Seventy years ago (Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, to be exact), the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “Little Boy,” dropped on Hiroshima, was the first atomic bomb to be used in any war. It killed some 90,000 to 160,000 people, about half by explosion and half by burns, radiation and injuries, over the next couple of months. “Fat Man,” dropped on Nagasaki three days later, killed about 40,000 to 80,000. Far more civilians than Japanese military were among the dead.
These are the only two nuclear bombs to have ever been used in warfare: the first two — and so far, the last two.
That they are the last two is some cause for celebration 70 years later. That they were the first two — and dropped by the United States — is not.
Why did the U.S., with the advice and consent of the Allies, drop the atomic bombs?
Germany had been decisively defeated in May of 1945. Japan was, by this time in the war, in bad shape, although ready to fight to the last. Realizing the U.S. was intent on invading its homeland, Japanese leaders even conscripted some 28 million male and female civilians to aid the 2.3 million soldiers to fight off U.S. forces: the so-called Volunteer Fighting Corps, Kokumin Giy Sentai. This — in addition to the large numbers of civilians working in support industries for the Japanese military — blurred the line between civilian and military personnel, thereby making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between combatant and noncombatant.
American military studying the projected cost in human lives of the invasion of Japan estimated that the number of Allied lives that would be lost in the invasion ranged from 25,000 to well over 500,000. Estimates of Japanese lives that would be lost ranged from around 3 million to 4 million. That is what brought U.S. military leaders to consider means — any means — to reduce the high casualty counts of the invasion.
One means used months before the dropping of the two atomic bombs actually killed far more Japanese civilians — the firebombing of major Japanese cities with incendiary cluster bombs, filled with jellied gasoline (better known as “napalm”). In the firebombing of Tokyo alone, 80,000 to 130,000 civilians were killed. More than 50 cities were firebombed from May to August 1945.
The decision to drop atomic bombs in August was an extension of these previous efforts. Hiroshima, which had not been firebombed, was chosen because of its military and industrial significance to the Japanese war effort. The city included some 40,000 military personnel. Nagasaki was chosen for the same reasons, although it was a secondary target (the original city to be bombed being Kokura). There were about 10,000 military personnel in Nagasaki.
On the night of Aug. 9, 1945, at 10pm, President Harry Truman addressed Americans over the radio. “I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb. … We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.”
More atomic bombs were slated to be dropped as soon as they were produced, but Emperor Hirohito capitulated on Aug. 14, stating, “The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”
I have given nearly every convincing reason that has been mustered in defense of dropping the two bombs: The Japanese attacked us first; they had no intention of surrendering; far more lives would have been lost had we not dropped the bombs; and the Japanese themselves had completely blurred the lines between military and civilian.
I have also noted (via Truman’s remarks) the savagery of the Japanese themselves in conducting the war, especially their brutality against Allied prisoners. (For those who doubt this, please read Laura Hillenbrand’s excellent but horrifying account in Unbroken.)
It is clear that, lacking the West’s just-war doctrine, the Japanese observed no limits to their cruelty, and this cruelty, as part of Imperial Japanese policy, predated World War II.
In the infamous “Rape of Nanking” (which occurred at the end of 1937 and continued into early 1938), upwards of 300,000 Chinese civilians were slaughtered. That is only one of a number of instances of massive Japanese brutality, which culminated in Emperor Hirohito’s “Three Alls Policy,” wherein he instructed his soldiers, “Kill all; burn all; loot all.”
If that weren’t enough, like the Nazis, the Japanese were using prisoners for medical experimentation (including live vivisections) and using biological weapons in experimentation and in actual warfare. Estimates of the number who died from these atrocities is about half a million. In fact, in its “Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night,” the Japanese planned to infect America’s West Coast with pathogens on Sept. 22, 1945, but the dropping of the two atomic bombs brought them to surrender in mid-August, just weeks before the planned attack.
So, one would think, with all of this, that dropping the atomic bombs was justified. Many, in fact, do maintain precisely that.
But the Catholic Church presents an obstacle to that easy conclusion: the above-mentioned just-war doctrine, a centuries-old doctrine formed historically under the guidance of the Church.
