed by other means (especially considering US air superiority at that point).  That means that the evil of civilian deaths has to be weighed against the good of ... what?  the convenience of destroying the facility all at once instead of a series of bombings?  And even if we can say that double effect could be used to justify an action *like* the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we cannot say it in this case because the US’s intent *was* to kill civilians, it just wasn’t the only intent.

Danielle,

I watched the video and it was interesting.  But there is a problem.  The good Father accepts (at least in the video) the premise that the goal of unconditional surrender was the correct goal.  I think that it *might* be possible to make an argument from double effect as he does (looking at it as an act in a larger context where the good and evil outcomes are far more than just those of the act itself), if not for the fact that the US could have gained those same goods by changing the goal of unconditional surrender.  Unconditional surrender was not the only way to guarantee the only goal of just war (to stop the aggressor), but it was the goal the US sought.  If the US had sought to only guarantee the goal of just war, a land invasion wouldn’t have been necessary anyway.  As long as the good consequences of an act with unintended evil consequences can be gained another way, double effect cannot be invoked.

“Shorter Phil: In a hostage situation, shoot through the hostage to kill the hostage taker, then say you “intended” to kill the hostage taker and that the hostage was “collateral damage”.

“Same logic as the abortionist who says he doesn’t “intend” to kill babies.  He just intends to free women.  The baby is just collateral damage in the liberation of the woman.  Japanese babies and children were likewise collateral damage when we aimed a nuke at Urikami Cathedral (the bombardier use it to site the bomb), which was obviously a military target.”

Sorry Mark, your analogies fail completely on several levels. The hostage analogy is not evenly remotely relevant—if it were, then belligerents would intentionally surround legitimate targets with civilians as a shield against Christian attacks. We are talking about WWII. The abortion analogy is even worse because it’s absurd. And the cathedral was not the target of the Nagasaki bombardier. I don’t think you have read very deeply in the historical accounts of what actually happened.

The Church does not teach that attacks on cities are per se immoral, if there are legitimate targets in those cities. Plenty of Christian armies throughout history have stormed and bombarded cities full of civilians with full sanction of the Catholic Church. The Church does teach that Christians must fight in such a way as to minimize the loss of innocent civilian lives. It is this distinction that seems to elude you.

If an atomic bomb had been dropped on, say, Kyoto, a city with no industry or military value, with no purpose other than to kill as many Japanese as possible and induce demoralization in that way—that would have been immoral and unethical according to Church teaching. There is no evidence whatsoever that this was the goal of anyone from Truman on down.

@MarylandBill & Txlassy: Thanks for the correction.  As I remember about the Japanese being interned, most believed at the time, it was because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (& they were not to be trusted) and also that was probably why they dropped the bomb on Japan.  The European countries did not attack us. Remember this was when we got news only from the newspaper and only a few times a day on radio. Nothing like today. Living 20 miles from NYC, it was a scary time for this high school student. Blackouts, bomb drills, fingerprinted students in case of a bombing, rationing, etc. etc. but nothing like my French and English friends who were right in the middle of the bombing of their countries & had to go to bomb shelters. I never felt it was racial, but yes, after the fact,the U.S. was wrong to do this [intern the Japanese]and that is why Pres. Obama told the Muslims that this would never happen to them. As to dropping the bomb, I have no opinion as there was so much going on at the time, coming out of the Pacific and the European side of the war. We were hearing about so many horrible things happening in Germany and Japan especially. My own husband, being a paratrooper,[fighting in Europe] always considered himself lucky to not have been killed.

Posted by MarylandBill on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 9:57 AM (EST):

With respect Phil, it is not sufficient to simply not intend to kill civilians.  Just War theory generally requires a reasonable attempt to minimize casualties among non-combatants.  Their status under international law is irrelevant to the whole moral question.  I do agree however that their is an unfair emphasis placed on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Osaka and other targets was just as unjustifiable under Catholic moral teaching.

By late 1945, Japan’s navy was destroyed, its air force crippled and much of its army was stuck in China.  Japan itself has few natural resources.  In all probability, America could have blockaded them into submission.

Further, Japan was willing to seek peace in 1945.  It was the harsh terms that the United States required that kept any real negotiations from occurring.  This also is a violation of Catholic Moral teaching.

Finally, there is some doubt that nuclear bombs convinced Japan to surrender.  There is some evidence that it was the Soviet Declaration of War that finally convinced them that they would be unable to hold out for better terms (even they knew in August 1945 that winning the war was impossible).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reasonable attempt to minimize civilian casualties in our strategic bombardment in WWII was definitely made, though to us raised in an age of precision weapons it seems pathetic. Our bombing targets were set forth for each mission. They were legitimate military targets. The problem is that our bombs were so inaccurate that every mission became a matter of “area” rather than “precision” targeting. The technology of the time did not allow for precise targeting. And if there were a number of small factories, shops, etc. scattered throughout the target area the only possible target would be the area itself, guaranteeing a lot of civilian casualties.

The only alternative would be to not engage in aerial bombing at all, since we would inevitably cause the loss of many innocent lives, thus giving Germany and Japan complete protection for their war machine at home as long as it’s surrounded by civilians. The Church has never taught anything like this in its just war doctrine. The Church teaches clearly that non-combatants may never be targeted and that every effort should be made to minimize civilian casualties.

Japan’s official, stated policy up to August 1945 was to fight to the bitter end. Militarily the war was lost in 1944. Everyone knew this, but the national motto was “100 Million Die Together”. Any mention of surrender was an invitation to assassination. Only chance (or divine intervention) prevented military officers from arresting the Emperor and preventing his radio announcement of surrender. Without that imperial declaration, Japan would have endured invasion, starvation, and in the end complete destruction in 1945-46 with the loss of many millions of lives, at least a hundred thousand of them American. But I guess some devout Catholics wouldn’t be wringing their hands 67 years later.

Phil:  I’m not convinced by your arguments.  If the people who made the decision really cared about avoiding loss of civilian life, they could have dropped the bombs on more remote military sites.  The Japanese, being human beings like the rest of us, would have seen the power of the blasts, and would very, very likely have surrendered before those bombs got any closer to their cities.  The mere threat of a bomb like that over Tokyo likely would have ended the war.  You can usually subdue an armed man by showing him a gun, you don’t typically need to shoot him.  Even if there were a few fanatics in Japan that were impervious to reason, I’m positive there were enough reasonable people that the “warning shots” would have resulted in surrender.  And if not, at least you exhausted that possibility before killing countless children.

Allan: The people who made the decision to drop the atomic bombs did care about minimizing the loss of innocent civilian life by our bombing but it was very secondary to the main consideration of minimizing American casualties in an invasion of Japan. A demonstration shot was considered and rejected, I think, because it was thought that it would make no impression on such a fanatical enemy regime that had showed it was ready to fight on to utter destruction. Popular opinion counted for absolutely nothing at this stage of the war, and in the judgment of everyone the Japanese would likely have suffered and died in their millions before being physically overpowered. There was no groundswell movement for peace even possible in the totalitarian bushido police state that was Imperial Japan.

The ethical and moral considerations of this debate were minor compared to the existential question of whether, in 1945, a dozen Okinawas were going to have to take place before Japan surrendered. 

Posted by txlassy on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 11:07 AM (EST):

Sue, MarlandBill is exactly right, my grandmother was talking about the shameful treatment of Japanese Americans.  I am sorry that I didn’t make that clear.  She didn’t think we would have ever dropped it on any of the white European nations.  I, like I imagine most of us here, was not alive during WWII to experience the attitude of the people then, so my grandmother to me is a glimpse into that time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The atomic bomb was conceived, developed, and produced with the clear intent of using it against Nazi Germany, which was understood to be the most dangerous enemy in the war and the most likely to have an atomic weapon program. The Third Reich was defeated before the bomb could be made, and Japan became the default target—which was unexpected to many of the scientists involved, refugees from Europe.

@Phil—The facts about how America conducted the air war over Germany versus Japan contradict you.  The B-17s and B-24s (and smaller bombers) that attacked Germany attempted to make precision attacks.  Granted by modern standards accuracy was miserable, only 1 in 100 bombs (if that) hit its target.  But because those bombers were attacking factories, railroads, docks, etc. the casualties tended to be more limited than attacks by the British whose night time raids attacked entire cities.  In contrast, the B-29 raids over Japan did in fact attack entire cities.  If I remember correctly the aiming point for the Nagasaki bomb was the Catholic Cathedral!
—
No attempts were ever made to negotiate a settlement with the Japanese once the war had started.  Now, I am the last person to defend the Japanese, what they did in China, and to POW’s is beyond criminal.  That being said, when you back an enemy into a corner and give them the choice of destruction or surrender with no assurance of survival, don’t be surprised if he fights to the death.

Posted by Martial Artist on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 10:05 AM (EST):

Phil (or anyone else),

I ask in all sincerity, what is the Church’s teaching on how the morality of actions is ultimately to be judged? In other words, are they judged on their intentions or on their foreseeable results? In light of your comment (that “collateral damage is deplored and must be avoided as much as possible…. The moral imperative is not to deliberately aim at them.), and assuming that it is an accurate statement of magisterial teaching, it is not immediately clear to me how one resolves the question of what to do about an enemy’s warmaking infrastructure that is built (deliberately or not) in intimate proximity to a large civilian population. In fact, one of the possible answers seems almost to invite the enemy to intermingle civilian and military functions in order to discourage attacks.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As far as I know, the morality of an action has to be judged by the actor’s true intent and that is what the Church’s ethical teachings go by. If your intent is to inflict death and destruction on innocents in war you are wrong. If your intent is to destroy enemy military targets and combatants, and there is a certainty that civilian combatants will be killed in your attack, you are obliged to do the utmost to reduce the risk to the non-combatants without compromising or cancelling the legitimate (ethical) attack. But you are not being immoral. Scrupulosity or casuistry can result in the kind of empty post facto hand-wringing you see here, or the kind of enemy “human shield” tactic you outline.

