As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[vz71]

I was told to look up any dictionary.

I did. Twice.

Perhaps the goal posts are being moved.
Perhaps the statement should have been to look up any dictionary except those two.

I happen to know that a people trained to fight, that will kill given the opportunity, and has shown this, cannot be classified as non-combatant.

[tqualey]

Hi, Ghosty,

Thank you for your response.

None of us can go back. But, it really appears that whatever lessons were learned with the atomic bombing of H/N - there is little to suggest that such an activity would not take place again. This is truly sad - for this time we are looking at terrorists organizations (not nation states) sneaking such a bomb into an American city.for the purpose of destruction on an unimaginable scale. Today (2/17/12) we find that there was a man planning a suicide bombing of the US Capitol http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1 None of us are safe.

God bless

Originally Posted by Ghosty

oldbrit2009: You're post is so far off base from what I have written, even confusing my account of what others have said as my own words despite the fact that I said I disagreed with them in the very same sentence, that I'm not going to bother to make a full response. I enjoy being challenged, but this is at least the second post you've directed towards me where you're challenging me on things I've not said. What's more, you're continuing to challenge me on mistaken ideas that I've already answered before. I won't respond to such posts in the future.

tqualey: If that was truly the intent then the issue would definitely change, but the answer might still be the same if all other things remained equal. The targeting would no longer be the issue, but the proportionality and the mitigation of destruction would then be the issues. Honestly I've not given much thought or study to the targeting capabilities of the time period to say what would be appropriate mitigation of damage, so I'm not capable of judging that hypothetical at this point.

I will point out, however, that I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe the use of nuclear weapons is inherently evil. I even went as far as saying that the use of nuclear weapons in a densely populated area is not inherently evil. It was post #80 if you want to go back and see what I said eight months ago on the matter.

vz71: Go look in any dictionary for the definition of non-combatant. It is not a theological terms and needn't be defined by the Church in order for it to be used. The term

All that needs to be known is that these folks had not entered combat, and were not on "the battlefield". Had the invasion begun and the civilian population mobilized in Ketsugo then it would be a different matter; they would be combatants even if they were women, children, and the elderly. That did not happen, however, so it's a moot point.

Peace and God bless!

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by vz71

I was told to look up any dictionary.

I did. Twice.

Perhaps the goal posts are being moved.
Perhaps the statement should have been to look up any dictionary except those two.

I happen to know that a people trained to fight, that will kill given the opportunity, and has shown this, cannot be classified as non-combatant.

Once again the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not engaged in combat. The invasion hadn't even begun, and the only thing we know for certain is that they were not an activated fighting force at the time they were targeted. Once again I'll quote the Encyclopedia:

In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force.

They were capable, certainly, but were not in fact participating in the war. What's more, they were not targeted as a fighting force, but as civilians. Had the invasion began, and they grabbed their bamboo spears to banzai charge the beach, that would be another matter all together, though then proportionality would be the issue.

tqualey: None of us are ever safe, and I think this notion that somehow we should be safe is a bigger problem then the dangers we actually face. Death is lurking around the corner for all of us, and not one of us will escape it. I've seen it enough to accept it as just a part of life.

As for such bombings happening again, I don't know. I'm less worried about nukes being used than I am about the general principles being ignored. I do think that countries like the U.S. are much different in our attitudes towards war now, however, and targeting non-combatants is not as accepted as it was during WWII.

Peace and God bless!

[vz71]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Once again I'll quote the Encyclopedia:

They were capable, certainly, but were not in fact participating in the war.

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?
You may have a point...if it is the case that only the imperial command and the armies were engaged in the war effort.
Please provide the facts and figures to back this contention.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by vz71

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?
You may have a point...if it is the case that only the imperial command and the armies were engaged in the war effort.
Please provide the facts and figures to back this contention.

Supporting a war doesn't make one a combatant. Every single person in a nation, by virtue of paying taxes, "supports the war". That doesn't mean they can be targeted; the Church is very, very clear on this.

Peace and God bless!

[vz71]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Supporting a war doesn't make one a combatant. Every single person in a nation, by virtue of paying taxes, "supports the war". That doesn't mean they can be targeted; the Church is very, very clear on this.

Peace and God bless!

True enough.
But I believe the church is silent concerning individuals that are trained for combat and engaged in logistical support.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by vz71

True enough.
But I believe the church is silent concerning individuals that are trained for combat and engaged in logistical support.