The best argument for the just-war doctrine is precisely the kinds of atrocities committed by the Japanese, who had not been historically formed by it. Without it, they were free to do anything to win a war, to civilian and soldier alike. To stop them, the U.S. chose to violate the just-war demand that limits killing to soldiers and spares civilians, betting that the shock of the indiscriminate incineration of entire cities of men, women and children (first by firebombing and then atomic bombing) would bring the Japanese to surrender.
It did. But the issue is not whether using any means to win a war is politically effective. What is at stake is the moral effect of removing any moral limit to our actions and allowing the ends to justify any means.
We now live in a society largely governed by that principle, so that, for example, the end of psychological and physical health justifies abortion and the sale of fetal organs thus procured.
I have no doubt that many lives could be saved by freshly harvested organs from aborted babies, just as I have no doubt that saving lives by the slaughter of innocent children has returned us to a sub-pagan moral darkness.
So this is not a stale history lesson. Indeed, in regard to the just-war doctrine, we face the same morally hazardous situation today as we did with Japan. Islamic jihadists have likewise not been formed by the just-war doctrine, and so they have no compunction about crucifying children, beheading both military personnel and civilians, keeping captured women in sexual slavery and using women and children for shields and living bombs — any means to win the war. Will we stoop to their barbarism to defeat them?
The Church does not reject war, which is sometimes necessary as an act of self-defense. But she places moral limits because where there are no moral limits to war, there are no limits to barbarism. Thus, the Church asserts that, in carrying on a justified war, “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated” (Catechism, 2309). One of the greatest evils is the removal of the distinction between combatants and civilians.
And so, declares the Church,
“‘Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.’ A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons — especially atomic, biological or chemical weapons — to commit such crimes” (Catechism, 2314).
The question is not whether using any means is effective. Certainly dropping the atomic bombs ended the war, and may even have saved lives. The problem is the inhumanity that flows directly from using any means to justify such ends — and devolving into the very barbarism that we are trying to defeat.
Benjamin Wiker is an associate professor of political science at Franciscan University
and a senior fellow of Franciscan’s Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
“Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity against civilians including old people, women and children who were incinerated. Soldiers are combatants, civilians are not. Whoever justifies these atrocities is on the side of the Evil One.”...........That would only be true if conventional weapons did not do THE EXACT SAME THINGS. Women/Children/Old People were equally dead with conventional weapons.
There is no intrinsic difference between a so-called “normal” bomb and the Atomic Bomb! You can’t condemn one without condmening the other! Obviously, we’re back to the reality that war is hell!
We have many Catholics shaking their fists at history. Yet they just elected a president who is ushering in a nuclear Iran so the Iranians can nuke Israel and the USA.
One more note, Post WWII, scientists knew that testing 100 Megatons of nukes per year above ground would kill around 10,000 random people, as a direct result of the fallout. Is that moral? From the book, Project Orion, which describes the apollo-like research program in the 50’s and 60’s to power spaceships with nuclear bombs.
‘Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.’
The actions of the US may seem as if they were against the basic letter of this but they were in keeping with the basic intent because a more vast area was spared.
I agree with tucson; there were no nice alternatives. At this point, it would be naive to claim some other action would have been better although it wouldn’t hurt to respectfully ponder them.
The section of the Catechism that is quoted isn’t any established teaching although we could surmise that “indiscriminate” killing would be morally wanting. What Father of the Church or section of the Bible handed this on to us? But the question is if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “indiscriminate” or rather a calculated military operation with defined victims and defined goals? God could be called “indiscriminate” by wiping out the whole of Pharaoh’s charioteers at the parting of the Red Sea or the clearing out of the occupants of Israel. At Fatima we learned that “War is a punishment for sin.” God permits it because we have sinned and justice demands atonement in blood. That the bomb existed was pretty miraculous and that it stopped a war could definitely be seen as a blessing. We are not God and His ways are far above ours. He permits war as punishment. How can we not be grateful for the instrument that ended His punishment, which He always had the power to impede but didn’t? God allowed this. Thanks be to God. We saw the horror of the bomb and it has made man more vigilant. If only it would make him more holy.
Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity against civilians including old people, women and children who were incinerated. Soldiers are combatants, civilians are not. Whoever justifies these atrocities is on the side of the Evil One.
Me, the simpleton again. Time for every Catholic—and those who have learned to pray it, to grab your Rosaries and pray them as never before. Our Lady herself says that the Rosary is the greatest weapon we have. We are now in a time of spiritual, as well as global warfare as never before. During WW II, we were dealing with well-defined countries at war. Today we have ISIS, lone wolf ISIS wannabees who are misguided US youths,—a nebulous collection of evil and hateful individuals who are not blue-eyed blonde Swedes or red-headed Irish. And we have a gentleman in the White House who absolutely refuses to call them what they are: radical, Muslim extremist terrorists, as in the likes of Mohammed Atta et al. May God help and have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Article really makes no sense. Many lives on both sides were saved by dropping the bomb, not many historians disagree with that. So using nuclear instead of conventional weapon saved lives. So the means (nuclear) clearly was just as was the end.
The Japanese will not officially apologize for their acts of barbarism they committed, from medical experiments to cannibalism, on American POWs and many others during the war. This is probably because of Curtis Lemay’s fire bombing and the two nuclear attacks. But also these terrible behaviors where normally out of character with the Japanese culture. In the wars prior to Japan’s military political movement, that started in nineteen twenties , Japan treated POW’s EXTREMELY WELL. After the political militarization of Japan, all this false interpretation of the bushido code became prevalent. The original samurai had no standing, “no surrender code”, and, they treated the vanquished with respect. If you study some of the non-fiction historical narrations of Japan starting about the nineteen twenties, you cannot help but almost exactly parallel the political movements in Japan to European fascism. Both were bent on expansionism. Japan’s political militarists simply considered their expeditions of expansion equal to U.S. colonialism in the Philippines, as well as other imperialist European colonies in Asia. Principally Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Remember, the Philippines did not become an independent country from the U.S. until 1946. It was our territorial possession after the Spanish American war. We did not recognize Pilipino claim to independence following the Spanish American war. In the end, I think the Japanese civilian population feel that they were victims of the militarist government and that government does not exist anymore. Since the Japanese are probably the most socially conformist people on earth, I can understand why they might make that claim. As a Christian, I forgive them completely and refer to our own atrocities in the Philippines in putting down the Philippine insurrection. Not to mention a few other choice American military atrocities since our becoming a sovereign state. We should and did complain, but we have not apologized much either.
We all know from history and personal experience that War is Hell! Yet, every year we read about the great “injustice” of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One writer who seemed to represent the many remarked that “Doing Evil For The Sake Of Good Is Always Forbidden.” Obviously, his opinion was that America’s decision to drop the bomb was evil! His comment obscures the fact that in the real world of war there may come a time when a major decision has to be made quickly between two choices, both of which may be perceived as evil, our leaders had no choice but to put America first!
World War II was a prolonged bloodbath, in which our wearied military leaders experienced the heavy loss of American lives, and they learned how costly victory would be fighting an enemy driven by fanaticism; and the memory of Pearl Harbor was burned into their hearts and minds crying out for justice. They were determined to achieve victory at the lowest cost of American lives. They did not have the retrospective advantage of a cool and superior view of an historical event. Monday morning quarterbacks always hold the high ground on deciding the morality of our historical decisions.
During those years, I was a crew member of a new B24 Bomber; we were well-trained and poised on Okinawa to start bombing Japan. I believe President Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved my life, and thousands of other bomber crews.
According to the information available at that time, it was believed that millions more would probably be saved on both sides, particularly the Japanese who were willing to die with no thought of surrender.
I thank God I was spared to be here to challenge the critics of America’s use of the Atomic Bomb. Writers for Life at prolifedigest.com
‘The question is not whether using any means is effective. Certainly dropping the atomic bombs ended the war, and may even have saved lives. “
“May have saved lives!” Hogwash, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan without doubt did save lives, probably in the millions. No to have use those atomic weapons would have been to immorally prolong the war.