The devil is always in the details. Since Holy Mother Church has allowed, sanctioned, and issued no excommunications to Christians who have ordered or participated in attacks on population centers (“defended cities & fortresses”) and bombardment of military targets in the middle of civilian populations, then it is clear that it is the intent of the attacker that is in question. You often hear the same moral equivalence arguments: “Allied bombs killed more children than Axis bombs, therefore they’re all equally immoral” and the like. Christian moral teaching is clear that there is a big difference based on the intent of the belligerents and this is the basis for the moral calculus.

Actually, the Atomic bomb program was started from the fear that Germany was also going to produce such a bomb.  How we might have used it on Germany is an open question that only God might be able to answer.

The morality of an act is not based solely on the intent of the one committing the act.  The means are also quite important. Minimizing American casualties through the mass slaughter of Japanese Civilians passes the intent test and fail the means test.  The bottom line is we dropped a ruthless and indiscriminate weapon on a population of mostly innocent civilians.  That will never be moral.  Better to lose one’s life and preserve one’s soul than the other way around.

Posted by MarylandBill on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 2:04 PM (EST):

@Phil—The facts about how America conducted the air war over Germany versus Japan contradict you.  The B-17s and B-24s (and smaller bombers) that attacked Germany attempted to make precision attacks.  Granted by modern standards accuracy was miserable, only 1 in 100 bombs (if that) hit its target.  But because those bombers were attacking factories, railroads, docks, etc. the casualties tended to be more limited than attacks by the British whose night time raids attacked entire cities.  In contrast, the B-29 raids over Japan did in fact attack entire cities.  If I remember correctly the aiming point for the Nagasaki bomb was the Catholic Cathedral!
—
No attempts were ever made to negotiate a settlement with the Japanese once the war had started.  Now, I am the last person to defend the Japanese, what they did in China, and to POW’s is beyond criminal.  That being said, when you back an enemy into a corner and give them the choice of destruction or surrender with no assurance of survival, don’t be surprised if he fights to the death.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1)All American bombing missions had targets. Sometimes they were general area targets, especially at night when there was no chance of hitting even a big factory, but there were military targets for every mission (“industrial area” usually).

2) Aiming point for the Nagasaki atomic bomb was not the Cathedral but halfway between two factories. And that was a target of opportunity because there was a momentary opening in cloud cover there.

3)The Potsdam Declaration that was transmitted to Japan gave them the guarantee of limited occupation and left the status of the Emperor pointedly open. Since they were beaten and they knew it, why would a demand for surrender be so unacceptable as to force them to fight on to complete annihilation? they could have sent a partially satisfactory reply asking for retention of the Emperor and agreeing to everything else. Instead they remained silent and tried to get Soviet mediation.

@Phil:  It is not enough that you try to reduce the number of civilian deaths.  A serious effort needs to be made to ensure that the injury done to civilians is not disproportionate to the good that is achieved by the attack.  If such is not the case, then yes, you would be required to cancel the attack.

@MarylandBill: Who determines what is disproportionate? Or the exact nature of the “good” that is achieved by the attack? Or what is a “serious effort”? I agree that an ethical examination of conscience should be made in this regard but I fear that in the midst of battle it would be most perfunctory and perforce self-serving.

There are commenters here who would not allow bombing cities in a war because civilians might get hurt. Why? Because this is 2012 and they have the luxury to consider ethical dilemmas in the abstract. In the real world of 1945, surrounded by carnage of war and with a gigantic new bloodbath looming, no such comfort zone existed.

How about being against bombing cities because it is morally reprehensible regardless of the year?

@Ben: Is war morally reprehensible? Because if it is, then bombing cities, which takes place in war, is not any better or worse morally.

The Church teaches that there is such a thing as just conduct in war (jus in bello). The U.S. armed forces did not have any kind of genocidal shoot-on-sight indiscriminate “kill civilians” rule of engagement during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945, yet more Japanese civilians died there than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, almost all of them killed by our fire. Should we rule out ground combat as morally reprehensible as well?

Yes, you are right, the Cathedral was not the target… it was 500 meters away. 

Area bombing by its very nature is indiscriminate and thus it is hard for me to see how it can be justified under Catholic moral teaching… especially considering the clear condemnation by the Church of deliberately targeting cities.  The presence of military targets in the area, does not, under Catholic teaching , make it legitimate to destroy the entire area if the area also contains large numbers of civilians.

Also lets keep in mind that the situation in August of 1945 was not the situation in 1942 and 1943 when the outcome of the war was still in doubt.  In 1943, thousands upon thousands of American airmen died because the United States refused to engage in area bombing over Germany.  Yet in 1945 when everyone knew it was only a matter of time before Japan was defeated, we had to engage in area bombing over Japan? 

As for the Potsdam declaration… it still called for the unconditional surrender of Japan, the dismemberment of its military and its empire; its occupation (How limited the occupation was, was up to the Allies, not Japan after all) and the prosecution of its war criminals.  While it might have been better than the deal Germany got, it was not exactly an attempt to negotiate a peace.  And note, even you admit that Japan was in fact looking for Soviet mediation, i.e., a negotiated end to the war!

I would say that yes war is morally reprehensible.  I am familiar with jus in bello, but I am not sure of any wars that have really fit the criteria.  World War II could go either way.  So sure,  ground combat is also morally reprehensible.

Was referring to Jus ad bellum in my previous post, got it mixed with jus in bello.  My latin is shaky

I haven’t read all the comments above, forgive me if there are redundant points.  As a starting point, I challenge you to read Richard B. Frank’s book Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire and maintain your conclusion.  Several things you are missing:

1.  You assume the ongoing campaign against Japanese industry was somehow morally superior to the use of atomic bombs, and that this campaign avoided civilian casualties.  You are incorrect.  In point of fact, all the raids against Japan by summer 1945 were fire bombing raids made at low level by B-29s in their hundreds.  The effects of these raids were catastrophic. Because Japanese industry was so dispersed, with thousands of small MFG plants throughout residential areas supporting the war effort, residential areas had to be targeted in order to destroy war industry.  In Tokyo, the fire-bombing of March 9/10 1945 led to the worst firestorm in history, with well over 100,000 dead - possibly as many as 130,000.  This is more than the dead of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.  This destruction was being visited on almost every Japanese city.

2.  The conventional bombing campaign described above took time.  It had been ongoing for months, and would continue for months more in the absence of the the atomic bombs.  While the war continued, 100,000 innocent Chinese and SE Asian civilians were dying - PER MONTH - at the hands of the Japanese.  How many Asians would have to die to avoid the use of the atomic boogeyman?

3.  The invasion of the home islands was going to begin in October 1945, come hell or high water.  There is no indication the Japanese intended to surrender prior to that in absence of the dropping of the atomic bombs.  Even Soviet intervention was not sufficient by itself to bring the Japanese militarists to their senses.  It took the combined effect of dropping of multiple atomic bombs, the ongoing blockade and bombing campaigns, and the Soviet entry in the war to convince them to surrender.  It also required the Emperor’s personal intervention - even then, it was a very near run thing.  The peace faction was almost squashed before the Emperor made his fateful radio address ordering surrender on Aug. 14. The invasion of Japan would have caused more Japanese casualties in a week than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.  You have idea what was intended for the invasion, and don’t want to know, but think the very worst parts of WWI and WWII on steroids.

4. All thinking regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs has been badly distorted by cold war hysteria and general atomic boogeyman fears.  The effects of the weapons, their destructive power, the suffering induced, have been mixed in with fears regarding later, far more powerful weapons.  We also have utterly lost the understanding of just how horrific the day in, day out fighting in the Pacific was, and how badly the leadership of the country wanted it to end, now.  They were responsible for the lives of their citizens - not Japanese citizens, their own.  They had a weapon in their hands that could end the war, almost miraculously, with no further US casualties. At the time, it seemed like a God-send, as perverse as that sounds.  Truman has stated that he knew he would be lynched if word got out he had such a war-ending weapon and failed to use it.  Again, post-war ideals of internationalism and long peaceful relations with Japan have colored thinking on this subject to such a degree it’s now very difficult to put ourselves in the place of those who had to make the decision to drop the bomb.

If you are truly open minded and want to learn, read the Franks book.  It’s the best by far on the subject.

I am not excusing the bombing but it is often overlooked that the planned Soviet invasion was two months ahead of our invasion. Getting the Japanese to surrender before the hammer and sickle got planted on Japanese soil was a concern. Japan would have been another Korea

Food for thought—Dwight Eisenhower
“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.. “

Tantumblogo,
The idea that we had already done something just as bad (the firebombing) and might likely do it again does make any kind of moral case for the bomb.  It only makes a case against indiscriminate firebombing for the same reasons.

@Maryland Bill “There are commentaters here who would not allow bombing cities in a war because civilians might get hurt. Why? Because this is 2012 and they have the luxury to consider ethical dilemmas in the abstract. In the real world of 1945, surrounded by carnage of war and with a gigantic new bloodbath looming, no such comfort zone existed.”

