The Atomic Bomb

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Tighty Whitey

You are being and have been very irresponsible in your condemnation of the use of the atomic bomb. .

Irresponsible for defending the position of the Catholic Church on a Catholic forum? Listen, if you want to disagree, please be my guest, but I bet you will not find one thing that the poster you are criticizing has said that contradicts Catholic teaching. Have you even read the article in question and how liberally the author quotes the catechism and the popes?

[hosemonkey]

This horse died a long time ago, why are you still beating it? None of you lived through it, none of you were there, many of you are here because your fathers or grandfathers did not die in the invasion of Japan.

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Originally Posted by BigFellaMick

lisahiku:
Anyone else remember the american soldiers at pearl harbor who died PAINFUL death?
and , uh let me see,, oh yeah, japs bombed pearl harbor on a sunday morning.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
UN-provoked.



[Don't forget lisa that the americans knew about the japanese coming. They "let" it happen to rally the mindless american sheep to join their war machine in the same way that the u.s. used 9/11 to rally the next generations of sheep to defend the occupation of the middle east. Do I believe that the u.s. brought the towers down themselves? Absolutely not. Do I believe, as many others do, that the u.s. let it happen? Yes. History would support that claim. america is a bad country. our government is one of the worst in the world, spreading its policies through the world and engaging in dirty practices. Why are we still in the middle east? How is it possible to defend freedom by bombing an entire neighborhood of civilians on shady intel for the "possibility" of a single mid level terrorist being in the vicinity. Look up generation kill on youtube. I served four years in the army. That whole hysteria is absolutely true and much more widespread then people might want to believe. The true form of terrorism in this whole conflict is deployed by the west ESPECIALLY america. I pray america swallows its pride and diplomacy resumes so that some form of peace, however shallow and short lived, can be attained. It's time to bring the soldiers home and give a good many of them some counseling. This conflict has brought out the worst in us. Satan is truly playing his hand in america right now and the whole world, the u.s. included, is suffering for it. Christ have mercy on us all.]

Mick ,
I'm curious , if you could only use one word to describe your political philosophy , what would it be ?
Second question , how big a fan of Howard Zinn are you ? I ask because you sound a lot like him . Zinn was a military veteran as well . Zinn also believed history should be used to serve a greater political purpose , even if it meant revising it .

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by GKC

The only essential reading for those who as accept the magisterium as binding, certainly, and they should affirm it with whatever theological level of certainty is proper for a given teaching. As I always remind folks.

But not all accept the magisterium in that way. Your citing it, or discussing it, is appropriate for those who do.

And if you have no interest in the historical facts of the subject, I will still be posting them; others do, and sometimes they get them wrong. Or sometimes the facts are debatable. But, as stated, I won't be discussing your moral views.

GKC

That's fair. It's not that I have no interest in them, it's just that certain facts don't really hold any relevance to determining the morality of an act.

And you don't have to be Catholic to subscribe to this basic moral theology. Even an atheist can agree that the ends don't justify the means.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by vz71

Then it is your contention that unless a soldier is actually firing upon you they are not a legitimate target?

I said "we are justified in shooting at those who shoot at us". That does not mean "we are not justified in shooting those who are not shooting at us".

The reason I worded it that way was in response to a post someone else made trying to claim that simply because civilians had the potential to grab a gun and shoot at us when we invaded justifies us targeting civilians.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by Tighty Whitey

You are being and have been very irresponsible in your condemnation of the use of the atomic bomb. You are ignoring the extreme evil that was confronted and defeated. You are ignoring the pain and suffering of millions. I pray that you will never have to confront such evil.

If I am being irresponsible, then so is the Church. Because all I'm doing is defending Church teaching.

And you don't fight evil with evil. I can't say "I'm fighting evil" and use that as justification to commit immoral acts.

And furthermore, you imply that the end of the war is justification for the use of the atomic bomb. That's justifying the means by the ends. That has been strongly condemned by both the Church and the Bible.

However, I always appreciate prayers, I will pray for you as well.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

That's right. It's too easy to judge yesterday by today's standards.

Please see my post below:

Originally Posted by smichhertz

Why? If something is immoral, it's immoral. Whether or not its declared so before or after the fact is irrelevant.