To the extent to which individual civilian Japanese were willing accomplices of their government in the war effort, one might reasonably argue that they were combatants, though indirectly. Evidence for the militarization of the entire Japanese nation is the brutality and widespread prevalence and seeming complicity in direct war crimes such as torture. Similar arguments were made against the German citizenry.
To the extent to which individual Japanese were themselves conscripted, often under penalty of death for resistance, one might reasonably conclude that their fearful compliance with their criminal government constituted a morally reduced culpability.
However, to the extent to which one might expect individuals to resist, even to fight against, a criminal government, and yet they did not, then one might reasonably extend a “complicit combatant” status to them.
I would argue that our own U.S. government is now, or is close to becoming, an outright criminal organization, instigating the murder of 55-million+ unborn babies; and attacking families and attacking organized and free religion. If our own government continues down its current path, then I would say that we Catholics must either die in prison, or as martyrs, or as active combatants against our criminal rulers. It is our duty!
And I want to add… in addition to all of this, the Japan of that time, conquered whole cities, raped all the women, children and babies and then killed them .... the Atomic bomb was the only viable solution to this wholesale killing outside the confines of the war. The Japan at the time got what they deserved and deserved what they got.
Some 70 years later the ‘Monday morning quarterbacks’ find concerns that were not there at the moment in history. The Japan of those years was without compassion or love in their hearts; they ‘invented’ forms of torture that were incredibly painful and they were used on prisoners for no other reason than the ‘fun of it.’ Add to that the Bataan death march—the wholesale slaughter of people/families/women and children for absolutely no reason. And finally when it was decided to end the war with the Atomic bombs, we notified them in advance… the Japan of that time ordered their civilians to stay, shot them if they tried to leave…. No, one cannot change history and then assume the mantle of politically correctness just for the purpose of ‘getting published.’ Nice try, no cigar!
I am more interested in the NEXT nuclear war, which baring a surreptitious attack on the Great Satan will likely involve mostly non-Christians killing mostly non-Christians. It is unlikely that the perpetrators will be even interested in the moral debates that appear on pages such as these.
-
If you want to avoid nuclear war, it would be best to work for the conversion of the world.
I agree with those who have mentioned that the Japanese removed the distinction between combatants and noncombatants. The atomic bomb and succeeding nuclear weapons are fearsome.
As Catholics we cannot do evil so that good will come. But, I haven’t found the Catechism comments on doing an evil but necessary act to combat and defeat an even worse evil. I think some of the commentary on the use of atomic weapons to end the war with Japan has been heavily influenced by the anti-American, secular left. I think their conclusions are incorrect and wrong.
The Japanese attempted to make every man, woman and child die for the Emperor. They might have succeeded.
Finally, dead is dead. I have a hard time seeing the difference between these very destructive weapons and “conventional” weapons, or even catapults and canons. Those are he weapons of war.
I never want another atomic or nuclear weapon to be used anywhere, but it’s beginning to look like we may be on the receiving end this time, from a viscious, unrestrained enemy.
For a more objective analysis, may I suggest this: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Fussel - thank god for the atom bomb.pdf
to Jim Russell: You make an excellent point… one that the writer of this article has not provided in his “all inclusive points” for dropping the bombs.
And it is difficult to define as “civilians” those who are actively engaged in a war effort by engaging in the manufacturing of bombs, ammunition, weapons of war or the transportation of them against their “enemies”.
Many enemies now specifically hide among civilians and civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools to prevent retaliation against them… as can be seen in the present conflicts facing the Jews and Israel.
I think both the author and commentors bring up many valid points. Another one that I would bring up not to justify the action, but to put it in historical context. That point being that I think the entire Cold War era would have been much riskier and perhaps might have seen another atomic bomb detonation had not Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred. Because they did occur, the world understands the total devastation these devices can bring. Furthermore as we live in an era of escalated extremism, I believe the extraordinary measures the world takes to prevent the spread of nuclear technology as well as the hesitancy on nuclear powers to exercise that capability is directly related to the devastation that occurred at these two cities 70 years ago. Like one of the earlier commentors, I hesitate to judge the actions removed from the factors of the time. However, I think the actions taken and the results have had a profound impacts on the 70 years hence.