That is the best comment on this blog so far. Most of you did not live during that time and have read books on WWII. Too bad there is not a WWII veteran on this blog. Have any of you read about the Kamikaze? Re-written history is often not completely factual. My husband and I were watching a commentary on the Battle of Bastogne [or the Bulge] and there was no snow when actually they had a blizzard and slept in fox holes with the snow coming down. The Southern France Campaign is hardly mentioned in history books, yet it was a very important one and an extension of Normandy. You have to have been a part of the fighting in this war at the time to know what was really happening. You can’t sit on your sofa’s and decide what they should or should not have done. As my husband said, “war is hell and no one wins, everyone loses”. 
Read what Tantumblogo said again…the Pacific Theater was horrific. “The bomb” was horrible, war is horrible. A friend of mine in Belgium is still grateful to the U.S. for saving them from the Nazi’s and the same with my English son-in-law and my French friend who married a WWII Vet. They know what the U.S. did to save them and I am sure there are many of the Pacific Theater who would feel the same.  Remember that from the beginning of time God let us know that there is evil in this world.

The video at the link to “this video by Bill Whittle” has changed and is now about the president.

Sue(old), I too have read some WWII books, enough to be convinced that war is indeed “hell”, as you say.  In what way does this justify using weapons of incredible power against civilian population centers?  Do not such actions merely serve to make war more hellish still?  You can’t simply wave it away by telling people “you and your comfy couch weren’t there don’t you know that war is hell?”

Yes, the video linked in the article is not about the atomic bombings. Pat, please update the link.

Here is the URL for an excellent (and surprisingly balanced for lefty PBS) documentary on the end of the war in the Pacific including the Bomb:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/pacific/player/

@Pat: There is no “moral case” to justify bombing cities, conventional or nuclear. There is justification, however, based on the principles of jus in bello maintained by the Catholic Church, for using military force when innocent civilian casualties cannot be avoided. Such was the case in WWII in the strategic bombardment of Japan and Germany. Dropping the bomb with the intention to kill as many civilians as possible—a terror tactic—would be illicit under the moral law. But this was not the case.

@Matt: Again—Hiroshima was a legitimate military target, headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Area Army coordinating the defense of Kyushu which was going to be invaded in a few months. Thousands of troops were killed along with communications, staff, and support personnel, and hundreds of small factories doing war work in the city were destroyed when the bomb was dropped. That is the justification for bombing it. Moreover, all Japanese cities were showered with leaflets in July, leaflets which named the targets slated for destruction in the near future. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the list, giving civilians advance notice to get out of the target area.

You seem to be saying that a civilian presence/a population center should preclude any bombing attack. That way of thinking only works in the classroom or the combox. In real life an unscrupulous enemy would line the invasion beaches with schoolchildren or put little old ladies on the factory roofs and laugh at us as we abort our bomb runs, firing at our planes the whole time.

@Matt: I just think this blog is unnecessary. You all are sitting on sofas deciding what is just or unjust in a war that they never lived through. I lived through it and was grateful no bombs fell on the U.S. I know vets, my husband being one. Isn’t it well known that WWII vets don’t like talking about the war? Why? because they are the ones who went through it. They are the ones whose leaders told them to drop bombs, shoot the enemy, etc. etc. They did what they were told to do. That is being in the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard. You do as you are told and here all you couch potatoes are letting these brave men feel that they did a horrible things. Which is worse, dropping a bomb or shooting with a rifle. Do you think these vets had good memories of the war? [I still remember my 9 yr. old son say to his Dad “did you ever kill a man in the war? and to this day I can cry over the look on his face and he paused and said “son, I can honestly say that I never pointed my gun at another human being and shoot him…I did shoot at the enemy.”] Even when bombs are dropped on factories and such, there will always be civilians dying.
Did God tell us that there would be wars and rumors of wars? Did God tell us what is justified or not., or did the Catholic Church. The same Church who was complicit in the Dirty War in Argentina and other wars. I personally am not second-guessing what our leaders did during the WWII. They did the best they could under the circumstances and the ground soldier obeyed just as our soldiers today are doing. They were protecting our country and our soldiers.  I am not running the Catholic Church down, as I love the CC, but even the Church leaders did things they maybe should not have done.  You do the best you can under the circumstances. 
I don’t understand what the purpose of this blog is…is it Iran?

Great respect to you, Pat.

Tragically, the historical event has helped to form, or rather deform, the consciences of generations.  One cannot affirm the bombing without harming one’s moral formation.  A Gallup poll from 1945 showed that 85% of Americans approved of the bombing.  As of 2009 61% believed the bombing was right - and all Christian denominations polled higher than the average!

I’ve written on this aspect of the bombings here: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/truman_was_right

I’ve since located a video of Bishop Fulton Sheen speaking briefly of the bombings as a turning point ‘why the world has changed’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZgWOmnSoIY&feature=player_embedded#t=272s

There’s also a contemporaneous comment from Sheen (1946) - one of the few to publicly decry the bombings so close to the actual event. See page 12 of this document:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RwwAAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f;=false

It was the absolutely wrong thing to do. We had complete air superiority. And conventional bombers could have done as much damage. Just read about the thousand bomber raids against Germany during the war. These weapons were dropped under combat conditions to prove the atomic bomb existed and to assess its effects on people. Period. Look up the American soldiers who not long after the war were forced to march toward an atomic blast or to be in trenches near the blast area. Our own men were used as guinea pigs. Look up the National Association of Atomic Veterans.

Help make a movie about the bombing of Nagasaki, and future saint Takashi Nagai. In fact, there’s a casting call in England for shooting in August.

“The total destruction of hundreds of thousands of non-aggressors can never be morally justified.” Bloodguilt. Justice is predicated on intent. Consent of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to support the war made of the dropping of the BOMB an act of self-defense.
Some Japanese were interned in the US. Protective Custody? Yes. Those of German descent could not be so easily identified. 
Having been raised in the era of the war, I am familiar with the anger against German and Japanese people and the fear that they might be spies,(Loose lips sink ships) or relatives of soldiers killing our men. The anger, fear and hatred was real, palpable. We cheered the B29s, the flying boxcars flying out of Lakehurst. We threw stones at the German boys who lived on the next block (They became teachers in our public school)We weren’t told about the resistance in Germany or France and had to learn of it much later. John Basilone of Bridgewater was killed. There he lay in the sand bleeding to death, making the sand pink. One innocent American life spared by the BOMB was worth every life of the civilized barbarians.

“We had complete air superiority.” When you are flying a bomber and you have watched five of your buddies go down in flames it is very hard to feel “air superiority”
My God-father took a bullet that grazed his heart when he was stationed in the Phillipines. They were the “GREATEST GENERATION”. Have you ever read the book TO HELL AND BACK written by the most decorated soldier in the war, Audie Murphy? Churches were filled back then, even at vespers at 7 PM. We saved tin foil to shred and misguide German radar. Rosie the Riveter worked second shift in the airplane factory and women flew planes to support the war effort. We had ration points for sugar, coffee, milk and we prayed for our loved ones. And they died.

“Because the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still haunt us and arguably have kept us and others from ever resorting to the use of Nuclear weapons since.”
No, Maryland Bill. I believe that the BOMB was justified. How many veterans are claiming that the BOMB was immoral, the veterans who endangered their lives to bring Justice and sanity back to the world? Americans are having their chains jerked by revisionists and historians with an agenda to write their own opinion into history and maybe remove Veterans Day and Memorial Day. They like having power over the common man. Again, I ask how many veterans of World War II claim that the BOMB was immoral?

“when you back an enemy into a corner and give them the choice of destruction or surrender with no assurance of survival, don’t be surprised if he fights to the death.”

Maryland Bill, the Japanese culture demanded suicide bombers Kamikazes to crash into air craft carriers and supply vessels and bonsai(sp). Please do not blame Americans for the culture of the Japanese. Did not the leader of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor commit suicide? Without God, the Japanese worshipped their ancestors and were pleased to join them honorably by dying for Japan.
Yeah, Bill, it was all our fault, we should have given over Hawaii quietly and avoided all this fuss. I have to say that the Japanese were crazier than Hitler.

Continuing on what Mary said—there does seem to be an awful lot of ethnocentrism going on here, presumptuously imputing to then Japanese culture a Western mindset and morality that they did not have.

The bomb was actually developed for use against Germany, if necessary.  But Germany, with its Western Civilization, would have, and did, surrender when the end became clear.  But the non-Western Japanese did not have the same moral code or, more especially, honor code.  Their’s was much closer to a culture of death.

The honor of a good death before the dishonor of surrender.  The honor of continuing to fight, continuing to be a warrior, even when it became senseless and death of self was assured.

The overwhelming horror and devastation of a single device provided an opportunity though for surrendering without dishonor.

In the normal course of things, by then Japanese cultural standards, it was dishonorable to surrender.
Under the warrior’s honor code, it was dishonorable for Japanese soldiers, sailors, and pilots to surrender.  Not only did Kamikazes crash their planes into Allied ships, but Japanese pilots who had been shot down were known to take their own lives rather than be captured, sometimes exploding a grenade when about to be rescued from the sea by Americans.
Conversely, they considered that those Allied soldiers who surrendered to them to be without honor and unworthy of respect.  By the Japanese ethos, if the Allied soldiers had any honor, they would have rather committed suicide then surrender.
And, thus, those who surrendered being without honor or worthy of respect, the Japanese did not treat Allied POWs with any honor or respect.  Rather, they treated them with the contempt that they thought that the prisoners deserved.
Until the use of overwhelming and horrific force, on a scale never before seen, surrender was not an option for the Japanese.  And even when that force was used upon them, it did not offend their Japanese standards and their culture of death.