That's irrelevant since the whole populations of these cities were the targets, not simply the logistical support for the war. They were targeted with the explicit intent of widespread, indiscriminate destruction. Had the war machine been the target then we'd be discussing proportionality in targeting logistical support with a city-killer bomb.

Peace and God bless!

[vz71]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

That's irrelevant since the whole populations of these cities were the targets, not simply the logistical support for the war.

Now that is simply not true.

It is well documented that the entire population of the city was not the target.

[wcknight]

War is H*** and in this case it really was... I don't think atomic weapons should be used on any civilian populations... for that matter virtually carpet bombing Dresden was not such a great idea either.

The Japanese military were a ruthless bunch, and they were involved in atrocities or allowed atrocities to take place throughout the war. The massacres in China were almost as bad as the Nazi attempts to exterminate the Jews.

There is nothing good or honorable in killing hundred of thousands of civilians. The ends do not justify the means, It's like the question, Do you purposely kill one innocent infant, even if you knew for certain it would save hundreds or even thousands of people down the road.

That it brought about the end of the war was a big positive, BUT there was no absolute certainty that not dropping the bomb would have required an invasion. Could the US have not blockcaded the Japanese island and not risked the thousands of troops needed to invade ??? The Japanese knew it was losing. They were in full retreat, they knew that Germany and Italy had already fallen. It was only a matter of time before they too were defeated.

The irony of it all, is that 50 years later, the Japanese and Germans were poised to take over the world economically anyway.

[tqualey]

Hi, Wcknight,

I have really learned a lot from this thread - and I certainly appreciate the posts from everyone. I will be taking a Lenten Break ... and give up CAF during this time. I really enjoy this list - so, I guess this is an appropriate penance.

God bless

Leaving the CAFs for Lent! Be back in 40!

Originally Posted by wcknight

War is H*** and in this case it really was... I don't think atomic weapons should be used on any civilian populations... for that matter virtually carpet bombing Dresden was not such a great idea either.

The Japanese military were a ruthless bunch, and they were involved in atrocities or allowed atrocities to take place throughout the war. The massacres in China were almost as bad as the Nazi attempts to exterminate the Jews.

There is nothing good or honorable in killing hundred of thousands of civilians. The ends do not justify the means, It's like the question, Do you purposely kill one innocent infant, even if you knew for certain it would save hundreds or even thousands of people down the road.

That it brought about the end of the war was a big positive, BUT there was no absolute certainty that not dropping the bomb would have required an invasion. Could the US have not blockcaded the Japanese island and not risked the thousands of troops needed to invade ??? The Japanese knew it was losing. They were in full retreat, they knew that Germany and Italy had already fallen. It was only a matter of time before they too were defeated.

The irony of it all, is that 50 years later, the Japanese and Germans were poised to take over the world economically anyway.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Wcknight,

I have really learned a lot from this thread - and I certainly appreciate the posts from everyone. I will be taking a Lenten Break ... and give up CAF during this time.

That is a great idea.

I can't say I will give it up, but I will try.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by vz71

Now that is simply not true.

It is well documented that the entire population of the city was not the target.

I honestly can't make any sense of this statement. There was no discrimination in the targeting, entire cities were the target.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by vz71

It is your contention that the populace was in no way supporting the war of aggression?

I won't speak for the other poster, but that's certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a "combatant" in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn't anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don't kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort--they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren't combatants.

This isn't rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I won't speak for the other poster, but that's certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a "combatant" in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn't anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don't kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort--they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren't combatants.

This isn't rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

Amen.

[Eric Hyom]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I won't speak for the other poster, but that's certainly not my contention. My contention, rather, is that you are widening the concept of a "combatant" in an unconscionable way. A combatant isn't anyone who is supporting the war in any manner. That completely destroys any distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and it justifies genocide. You could by this logic justify killing women who might give birth to future soldiers, etc.

To be a combatant you actually have to have a weapon and be actively engaged in killing people or ordering others to do so.

For instance, any decent society recognizes that you don't kill stretcher bearers. Obviously they are supporting the war effort--they are helping the wounded soldiers get to a place where they can be healed and potentially return to fight again. But they aren't combatants.

This isn't rocket science.

If it is impossible to wage war without killing noncombatants, then just and virtuous people will not wage war. Period.

Edwin

Another 'Amen'

Blessings

Eric