My first big time EE job after graduation was moving to Albuquerque to work on full scale test of atom bombs. In fact the first test I worked was Operation Ivy, with a hydrogen weapon that had a yield of 10 megatons, 100 times more force than the Hiroshima bomb.
In my long lifetime, I became a student of WWII, read probably 50 books on it. It’s hard to tell just when civilian populations became part of the targets, but certainly our 8th Air Force over Germany and the London blitz were real. The whole German-Russian front decimated civilians. By the time the US got the B-29 in major quantities, they laid waste to Japan cities, firebombing alone might take 80,000 lives in one raid. A friend of mine was a B-29 aircraft commander. He said moral considerations were not even on the table.
I do know that a land invasion of the Japanese homeland would have followed the same scenario of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, soldiers NEVER surrendering. The Japan civilian population was in training to fight Americans with everything including pitchforks. The military had 3600 Kamikazi fighters held in secret. In prior battles, even 300 kamikazis did ENORMOUS damage to our invading fleet.
The US would have gone over 3 million casualties, Japan probably 10 million. I applaud Harry Truman in his decision to drop the bombs. Read the stories of the Japan high command, they were NEVER going to sue for peace. It was only after the two bombs that the Emperor himself DIRECTED his high command to give up. Even then, a coup of middle level commanders ALMOST succeeded in overturning the Emperor’s orders.
I was a USAF navigator cadet, never got to fly, but I like to think I would have carried out orders, as did many of my classmates in the Vietnam conflict. Even though I know now that Vietnam was a wrong war.
Predicting the future is not possible. Hindsight should focus on analysis of why decisions were made & better courses of action for the future. Statistics of probability are just figures, not flesh and blood. We can not see, like God, the consequences to individuals and their families, flesh and blood and the generations that will follow or should have followed behind. Individuals and families do matter to Jesus and therefore should matter to us.
We choose with the information and the sanctity of spirit, or absence of same, that is within us at the time. War is ugly and once started, it never ends well. The most important decisions are always before the war begins. Yet that is where we seem to be the most befuddled and hesitant to act.
Like Peter our first response is to raise the sword and strike. Christ challenges us to get beyond an eye for an eye. Things were more black & white before Christ, were they not? If you strike me today you can expect a reactive punch back. Unfortunately, I am more like Peter in the Garden than Christ. Within that statement lies the problem and the solution for individuals, nations and this world.
Professor Wiker-No American can assume any moral high ground because America is the new Sodom and we have sacrificed over 58,000,000 of our babies as live sacrifices to Moloch. Excuse me, but it is so easy with moral-high-ground hindsight to judge what was done in 1945. Go read the papers from late August 1845-any American paper and many of the papers in the allied countries. We were united in our support of dropping the bombs and accolades poured out for all those involved. Challenge: and it can be done: make the case for the immorality of failng to use these weapons, failing to drop the bombs. Had we not dropped the bombs there would have been a bloodbath of Japanese as we went island by island, estimates are over 1,000,000 of them and another 1,000,000 of our men, and our soldiers and marines witnessed more and more civilians committing suicide, including thousands of mothers with their babies jumping off cliffs. And the dedication and loyalty to the emperor would have caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese to literally fight to the death once we reached the mainland. If every bishop in America goes weekly and prays in front of a Planned Parenthood as does every theology professor, on a regular basis, then I might pay attention when they say it was immoral to drop the bombs. For now, this is simply an insult to the greatest generation that made possible the degradation, corruption, and decay of present day America. Guy McClung, SAn Antonio, Texas
I read a piece stating it was Dr Death who opposed majority of military advisors in using the bomb…why not drop it on a Japanese forest as a warning?....Oppenheimer wanted to see the effects of the bomb on human beings. There was a military office, cannot remember the name, and Harry Truman, the 3 who decided to drop the bombs…Fat Boy was going home…but then the sky cleared up and so then and there the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
There are some controversial articles out there on the character of Dr Oppenheimer as well, that if true, would point to a pathological personality.
i have just finished reading,“Flyboys” by James Bradley and it never occurred to me that the Japanese high level military and the emperor had so little regard for their own people and dismissed the horrendous fire bombing of Napalm which by the description in the book was far more terrible then the atomic bomb in the way it injured and killed and effected mainly civilians.