Since nuking Japan is declared immoral and full invasion unnecessary, what’s the suggested alternative?  A blockade that would have starved 20 times as many people as those killed in the bombings?

**“One innocent American life spared by the BOMB was worth every life of the civilized barbarians.”**

Wow!  What a gut-wrenching topic.  Some of these comments are hard to read for me as I stand kind of one foot on each side, as I am married to a Japanese man, and have lived here in Japan for nearly 18 years.  There are real human beings on both sides, and I can’t help but cringe when reading sentiments like the one presented in the quote above. I have wrestled with this topic a lot in my mind since marrying into a Japanese family.

Just a couple of weeks ago at our parish, a group of WWII survivors gave a talk to the children of our parish.  One woman survived the bombing of Tokyo along with her mother and three younger siblings. Her third sibling was born with brain damage because of her mother’s inability to get enough food to eat during the pregnancy.  She told us about how they managed to survive after the fires destroyed everything, having precious little to eat.  She was not bitter.  She was not blaming anyone.  She simply wanted to convey the fact that war is horrible, and we should desire and pray for peace.

Anyway, I was just struck by some of the comments that paint the Japanese society at that time as some kind of barbaric society in general.  Yes, the tactics of the regime were barbaric, but it’s easy to paint the society as a whole as something inhuman when they are just some “foreign” people on the other side of the world.  It all feels very different when you see a real Japanese person who was living at that time sitting in front of you at Mass every Sunday.  Sweeping comments like “in the culture of Japan at the time, every man, woman, and child would have resisted an Allied invasion even if they were reduced to using stick and stones” leave me thinking about that dear woman at my church, and my mother-in-law, who saw the flash of light from the Nagasaki bomb from her home about an hour away.  They aren’t just faceless, nameless “barbarians” to me, and therefore statements like that just don’t ring true, and sound an awful lot like propaganda, really.

I appreciate this post, Matt.  It’s not an easy topic.

Sue in Japan,

I too am married to a Japanese person (though not for as long as you have yet!) and all these comments by people talking about how all the Japanese would act if we hadn’t nuked them don’t ring true to my experience.  They sound like justifications for a grave evil. 

The argument “they did the best they could at the time” is bogus.  Better to do nothing than commit an atrocity.  There is always another option.

I think a lot of you people forget about why the bomb was dropped…ever hear about PEARL HARBOR…..America didnt start the war, Japan did

I am from the Philippines, one of the countries colonized by Japan during WWII. Despite the atrocities they committed in my country, I don’t think dropping the bomb was justified either. They killed innocent civilians who were working for the good of their country, wouldn’t you do the same? Even if your country was in the wrong, these people did not cause the war, neither did they necessarily want it. They were born Japanese and so they worked for their country.

In high school, we had an exchange student from Japan. They were not educated about what their ancestors did during the war. And so she was shocked when she came here and found out. She apologized profusely for the war waged by her country. Japanese are good people, that some were willing to sacrifice their lives during last year’s nuclear disaster should be more than enough proof of that.

No offense meant to Americans, I am just stating historical facts, a lot of innocent Filipinos were also devastated by American bombs. Especially in our capital city, Manila. It was bombard by American bomber planes, despite the fact that there were more civilians and even Americans there than there were Japanese.

War brings out the worst on all sides. And I don’t see how any violence for any reason is justified.

Maria: War is hell. America fought the war to defend itself from the diabolic Japanese war machine. If the Americans had not won the war, the Japanese people would not have the warmth and compassion of which you speak. They wouldl still be indoctrinated by their insane masters. The end of he war alone redeems the BOMB.
**“One innocent American life spared by the BOMB was worth every life of the civilized barbarians.”**

That was then. This is now.
Do you know that even as children in grammar school, we helped rebuild Japan and Germany and Italy. Collected were used and broken nylon stocking which were turned into dolls and butterflies and things. “Made in Japan” was greater than “Made in China” is now. There is a balance in nature and in God’s good Justice. There is no count, but I promise you that America may have saved as many lives in Japan and Germany and Italy after the war through the Marshal Plan and through good will than was taken in the war. America saved more people from hunger, sickness and death than the persons obliterated by the War. America is the only conqueror to rebuild their enemies. (except maybe Cyrus the Enlightened, who listened to God and freed the Israelites). If this does not exhibit and inspire good will what will?

As you can see Mary DeVoe was brought up at the same time as I was and “we were there”. As she said about the WWII veterans, how many are complaining. Our vets never complained about anything. There are so few left today as they are in their late eighties.
  As someone mentioned above, they are thinking of making a movie about this in England….no wonder this has come up again.
  You can bet they will make the U.S. out to be the enemy on this one.  As to the Japanese, at the time they would do anything for their leader, mostly kill themselves. They were ruthless…as Bender said. 
This is to Sue in Japan:  My nephew married a Japanese girl. They are now in their early 50’s. She is a beautiful girl…I attended their wedding years ago and met her family. They are wonderful people..they love living here in the U.S.  We are not talking of the Japanese “after WWII” we are talking about the Japanese during WWII. The woman in your Church is right by saying war is horrible. It is and many innocent people are affected by it, whether the U.S. Japan or Germany.  Mary DeVoe and I know what was going on at the time.  As I said before: WHENEVER HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN, IT BENDS THE WAY THE AUTHOR WANTS IT TO GO…MEANING THE TRUTH IS BENT.  This generation today, who follow what Pres. Obama believes, that the U.S. has done “bad things” and he apologized to the whole world for it. Bah Humbug! If it were not for the United States, most of Europe would be under Nazi rule and the same goes for the Eastern world who bowed to their leader at the time. Yes, “Sue from Japan”, the Japanese and the Germans are good people but at the time, their governments were brutal. Remember they attacked us first. 
I shall say it once again, you educated people of today have fallen for the untruths taught by your college professors who did not live at the time and who teaches falsehoods from books. As my ninth grade business law teacher said “DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ AND HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE”  Today they should add:  OR ANYTHING YOU SEE ON T.V. OR THE INTERNET.  You bloggers were not there, you were not living at the time…why do you think they want to make a movie today? Because the WWII vets are just about all gone.. and will not be around to refute what they say. Also remember that Hollywood is behind this Administration and will not get any flack from them on this film they are planning to make.

@“Sue in Japan” Sue, my husband fought in Europe, he was a paratrooper. When they jumped in Southern France, he had not slept for 36 hrs. and was on rations. When he found camp, all he could think about was food and sleep, he was exhausted. The Sgt. told him to guard a German prisoner. He was angry at this but he did as he was told. He said when he finally calmed down he looked sideways at the prisoner and thought “oh, my God, he is just a kid like me and he also have parents who are worried about him”. With that thought he walked to the fire, poured a cup of coffee and handed it to the German prisoner. What I am getting at is that some soldiers can think this way but some can’t. The Japanese or the Germans were no different. People are the same all over the world, some good, some bad. That is just the way it is. As my Mom taught me as a child when I overheard someone say that Germans were bad people and my Mom told me “Sue, the Germans are good people, it is their Government who does bad things.”  That is the way it is, people don’t declare war, governments do and then people sit back and argue about it? I agree with the Japanese lady in your church, we should all pray about this the atrocities in this world being done today…humans never seem to learn from the past.

Dredging things up from the past does not help. As to Bishop Sheen and what he said, all religious people talk that way, even the Pope today.  The fact of the whole matter is:  War is hell, it should never happen, but God said it would because there is evil in this world…remember?  Evil always fights to “control”.  When at war, people get killed and along with the soldiers are innocent people who get killed…that is war, how they get killed does not matter, what does matter is that they do get killed and it is all evil. We always have to fight against evil, otherwise it will control everyone. The Church talks against evil all the time, and it should, yet it is still there. All that is left is prayer because as I said in my statement above, it is the governments who declare war, not the people. As my husband [who fought in WWII} said “NO ONE WINS A WAR, EVERYONE LOSES”.  Take it from a veteran, they know what they are talking about.

Sue(old) Thank you. Your words need to be heard.

The cathedral was most likely either the IP (inital point) or a confirmation point. The IP is the point at which the “bombing run” is actually begun with the bombardier controlling the plane from that point (in WWII using the Norden bombsight) until the bombs are released.

American bomber attacks in WWII very carefully avoided striking cathedrals for at least one very practical reason (not ruling out other reasons). Namely, they make excellent navigational waypoints and IPs because they are much more distinctive from the air than almost any other structure or other visual reference located in a city. In the latter 1980s I was on official travel to Hamburg for a very small NATO conference, and the conference members all had dinner in the 1-1/2 city blocks of Hamburg which were not demolished during the war. The restaurant was in a very old building on the partially old block, across the street from St. Peter’s Kirche, the Lutheran cathedral whose entire block survived the war. It was two valuable as a reliable IP for bombing runs for the Allies to ever drop a bomb too near it and unintentionally destroy it.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Why dwell on the past, which can’t be changed? Why doesn’t this article focus on the positive?

Because, unlike the race-baters, people today still try to justify the bombings (thereby admitting that in some future instance their use could be justified).  I don’t see too many defenders of chattel slavery in these parts.

The U.S. was not out to rack up a body count, it was determined to end the war.

By racking up a body count.  One of the stated objectives of the bombing was, in fact, to create so much destruction of not just military targets within a city, but the obliteration of entire cities, as to render the Japanese leadership unable to resist surrender for fear of further mass destruction.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no more or less military targets than Annapolis, D.C., Pittsburgh (steel mills, or what’s left of them) or Houston (ports and refineries).

