Morality of the Bombs

I am writing about the article “Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 70 Years Later” (In Depth, Aug. 9 issue). The author asks why the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs. Perhaps I can help enlighten him. The Japanese Empire had rejected several opportunities to end the war. As the author points out, Japan was prepared to sacrifice millions of its citizens in defending the home islands. (My father was in what was to be the U.S. invasion force and participated in the military occupation of Japan. He told me of the crude, but huge, stockpile of weapons scattered about the entire country to be used by civilian suicide fighters.) Moreover, Japan had a fully equipped, functional, battle-hardened and healthy 2-million-man army in China and Korea prepared to augment the millions of troops already in the home islands. It can be argued that it may not have been possible to deploy the majority of this army home, but its existence must be taken into consideration.

President Truman was faced with the following possibilities: 1. Starve and bomb Japan into surrender by conventional means. Military planners estimated this would take until late 1946, kill tens of millions of Japanese and still require a costly invasion. 2. Invade early, drive to Tokyo and depose the Japanese government. Planners estimated this would result in up to 500,000 U.S. and Allied casualties, as well as tens of millions of Japanese dead. 3. Use the atomic bombs to hasten the end of the war.

Lest I be accused of constructing a faulty dilemma, the U.S. and our allies could simply have declared victory and walked away. Japan was effectively finished (for the time being) as an offensive threat (although the Chinese and Koreans under occupation might argue this). However, this situation would have done nothing to mitigate the long-term threat of a still-militarized Japan. Truman did not think the U.S. and allies could sustain another year of war. Thus, he made probably the toughest decision any U.S. president has made. I think it was the right one.

The author also implies that the people who targeted the atomic bombs engaged in “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.” This ignores reality. The designated targets for both bombs were military and industrial installations. It would be fortunate if such targets were always physically separated from civilian areas, but this is seldom the case. War is not neat. In fact, the concentrated nature of the energy released by the bombs put less population at risk than did the firebomb raids conducted against Japan and many of the “daylight precision-bombing” missions (which were anything but precise) conducted in Europe.

I would ask the author (and any interested reader) to mentally put himself in President Truman’s chair and consider the decision to use atomic bombs in full knowledge of the situation as it existed in 1945. Seventy years of hindsight provides plenty of time to second-guess any decision. Perhaps each of us has to thank God we were not the ones on the hot seat.

         Richard F. Colarco

         Colorado Springs, Colorado

 

The editor responds: As Benjamin Wiker explains in his column, “I have given nearly every convincing reason that has been mustered in defense of dropping the two bombs. … I have also noted … the savagery of the Japanese themselves in conducting the war. … 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. … The problem [the Catholic Church has with dropping the atomic bombs] 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.”

 

New Age of Barbarism

In reference to “Women Betrayed” (page one, Aug. 9 issue): In the early days after abortion was legalized (for special cases), some entrepreneurs started to look at ways to cash in on this fledgling industry. They used the baby fat to make soap. At the time, this was a bit shocking; the only previously recorded incident, highlighted during the Nuremberg Trials, was at the Danzig institute, where the corpses from Nazi concentration camps had been processed and made into soap — a small-scale operation in its day. Nowadays, of course, many beauty products contain fetal material in some form or another.

A recent covert investigation into the American abortion giant Planned Parenthood revealed even more shocking news: harvesting of fetal organs and tissue for sale to research companies. The abortionists explained (whilst being secretly filmed) how they can modify the abortion procedure to keep intact the more valuable or saleable body parts like livers, hearts, lungs etc., to make up the orders from the company.

Of course, that’s not the end of the tale: What these biotech companies use tissue and parts for is much more disturbing! I have a limited understanding of the science, but, essentially, they use the tissue in the development of new flavorings for foodstuffs and soft drinks, in addition to its use in the production of vaccines and medicines. In other words, aborted babies have entered the human food chain. Who could have imagined that, in less than 50 years, we would have arrived at something like this? Indeed, it is not the only piece of 1960s’ legislation or decriminalization that has set us on a path to a new age of deprivation.

         Stephen Clark

         Manila, Philippines

 

Population ‘Means’

Regarding “Papal Adviser Denies He Promotes Population Control,” (Vatican, July 12 issue): I believe that in his denial of promoting population control, professor Hans Schellnhuber may have let the cat out of the bag. He said, “If you want to reduce human population, there are wonderful means. Improve the education of girls and young women. Then the demographic transition will be a little bit faster. So I subscribe to a good education, and that’s the only way of population strategy I would support.” Improving the “education” of girls and young women has always been a primary weapon in misleading millions of girls and young females into the trap of birth control. The U.N. has, for many years, been a leader in population control and, along with the environmentalists, is a leader in the climate-control agenda. This agenda places the blame for global warming on us humans — and thus, in their warped view, justifies a drastic reduction of the world’s population. Obviously the target has to be girls and women via the “wonderful means,” as expressed by Schellnhuber, and what else would that be but birth control — including abortion.

         Jack Moran

         St. Louis, Missouri

 

Consistently Pro-Life

Thank you for Father Raymond de Souza’s astute analysis in “The Consistent Ethic of Life and Archbishop Cupich” (page one, Sept. 6 issue). Father de Souza articulated well my own concern of how “the consistent ethic of life” is too often misapplied to make it appear that abortion is just one of many equally immoral issues, such as economic injustice. While “the consistent ethic of life” is good and just, its application is distorted when it is used to make the barbaric practice of abortion morally equivalent to a man losing his job or some such other social injustice. The horrific dismemberment and murder of millions of innocent and defenseless infants in the womb is an evil of far greater magnitude than economic injustice; and the two issues should not be lumped together and made to appear morally equivalent. They are not! 

As St. John Paul II made clear, the right to life has a priority over all other rights and must be defended first and foremost: “In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defense and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no state can change — let alone eliminate — them, because such rights find their source in God himself. The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights … is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici). As for “obsessing” over abortion, John Paul dismissed that fallacy in a 1994 interview with Vittorio Messori: “It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with … the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

As Father de Souza points out, Archbishop Cupich and others are insistent upon tacking other issues onto abortion, but often are silent on abortion when talking about other social injustices, as Archbishop Cupich was in three recent high-profile addresses. The archbishop’s “consistent ethic of life” should work both ways, but it does not. It is inconsistently applied and “mainly used to downplay the urgency of abortion.”

It is also worth noting that speaking out against abortion is far more unpopular than speaking out against other social injustices. Fighting abortion quite often brings ridicule, derision and hate from powerful pro-abortionists in the media and the current government. But everybody loves and admires politicians and bishops who speak out against other social injustices.

         Margaret Owers

         Palm Harbor, Florida

 

Correction

In “The Pope and Abortion” (Sept. 20 issue editorial), “in” (in italics) is the correct word in this line: “ ... most priests in the United States already have the authority to absolve the sin in confession and to lift the penalty of excommunication that is automatically applied to anyone directly involved in an abortion.” The Register regrets the error.