What would have been the right answer in this situation?
Chris C raises an issue that has long bothered me.
Well presented but leaves out two important considerations, one moral, one social. First the social. Unlike physics where an action brings an equal but opposite reaction, social science can go off in any and all directions. The actions of the Japanese themselves brought on the reaction. I would argue it was not close to proportional. The number of Japanese tried for war crimes and executed was defecient to the crimes by at least a factor of one hundred. The moral: The matter of “Just War” has been so diluted that we have clergy at ALL levels opposing military actions that would prevent wider wars and killings. Kosovo, Bosnia, Rawanda, Ukraine and others come to mind. War is an extemely nasty business. No matter the rightousness of the cause, there will injustice. A little more effort to addressing legitimate grievances early on would be helpful but the current state of the international community makes that an unrealistic hope.
I have discussed this for decades with friends.
But after all the arguments, when I ask: “What would you have done?”, they are silent.
There were no nice alternatives.
As You mentioned, Benjamin, Japan was guilty of a lot if atrocities, beginning with Pearl Harbor and the treatment of our POWs, particularly the infamous March of Battan. Sadly, there probably are few soldiers who survived this or the torpedoing of our battle ships or the kamikaze pilots from Japan bombing them. I would agree with Trumans statement at that time. It’s tragic that so many civilians were killed, but their country was being led by an evil Darth Vader emperor in this time that really didn’t care how many were murdered. He thought he was a god and therefore could do anything he wanted. I only know that many of our parents who lived during this time had the same attitude that Truman had. Perhaps now if we hadn’t dropped the bomb we’d still be fighting the war in spurts or Japan would have taken over China and possibly Europe. Hindsight is wonderful, but unless you actually lived during these times this column would be more credible. And comparing this to selling aborted baby parts is like comparing apples to oranges. These companies are fully aware of what they’re doing and so is Planned Parenthood. This is a war of some sorts, but the babies are the victims, and they had no warning whatsoever.
I agree with just war understanding of moral,responsibility. What occurs is that the enemies that you mentioned use this against us because they choose to Modify our definition of combatant and noncombatant. Human shields, as it is called.
The Japanese enlisted civilians as combatants, the extremists place combatants among civilians. They both attack and treat civilians as combatants, because their War is of a different purpose. Their attacks and inhumanity are part of terror and propaganda against all for they see all as combatants
We are hamstrung by our own morality, but that includes who we deem a combatant
There is little in this article with which I can disagree, but one thing that gives me pause, is the loud silence of Pope Pius XII in this matter. He lived close to the brutality of the war in Europe, and would have known of the widespread strategic bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians, yet to the best of my knowledge he never condemned the Allied bombing policy either at the time or at any time thereafter. Likewise, he would have been well aware of the massive and extensive strategic bombing campaign against Japan which culminated in the A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet there is no record of a denunciation on this part.
If the Pope who was alive at the time of the war failed to state a clear condemnation, at the time or on reflection years later, why should I or others who didn’t see the war firsthand do so? I find that to be a quandary that as of yet I’ve been unable to resolve. That being said, I fully back application of Church teaching to matters pertaining to war and peace in our times. It’s just that I have little interest in looking back from the relative safety of 70 years of hindsight and judging the actions of those charged with making the fateful decisions, in the midst of a horrific war.
****One of the greatest evils is the removal of the distinction between combatants and civilians.****
The author *does* realize that it was *Japan*—not the US—that removed the distinction between “combatants and civilians,” right?
The author does understand that the US dropped leaflets over Japan *warning* non-combatants to leave these targeted areas—and that it was the Japanese government that *compelled* its own people to *stay* there?
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.