I was given to understand that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the high CATHOLIC populations in those cities.  Comments?

A demonstration shot was considered and rejected, I think, because it was thought that it would make no impression on such a fanatical enemy regime that had showed it was ready to fight on to utter destruction.

Exactly.  That’s why claims that the US did not intentionally target civilians are false.  We needed more “shock and awe.”

Regarding internment camps, Japanese Americans were not the only Americans held in Internment camps. Italian Americans were also held. See: www.italianhistorical.org/page19a.html

We saved tin foil to shred and misguide German radar. Rosie the Riveter worked second shift in the airplane factory and women flew planes to support the war effort. We had ration points for sugar, coffee, milk and we prayed for our loved ones.

Which, by your own reasoning, makes you a supporter of the war effrot and therefore a Japanese bomber would have been justified in obliteraing you and your city to save one Japanese soldire’s life.  According to you.

I wasn’t making the point, Pat, I was referring to your seeming embrace of a strategic bombing campaign targeted at industry as a life-saving alternative.  Sorry, that doesn’t work.

I think your decision is based on emotion. Eisenhower was completely out of the loop on the Pacific theater, and had his own reasons to oppose dropping the bomb - he was about to be made Army COS and saw his budget getting gutted with a separate, atomic-bomb equipped USAF (guess what - he was right).  That was a major factor in Leahy’s on-again, off-again position on the bomb.

You didn’t address any of my other points, especially the ongoing deaths of innocent Asians. Any “more humane” approach to ending the war - which would actually have been less humane and caused more US and Japanese deaths - would have caused more hundreds of thousands of innocent Asians to die.  I can’t believe how callous you are, just so you can claim a false moral high ground.

Another factor I left out was the rate of Japanese deaths from starvation already underway with the total destruction of the Japanese transport network - mass starvation was just starting to set in when the war ended.  Had the war lasted another 6 months, its possible 500,000-1 million Japanese would have starved to death.  Again, the bomb, quickly ending the war, was the profoundly humane thing to do.

All the logical arguments are on the side of using the bomb.  It is the emotional arguments that are not. 

Here’s an emotional counter-argument - my uncle was waiting in the Philippines to invade Japan.  He and about 8 million other Americans were utterly ecstatic that they would not have to go through the hell of another Okinawa x 1000.

Here is how you would have ended the war, though you won’t admit it. To spare your conscience, you would have left the militarists in power.  Period.

@New Catholic:  Wow, I am astounded by what you wrote.  I was born 1927, attended High School 1941-1945 [during WWII] My parents were born in Italy and I never, ever heard of the internment of Germans & Italians. Never heard it from my parents, teachers, etc. My two older sisters worked at a debarkation camp and my bro. was in Saipan during the war.  I just went into the site you mentioned & could not believe Joe DiMaggio’s dad was one of them because he was a fisherman in Calif. As they say, you learn something every day, even at my age. Thanks for mentioning it.  Wonder how they picked and chose? I was born in upstate NY not far from NYC…had relatives in NYC and Staten Island and they never mentioned it either. None of them were interned.

**mass starvation was just starting to set in when the war ended.  Had the war lasted another 6 months, its possible 500,000-1 million Japanese would have starved to death**
___________
.
The Japanese could have surrendered before then.
.
The Japanese could have surrendered without dropping the bombs.  They could have surrendered before the bombs were dropped.  BUT THEY DIDN’T.
.
The Japanese could have surrendered before Okinawa.  BUT THEY DIDN’T. The Japanese could have surrendered after Okinawa.  BUT THEY DIDN’T.
.
The Japanese could have surrendered before or after other cites were fire-bombed and carpet-bombed with conventional weapons.  BUT THEY DIDN’T.
.
The Japanese could have, would have, should have, etc. a lot of things.  BUT THEY DID NOT.  The one thing that they did was to keep committing war upon the United States and to not surrender and capitulate when they had a chance to avoid the nuclear destruction that they had been warned about.
.
If President Truman had a gut-wrenching moral decision to make that we might argue the morality of today from the squishy comfort of our intact homes and fat bellies, this much is clear—IF it was immoral for Truman to order the bombs dropped, the far greater immoral act was for the Japanese to refuse to surrender and thereby avoid such destruction.
.
The decision to have the bombs dropped were in the hands of the Japanese as much as, if not more than, in the hands of Truman.

@Bender: You are correct, thanks for explaining the way you did, as that is what happened.

@ Bender & Sue (old), respectfully:
.
Perhaps a helpful way to deal with this perplexing problem is to reflect on two clues regarding mankind’s encounters with diverse evils: 1) John Paul II’s exposition via EV 73 (Gospel of Life) that “limiting evil” is distinct from choosing a “lesser evil”, and 2) the significance of the End Scenario with Satan present at the General Judgment.
.
Re 1), EV 73: Given that complete-abrogation of pro-abortion law is often legislatively impossible, a Catholic legislator of suitable reputation on the issue of child-killing abortion can morally propose an abortion *reduction-only* law which limits the amount of ongoing grave evil—*provided* the proposed wording does not itself approve *even a single procured abortion!* The lesson: the crucial proviso emphasizes that Omniscient God never defers to human assertions of a presumed necessity to occasionally do evil in order to achieve a great good, for God is Perfect in ALL His ways.
.
Re 2), Satan at the General Judgment:  Satan would love to be able to humiliate God before multi-billions of sheep on Judgment Day: “See, little-god that you are, you couldn’t manage earthly affairs without some of MY brew!” The Satan lesson is that no “reasoning” can be valid-moral-reasoning which would logically allow Satan to humiliate God over supposed “necessary exceptions” to Romans 3:8.  Given that moral problems can get quite complex, God designed the human intellect to grasp, for one example, how the rightly-applied “Double-Effect” principle does NOT undermine Romans 3:8.
.
On the one hand, Christians who justify large-scale killings like Hiroshima & Nagasaki (totally indiscriminate killings) and Dresden & Tokyo (partially indiscriminate) by casting those cases as “very special circumstances” probably seldom considered that God knew before they were born everything they would say and everything they would omit. Unfortunately for them, “intent” is definitely not the flexible “moral-variable” they would like it to be, though intent does have its own valid role.
.
On the other hand, war is reluctantly allowed by God under certain circumstances, including war with limited “collateral damage” which is not an *automatic* intrinsic evil condemned by the magisterium—unlike procured abortion. Yet such damage is a grave matter requiring at least thorough prudential-judgments. Though not intrinsically a *numbers-game*, the degree of evil will depend on the numbers of non-direct-combatants involved.  Non-theologian President Truman faced several different and immense sets of numbers of deaths & casualties – in choosing between atomic and conventional ways. In such an unusually extreme and complex case, we cannot judge personal culpability (distinct from the act itself) before God even though he took the *always intrinsically-evil path of totally indiscriminate killing and maiming in large numbers of non-direct combatants*.
.
God knew from His creation of “free will” and from His desire that faith in Him be paramount, that all types of evil would come about, including heartbreaking collateral damage in war and otherwise in persecutions. Because a free society IS VITAL to both mankind and God, He allows prudential judgments to be made about accepting collateral damage, subject to the risk of culpability rising rapidly to objectively-mortal-sin levels for incidents like the infamous cases already cited.
.
Thankfully, God does not accommodate hostage-takers seeking to *easily control* society by tying our hands absolutely against collateral damage!
.
The whole question of modern “drone-based” warfare is one saturated with prudential judgments made extra difficult by borders and unique collateral damage problems. Indeed we can’t straightforwardly apply the method for EV 73, in part because the victim-situations are vastly different on a case by case basis as well as on a procedural basis (deliberative legislative vs. those elusive wartime windows-of-opportunity for surely taking out a very effective enemy).
.
So, if Phil is a different-nation enemy leader *at war* with the U.S.A. and known to be a clear and present danger to the security of our freedoms, it seems not mortally sinful to total his house to get him even though his family is with him and will likely also be killed though not intentionally—given that further waiting would unacceptably increase grave risk to our country engaged in a Just War with Phil’s aggressor-country and at a truly critical moment in the two-nation war. This statement is not a license to use armed drones in loose ways
.
It is true even in civil cases that the innocent suffer, for example, when a business is legitimately closed down by the government in a fair and necessary manner. Innocent workers and stockholders suffer. Though they are mainly inconvenienced, it serves to illustrate that God does allow some innocent to suffer due to endless interconnections in modern society.
.
I am teachable; please act on that in this forum should you think I need your help, but not by asking a series of questions as I am also very busy. I think I’ll recognize truth if presented well.

Like Mark Shea today, you’re accusing Harry Truman of dropping the bomb with the purpose of slaughtering civilians “indiscriminately”.  This is a grave injustice against Truman and is a left-wing rewrite of history so obviously implausible that only a person of the modern era would fall for it.  Hiroshima was a rally point for Japanese troops, a military target.  Bombs in the 1940s were not laser guided and broadcasting live on CNN like the ones we used in Iraq in 1991.  You couldn’t drop a precision bunker-busting smartbomb and guarantee where it would hit.  We bombed whole cities in Europe and in Japan based on the idea that their industrial capacity was somewhere in those cities.  Killing innocents was not the purpose of this action.

Pat Archbold

Thank God Almighty that Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea do not speak infallibly.  They at times think and act like they do.

“Knowing the Catholic (my) position, my friend tried to find the loophole and I admit that I would prefer to have him find one for me.” 

Can you produce any official Church document showing that your opinion is the same as the Catholic Church’s.  As far as I know the Church has no official proclamation about the dropping of the bombs.  Simply because you agree with Jimmy Akin, or some theologians, or are swayed by their arguments doesn’t make any one of you right.

“I know that the stated Allied goal was the unconditional surrender of the Japanese, but the real goal, the moral goal, was to eliminate the ability of the Japanese to make war against their neighbors and us. If our air superiority had the ability to cripple the Japanese manufacturing capability through conventional means to the point where the Japanese people must resist an invasion with stick and stones, the makes a case that invasion is then unnecessary. It is true that the Japanese might not have surrendered under such conditions, but that containment of the Japanese war-making ability was possible, without dropping the bomb.  Maybe not quick, maybe not easy, but necessary.”

You seem to make the assumption that, had the allies simply stopped Japanese war production everything would be okay.  But the allies had learned from WWI.  Germany had been allowed to rebuild on it’s own and quickly built up it’s military and WWII followed.  The allies were not going to make that mistake again.  There fore Germany and Japan had to be occupied, there for until surrender invasion was necessary.  Part of the objective was that neither Germany or Japan would be able to build militaries that would again threaten the world. So containment of the Japanese war making ability was only one of the steps to Japan never rebuilding their military again.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Wednesday,

“The immemorial teaching of the Church is that we can never deliberately take innocent human life.  Period.  Firing a WMD at a civilian population center is (and we knew it was) precisely such an act.  We’ve struggled ever since to justify that intrinsically unjustifiable act by ends-justify-means arguments that have been condemned since Paul wrote Romans 3:8.”

It’s been established that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.  So the killing of “innocent” civilians is the fault or responsibility of the government that installed military head quarters and manufacturing and supporting activities in highly populated areas.  Put the deaths of Japanese people, military and otherwise where it belongs, on the Japanese emperor and the Japanese military.  Who is this “We’ve struggled” you refer to?  I know no one who thinks that the dropping of the bombs was immoral or wrong, other than those few on the internet, who I don’t really know.

Pat Archbold, Jimmy Akin, and Mark Shea….

Thank you Mark for bring in the abortion issue.  We should have no compassion for women who have an abortion.  We should just throw them in jail for life for murdering their child.  It doesn’t matter that they were coerced, intimidated, had no good choice, etc…. They are guilty.  They are the just as bad as the war criminals.  Is this your stance?  If not, why not?

Posted by MarylandBill on Wednesday,

“It was the harsh terms that the United States required that kept any real negotiations from occurring.”

The terms that the Japanese would accept, or proposed, all included Japan maintaining a military which was unacceptable to the U.S.

@ Joe Clark (?)
Joe, if you’re commenting on my Jul 27, 2012 7:57 AM (EST) Post, your accusations are way off base. Kindly re-read and give special attention to each word in that comment for clues as to how my words do not judge Truman’s conscience. Only God can do that infallibly.
.
“Non-theologian President Truman faced several different and immense sets of numbers of deaths & casualties—in choosing between atomic and conventional ways. In such an unusually extreme and complex case, we cannot judge personal culpability (distinct from the act itself) before God even though he took the *always intrinsically-evil path of totally indiscriminate killing and maiming in large numbers of non-direct combatants*”.
.
It is possible to deliberately back a very wrong choice – one that an appropriate Authority declares is always gravely intrinsically evil—and yet not personally sin at the mortal-sin level, before God, yes, even in the gravest cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  However, when one hugely ERRS like that, one almost always commits *at least some level of sin*—normally related to not having developed sufficiently the virtue of Prudence which guides conscience.  President Truman truly Erred in his decision but WE can’t know his personal level of culpability in one of History’s most challenging and complex decisions ever encountered!  God knows and that’s sufficient.
.
Generally, wrong decisions tend to be very rare with typically easier cases of conscience-evaluations of gravely intrinsically-evil choices, where mortally sinning is more easily evident and prevalent.  If not, God messed up in His design of human conscience for discerning evil.  So, what is the explanation for President Truman’s Big Error besides its complexity?
.
The Catholic Church teaches that Prudence—“the *charioteer* of the virtues”—“guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure” (CCC1806). However, 1806’s “without error” phrase sounds like it *easily* makes us infallible in applying moral principles in particular cases—until you read related paragraphs on Prudence and realize that the “without error” implies an ultimate degree of perfection in Prudence that perhaps few attain. Heaven is full of imperfect people like me and Harry.
.
Knowing that God can get good out of never-wanted-evil, methinks God may have allowed this early horrific example to show mankind just how bad life on earth could get if we don’t heed psalm 127:1 and “hire” the right kind of human “builders” (politicians), our latest chance being November 6. Psalm 127:1—“Unless the Lord Builds the House (society), those who build it (their way) Labor in Vain” (i.e., the society FAILS even as we are now failing). Notice how little we hear in the campaigns thus far of stern warnings to our candidates by respected citizens from all precincts that we *do expect* our candidates to tell us how they will follow God THE Builder. If the silence continues, expect your families to suffer needlessly, perhaps for more than one generation.
.
I was fortunate to be 25 feet from Harry in ’48 as a very young “newspaper boy” picking up his papers on Main St. in Pittsburgh when smiling-Harry’s open convertible sped by. Here are excerpts on Harry Truman, the imperfect man who also did a lot of good:
.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/truman.html
.
Considering the wide range of responses in this forum – this far out from 1945 – we can appreciate that the scenarios in 1945 were UNPRECEDENTED -STRESS- MONSTERS especially for the final-decider – President Harry Truman—for whom no previous case of such extensively inter-connected horrors accompanying either choice (atomic or not) was available to confidently guide Baptist but non-theologian Truman to utterly reject the total destruction of most of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

@ Don
Posted by Don on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 6:11 PM (EST):
.
Don to Pat Archbald:
“Can you produce any official Church document showing that your opinion is the same as the Catholic Church’s.  As far as I know the Church has no official proclamation about the dropping of the bombs.”
.
You seem not to be a Catholic for you would then likely know that Vatican Council II, though not a “*defining* Council”, can nevertheless teach existing truth infallibly as in Gaudium et Spes, # 80: “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.” The teaching is intended to apply to all physical WMD as there are several types, including ones that even leave buildings undamaged yet the population destroyed and/or maimed. Were it necessary to “define”, the wording would be more specific. It isn’t necessary, for the inhabitants are the prime concern.
.
It would be insulting to God for anyone to assert that the above teaching-statement can be legitimately circumvented by claiming that the aim is really only to destroy the direct combatants while the rest is unavoidable collateral damage. As noted previously, God tolerates no “Total War” attitudes toward “collateral damage”.
.
Consult “Veritatis Splendor” by John Paul II to better understand the proper role of “intent” in moral decision making. Also, Romans 3:8—‘do no evil that *good* may come’—excludes doing anything in conflict with the above Vatican II statement. That different unwanted evils could occur in late WWII, re prisoners and Asians held by the Japanese if we took the longer, non-atomic path to end the war, does not excuse our violating Romans 3:8.
.
Other moral truths are also taught infallibly by the Church without “defining” being invoked or needed and without the pope having to speak “ex cathedra”,  meaning “from the Chair of Peter”— an example of the “Extraordinary Magisterium in operation. Indeed the Church’s constant teaching that marital contraception is an intrinsic evil that is objectively grievously offensive to God who authors both the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage —illustrates the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in operation. It is characterized by the bishops maintaining communion with the Pope.
.
The “Genius” in God’s design of the Magisterium shows in the long term stability of the Church for 2 + Millennia, under great upheavals,  and onward to the End of this World. 

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not great sins by those who made the decision, despite the fact that they were wrongful acts.

The reason is that, given the state of understanding at the time, they could only have been known to be borderline—risking moral wrong—at the time, but not to have been actually wrong.

It’s a bit like the Church countenancing and encouraging the torture or execution of dissenters in the Middle Ages. Not right: But our understanding of such things has evolved since then. They were men of their times. That we know how evil it was, now, does not mean that we can assume that they had the same degree of willful sin, the same level of guilt, as we would if we went back in time and did the same thing.

You guys still at it?

@William F. Folger: By the very statement you quote, the atomic bombings were licit according to the Church (though as deplorable/regrettable as any other act of war that results in civilian casualties). Please read G&S 80 again. “Aimed at indiscriminately” is the key phrase. It is the intent of the actor that is crucial—not that many noncombatants may be killed, but that they were intended to be killed, that the infliction of death and destruction upon civilians was the objective. Terror bombing is illicit under the moral law. But this was not a terror bombing.

Hypothetical case: Iran builds a massive WMD plant under the streets of Tehran. Bombing it in a preventive strike is not illicit under the moral law, though we know that thousands/tens of thousands of innocents will surely die. 

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not mortal sins. They were horrible events in a horrible war.

My goodness, what a discussion! I just have a little something to add. There are several commentors that are asking “Why are we talking about this? It’s in the past,” regardless of their stance on the main question. I just want to say that for someone like me, who can slip into a very logical, analytical mindset, it would be very easy for me to run a numbers calculation on projected casualties and go from there. The discussion about a past horror like this is to exercise ourselves and develop our consciences so that if, heaven forbid, we are faced with a similar question in the future, we have a foundation to work from.

Not to go all Myers-Briggs, but I think there’s are distinct tracks of Thinking/Feeling here, and maybe some Judging/Perception. Some of us need these concrete examples in order to process and develop our understanding of and commitment to morality.

@Phil Intent is important, but you can’t divorce it entirely from the consequences of one’s actions.
That’s why/where the principle of double effect is so important.
But double effect requires that the unwanted effect (presumably in this case, the deaths of thousands of non-combatants) is not only unintended, it must also be in proportion to the good effect.  Furthermore, the good effect cannot be achieved by means of the bad effect.  Both effects must follow directly from the one action.

That’s why just war theory -using double effect- will state that it is still permissible to attack certain military targets, even though there is a foreseeable risk that civilians and non-combatants will be killed and injured.  So long as these casualties are not disproportional to the necessity of destroying the military target.

The problem with Hiroshima, for example, is that it is extremely difficult to argue that the necessity of striking the military targets in the city was proportional to the forseeable deaths of tens of thousands of non-combatants. Especially since Hiroshima had previously been spared extensive bombing.

Instead, many people try to argue that the deaths of these non-combatants was proportional to the overall outcome of ending the war.  However, this violates the second condition mentioned above - the good effect cannot come about indirectly, or as a consequence of the bad effect.  The war was not ended because the military resources of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lost.

@Zac: You are arguing in circles. Like William F. Folger above, you correctly cite the moral principle, but then arbitrarily say that the unwanted effect in 1945 was “disproportionate.” Since this is entirely a judgment call, you cannot pronounce one way or the other. All you can say is “Knocking out the target was/was not justified since it resulted in (insert number) of civilian deaths.” Commenter A says more than 1,000 is disproportionate, Commenter B says more than 10,000, etc., ad infinitum. The whole thing is completely subjective.

The war was ended because the Japanese knew that more atomic bombings were on the way and there was nothing they could do about it, among other reasons. It would have been the same had we continued with conventional bombing (the civilian losses would have been much higher, by the way). The goal of every strategic bombing campaign is to deny the enemy the means to continue resistance. The “good effect” therefore came about directly; it was in fact the stated objective of the military campaign. Again, contrast this with terror bombing, purposefully laying waste to population centers to kill as many non-combatants as possible. This is the kind of morally illicit act theorists and theologians are warning against.

@Phil

Thanks Phil.
‘Arguing in circles’ and ‘completely subjective’ seem to be two different things, I think.

But the Western moral tradition has always held that proportionality is more than just a subjective judgement.  Eg. Aquinas observes in the context of self-defense: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

That is why, in most jurisdictions self-defense does not give one a blank cheque to commit violence on an aggressor.

Aquinas mentions one way of qualifying proportionality: “using more than necessary violence”.  To apply this to Hiroshima, we could look at how much conventional bombing would be required to destroy the relevant military targets.

Another test - used by many jurisdictions - is the “reasonable person” test.  ie. while it is true that a sense of proportionality may be partly subjective, we do not surrender our moral (or legal) judgement.  Our legal system has no qualms about imposing upon a defendant the concept of what a reasonable person would find appropriate or proportional.

To apply this to Hiroshima, we would look at the nature and importance of the military targets, and ask whether a reasonable person would find the tens of thousands of non-combatant casualties proportional to the urgency of destroying those targets. 

This is important, because while there are people who would (unreasonably) say that no target can justify an unintended civilian death, there were others such as the head of bomber command in the UK who stated circa 1945: “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier”

My understanding of Just War theory and the Church’s teaching on warfare is that we should aim to minimise casualities…not just on our own side.  This, of course, also guides our sense of what is proportionate.

Posted by Phil on Monday, Jul 30, 2012 11:50 AM (EST):
“@William F. Folger: By the very statement you quote, the atomic bombings were licit according to the Church (though as deplorable/regrettable as any other act of war that results in civilian casualties). Please read G&S 80 again. “Aimed at indiscriminately” is the key phrase.” ???
.
The Vatican has the “at” following “indiscriminately”— making G&S 80 more clearly convey that “along with their population” means that both human and non-human will be destroyed or severely damaged, a major no-no before both God and Man, primarily over the human slaughter.
.
My statement from the Vatican website is: “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”  Just re-read my whole post of Jul 29, 2012 1:04 PM (EST) and note my reference to Veritatis Splendor.
.
I also wrote “Were it necessary to “define”, the wording would be more specific. It isn’t necessary, for the inhabitants are the prime concern” and “It would be insulting to God for anyone to assert that the above teaching-statement can be legitimately circumvented by claiming that the aim is really only to destroy the direct combatants while the rest is unavoidable collateral damage. As noted previously, God tolerates no “Total War” attitudes toward “collateral damage”. Consult “Veritatis Splendor” by John Paul II to better understand the proper role of “intent” in moral decision making.  Also, Romans 3:8—‘do no evil that *good* may come’—excludes doing anything in conflict with the above Vatican II statement.”
.
I must return to 2012-issues as imminent August 1 becomes America’s New “DAY of INFAMY” thrust upon us by President Obama who insultingly abuses American Christians as if we were mere insects and animals without consciences!  Since Barack H. Obama himself has expressed doubts about the after-life, he has no reason to respect human conscience which to him seems merely fiction getting in the way of his moving closer to single-payer insurance and ultimately Socialism via a second term. 
.
August 1, 2012 will be known as America’s “Day of ObamaInfamy”.  His Sneak Attack was all those little veiled hooks planted in Obamacare that Nancy said we had to first pass to learn what is in it. Only if we care and wise-up, November 6 will be our Day of Delivery from this “pre-cancer stage” of Socialism, that interim condition needing a second term to metastasize. Let’s remember psalm 127:1 “Unless the Lord Builds the House (society), Those Who Build it (their way) Labor in Vain” (i.e., the society FAILS even as we are now failing).
.
Remember that VOTING is like hiring the human builders noted in 127:1; if YOU give the Master Builder untrustworthy builder-helpers, you and your family suffer for a long time.  Archbishop Chaput put it well on July 27, 2012 at the NAPA Institute Conference re psalm 127:1 “In the end, God is the [central] builder. We’re the living stones. The firmer our faith, the deeper our love, the purer our zeal for God’s will - then the stronger the house of freedom will be that rises in our own lives, and in the life of our nation”.

@Zac: I see you’ve introduced the “reasonable person” standard now. The debate has moved into the Twilight Zone. Curtis LeMay, Harry Truman, George Marshall et al. were all reasonable men. But their priority of reducing Japanese civilian casualties was much lower than their priority of 1)ending the war by Japanese surrender and 2)reducing American casualties. We’re talking about a historical event here, so put it in a historical context. 1945, where the destruction of an arsenal or a dock was “proportionately worth” 10,000 civilian casualties.

In Catholic terms, a life is a life. There is no way of figuring out how many possible/probable/certain civilian losses are “proportionate” to the benefit of destroying a military objective. The objectives in 1945 were military/industrial centers. In March 1945, when we napalmed the eastern part of the city of Tokyo one night, the horrendous civilian death toll could only be guessed at but was deemed proportionate. Was, say, 1% of enemy industrial capacity proportionate to 100,000 people burned alive? Of course not. But only in retrospect do we make this judgment. When the raid was planned we only knew that many innocent lives would necessarily be lost. In moral terms, that was the only reasonable judgment possible. No sin was committed, according to Aquinas or anyone else.

We’ve killed 60 million babies in American wombs since 1973. Intentionally. With no proportionate benefit. And here we are droning on and on with classroom abstract debates about the morality of Hiroshima & Nagasaki in the middle of the bloodiest war in history. Please.

@Phil
I introduced it (quite reasonably, I thought) to show that proportionality is not considered ‘completely subjective’ in other areas. 
Personally I think the ‘necessity’ component is stronger; maybe you did too, since you haven’t replied to that part?

“1945, where the destruction of an arsenal or a dock was “proportionately worth” 10,000 civilian casualties.”

Firstly, if the intention was merely to destroy an arsenal or dock, it wasn’t necessary to use an atomic bomb with a blast radius that would cover most of the city. How would you dispute this? 

Secondly, if the arsenal or dock were such important targets, why was Hiroshima spared bombing prior to the use of the atomic bomb?

As for the firebombing of Tokyo…if your weapon cannot discriminate between combatants and non-combatants then you cannot, in good conscience, use it.  They knew the composition of Tokyo buildings, they knew exactly what the effect of incendiary bombs would be on the city.  I do not see a significant moral difference between Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

The fact is that aerial bombardment of civilian areas was a major component of 20th Century warfare, to the detriment of civilian populations on all sides.  It just so happened that the Allies in World War Two were a great deal better at it.  Everyone knows about the London Blitz, but hardly anyone seems to know or care about the Allied bombing campaign over Europe for which casualty estimates range from 300-600,000.  The bombing of Japan should be put into that context: both sides were doing it. Our side did it better. Doesn’t make it a morally sound tactic.

“Firstly, if the intention was merely to destroy an arsenal or dock, it wasn’t necessary to use an atomic bomb with a blast radius that would cover most of the city. How would you dispute this?”

I’ll say it again: military technology circa 1945 did not permit “surgical” strikes. If you want the target destroyed, your bombs will have to destroy all around it. If the target is dispersed (small machine shops, barracks in various locations) you have an “area” target.

“Secondly, if the arsenal or dock were such important targets, why was Hiroshima spared bombing prior to the use of the atomic bomb?”

Hiroshima as a target was no more important than many others. It was spared intentionally, to show in the clearest way that one bomb could do the job of thousands. Scroll up for the reason why it was a legitimate target.


“As for the firebombing of Tokyo…if your weapon cannot discriminate between combatants and non-combatants then you cannot, in good conscience, use it…I do not see a significant moral difference between Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

We agree on this—we both do not see a significant moral difference between H/N and Tokyo, but for you they are all illicit and for me (and the Church) they are licit. No weapon can discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, therefore no weapon is licit. I think you mean “use” or “intended use” of the weapon but you are reasoning falsely in any case. It doesn’t matter whether you think the bombing of city targets is immoral or not—it is the Church’s authoritative moral teaching that counts. And the Church does not hold that the atomic bombings per se were illicit or sinful acts, while it (and sane people in general) deplore, mourn, and regret the enormous loss of innocent life. We can say the same about World War II, or war generally. 

I just read Jimmy Aikens website about the Holocaust and therefore came to the conclusion that YES, we should be reminded of these horrendous actions. You all can argue what is just or unjust but after I got half way through I could not read anymore as I had tears in my eyes and thus came to the conclusion that the “bomb” being dropped in Hiroshima was not as bad as what the Jews went through in Germany and other countries in Europe. Can you imagine a mother killing her child before the Nazi’s took that child away to be used for experimentation? Or the gas chambers, etc. At least the people of Hiroshima died instantly and did not suffer as these people did. All this reminded me of the 1950’s when there was more talk of the A-bomb and people were building bomb shelters in their basements. When I approached my husband on this he said: “Sue, when and if they drop that bomb, I want to be right in the middle of it and not suffer the consequences of it.He was a paratrooper in WWII, fought in Europe, in 5 battles, including the famous “Bulge” in Belgium.  He knew first hand what war was about. I also learned from him that yes, there were Germans who did not approve of Hitler’s actions, but there was nothing they could do, neither could the Catholic church, because they were under a Dictatorship. We, as Catholics know that the CC did not approve, but their hands were tied. Our own Pope’s brother was killed because he was handicapped. Hitler could have then gone after the Catholics. People were afraid.  After the war, my husband was stationed in Germany before being sent home. One of his jobs was to go from house to house and ask if there were any SS men in the home and they had to take them in.  He said, Sue, those people looked so scared.  I could tell you more stories.

@Phil

I did not mention ‘surgical’ strikes.  You appear to be applying an all or nothing dichotomy to this question.  I agree that the Church’s teaching does not prohibit attacks on military targets where civilian casualties are foreseeable yet unintended, and in proportion to the value of the military target (double-effect).

You do the best you can with the available tools.  If the best you can do is an ‘area’ attack, then in some instances the necessity of destroying the military target will require regrettably high risk of non-combatant casualties. At other times, when the value of the military target is not so great, the risk of civilian casualties from an imprecise attack will outweigh the benefits of destroying the target.

Clearly I am not talking about ‘surgical’ strikes.  But you nevertheless depict my argument as unrealistic…pretending that my (and others’) interpretation of Just War would rule out aerial bombardment altogether. 

Instead you advocate that since our bombing technology was imprecise, we might as well use an even less precise one - one so imprecise that it makes the idea of a specific target absurd.  90% of Hiroshima was destroyed.  To my knowledge, the largest conventional bomb employed by the Allies at that time was capable of destroying a city block.

The same applies to the use of incendiary bombs on Tokyo (and Dresden for that matter), and this is where we invoke the issue of discrimination.  Fire and nuclear bombs do not allow us to discriminate between legitimate targets and civilians.  These weapons don’t even let us *try* to discriminate.  You can’t even pretend to discriminate, when you know that your one bomb will destroy up to 90% of a city, or that your bombing raid will cause an uncontrollable firestorm.

All this should be straightforward, but you keep using a straw man of ‘surgical strikes’ to diminish our arguments and make them seem unrealistic, unworkable fantasies.

Your claim that you have accurately represented Church teaching on this matter is a bold one.  As far as I can tell from prior comments, it hinges on your interpretation of “aimed indiscriminately”, and your assertion that intention alone determines the morality of such actions. 

Let’s give those responsible the benefit of the doubt and accept that their intention was not simply to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Aquinas says on intention:

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one’s life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.”

Yet, as I quoted him previously:

“And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

So you have two options: use imprecise bombing that will kill many civilians in addition to important military targets, or use a bomb that will destroy 90% of the city in one blow.  The latter option would constitute “more than necessary violence”.

The use of such weapons is not only immoral, it makes a mockery of the rules of warfare.  Consider article 27 from the 1899 Convention With Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land:

“In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.”

Again “as far as possible” is the key phrase.  Dropping a single bomb with sufficient radius to destroy 90% of a city is not ‘as far as possible’. Creating a firestorm in a city constructed primarily of wooden buildings is not ‘as far as possible’.

@Zac: Your argument does not need “diminishment” by me or the use of strawmen, etc. to be refuted. It is disposed of quite easily once the premises and the reasoning are found to be invalid.

I won’t post any further comments, other than to reiterate here that since phrases like “reasonable” and “as far as possible” are open to the widest possible interpretation it is the intent of the belligerent that is key. If in my judgment (not God’s, not the Church’s) the civilian casualties, though regrettable, are “proportional” to destruction of the military target then I am ordering an morally licit attack. If I am ordering the attack with the intention, express, implied, or secret, to inflict losses on non-combatants, I am ordering a morally illicit attack. This is the very definition of a “terror” attack. This was not the case in 1945 in Japan, no matter how devastated Hiroshima (or Kobe, or Nagoya)was as a result of U.S. bombing.

You’re also wrong on several other points—that nuclear weapons are per se indiscriminate, that incendiary weapons are per se indiscriminate, that any bombing that devastates a city is per se immoral. I think your main problem is that you are having difficulty distinguishing between that which is horrible and that which is wrong. War is full of terrible death and destruction. It always has been. But we are discussing questions of right and wrong here—what is licit and what is illicit.

Pax vobiscum!

Pat,

Re >> Even if this was the case, there were many other means by which we could—and were—destroying that Japanese manufacturing base.<<

You seem to look at the question like a liberal progressive looks upon the Constitution, or the decisions fade after 9/11.

The fact, fact, is the reliability of the information you mull over in comfort and security did not exist in the moment.  Nor do you face the real weight of the lives your position effects. 

I suggest you walk around the block and knock on a door or two and say “I’m sorry but I need to take your child and send them to a far away land.  Odds are they will come back fine, but I need them to fight a country that has attacked us so we can stop them.  I don’t like the idea of dropping a huge bomb on them that will, if my advisors are right, destroy almost a square mile of an industrial city building them weapons because many of their children might die.  Besides, the simple fact is my advisors can’t guarantee me the bomb would work.  So I feel better about sending your child into a battle that my advisors tell me will result in upto 50% casualties.  Don’t worry though, their estimates of losses in our wildly successful D-Day invasion were lower than occurred, so I’m thinking they have over estimated them this time.  I’m sure you’ll understand, once you have all the information 40+ years from now, that I’m making the right moral decision.  After all we know the Japanese people really don’t want this war and really don’t believe their emperor is a God.  So we are confident they are not really working in the military factories to support the war out of free will.  Granted my advisors have told me no intelligence shows any groups, like the “Free French” in France, are working internally against the war.  But I feel confident that once your boy hits their beach these unseen folks will rise up and support your son.  No Mr & Mrs Public, my advisors have no evidence that any significant or credible evidence of internal Japanese sabatoge against their military industrial complex exists.  But again, I’m confident that will change quickly once they see your boys face and M1 Garand rushing out from behind the drop of the landing craft door.  True Mr. & Mrs. Public, the Germans didn’t embrace our boys when they rolled into Germany’s large cities.  Yes, you are right the Germans did not look upon Hitler as an actual religious god.  But,... Uh well.  I’m sorry, as much as I’d like to I can’t spend any more time explaining to you why we can’t try this bomb and must send your boy.  I’m really sorry.  But please make sure he shows up at the local draft station by 09:00 tomorrow, otherwise as you know he’ll be considered in violation of law.  I’d hate to see him be punished with federal crimes that would result in his losing the right to vote.  You know how precious that right is to the foundation of our nation.  Pleas take care and know my heart and prayers,  and that of all my family is with you and yours.  No ma’am, my boy won’t be going.  I sorry, I’m way behind schedule and will have to explain why later.  But I assure you, in sending your son I feel as though I am sending my own child…”

Better yet, pick one stranger in your neighborhood and on boy from your extended family.

There’s a reason Mother Church requires certain levels of knowledge and will to be part of one committing a mortal sin.

If you can look in the mirror and tell yourself you could be the “president” in the above narrative and still tell others how they were “wrong” 50+ years ago, then I think you should stop looking in the mirror and spend an hour in front of a Tabernacle with our Lord contemplating the same in silence.

AMDG

Well said, HCSKnight:  You either lived during that time, as I did, or your Dad was drafted.  Yes, it is easy to discuss a situation when you have read many books about it over the past 67 yrs, [with all the different opinions]than making decisions at the moment things were happening. My husband used to like to watch documentaries about the war and he found so many discrepancies, about the battles he fought in. Just or unjust, only God will determine that.  I will say that it is good to remember these things because of what is going on in our world today….God Help Us!

Fine.

Can we at least all be willing to agree that this decision was a sufficiently close call that folk who rain down all kinds of declarations of moral monstrosity (on the decision-makers of the time, or on those who still agree with the decision) are exaggerating things and ought to acknowledge it was a borderline case?

I call Hitler a moral monster. I call anyone who still supports Hitler’s “Final Solution” a moral monster. But I don’t call someone who still supports the use of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a moral monster until and unless I find out that their reasons demonstrate a disregard for innocent lives and a cavalier attitude towards civilian casualties. Bill Whittle clearly doesn’t fall in that category, and neither do 99% of the foreign-policy “hawks” I’ve ever met, but I see certain Catholics excoriating anyone who still supports the bombings in such an over-the-top way that you’d think they were talking about Charles Manson.