The Church didn't immediately declare slavery immoral. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until centuries later that the practice was declared immoral. Does that mean slavery was morally permissible prior to the Church declaring it immoral?

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by neophyte

That's a distortion of what he said.

How so? Perhaps you're right, it is easy for one to misread a post since it is all just text, and verbal tone and body language are not there to aid in communication. But you can't just say "that's a distortion". Show me how.

Originally Posted by neophyte

A city that just happened to be stuffed full of ordinance factories, shipping ports and military bases, all of which are legitimate military targets. Is it your position that the targets in Hiroshima should not have been attacked at all?

Of course not. Where in ANY of my posts did I say that legitimate military targets cannot be targeted? There's a difference between targeting legitimate targets IN a city and targeting the city itself.

Targeting a legitimate military target in a city: morally permissible
Targeting a city: immoral

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by pnewton

This is one case where balancing the good versus the evil done is not consequentialism. Rather, it is one of the necessary requirements in order to use the principle of double effect. Of course, the act itself must be morally neutral at least.

Not exactly. Consequentialism only judges the effects. The Double Effect Principle technically speaking judges the perceived / foreseen effects. It may seem like a hairline difference, but it is an extremely important distinction.

This way, it protects a military commander's decision to conduct a legitimate act of war, even if there was an UNFORESEEN effect of an unacceptably high civilian casualty rate.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by hosemonkey

This horse died a long time ago, why are you still beating it? None of you lived through it, none of you were there, many of you are here because your fathers or grandfathers did not die in the invasion of Japan.

That's a fair point. But two quick things:

1. It's always important to recognize where we messed up. Both on an individual level, and on a corporate level. As such, I see value in admitting that the A-bombs were immoral and moving on. The problem is, not everyone agrees, hence the debate.

2. Whether or not we would be here or not isn't exactly relevant. Take a child born out of wedlock as an example. That child wouldn't have been there if it weren't for premarital sex. But that doesn't change the fact that premarital sex is immoral.

[starshiptrooper]

Originally Posted by smichhertz

Targeting a legitimate military target in a city: morally permissible Targeting a city: immoral

What if the city is a military target like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were?

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by Ross54

St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known Dominican of years' past, pondered this at length and concluded that three measures must be applied to justify a war. Those points are: "The cause must be just;" "The intention must be to advance the common good--to secure peace and punish evil;" and "A just war must be declared by the lawful sovereign in defense of the common good." All three of these conditions had to be met to justify a war. Aquinas developed this as a result of the turmoils of his own time; this was far more than just an academic exercise for him. His measure thus presents a strong defense of the use of the bomb to end the war.

You are blatantly misusing the Just War Theory. The Just War Theory answers the question of whether or not a country should go to war and (if at war) whether or not to continue the war or to seek peace. It is irrelevant to the decision to drop the bomb.

The use of the Atomic bomb was an ACT of war, not a decision to go to war. If we were to honestly follow your logic, then once a county is justly at war, they could commit all the immoral acts they want. The US could slaughter civilians left and right no matter what during WWII because their initial reason to go to war was just.

Usually, for individual acts of war, the Double Effect Principle (also by St. Thomas Aquinas) is used to assess the morality of an individual act of war. As I have demonstrated in my previous posts, the A-bomb clearly fails the Double Effect Principle beacuse 1) it's an immoral act to begin with and 2) even if it were a morally permissible act, it fails the proportionality condition.

If you think differently, fine. Then show me how.

Originally Posted by Ross54

Another question of merit is just how these protesters would have had the Allies bring the terrible (evil) war to an end? Any other solution available at the time would have taken tens of millions of lives, given the "irrelevant" considerations of the belligerents and their resources.

You are using the ends to justify the means. Simply because the A-bomb may have saved millions of lives doesn't justify their actions. This is strongly condemned by the Church and the Bible. Would you murder a child to end a war?

Originally Posted by Ross54

By applying his cardinal virtue of "justice" with his theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, we find justification in the act.

What is just about targeting and killing civilians? That's not just.

Originally Posted by Ross54

It saved many millions of lives (morality achieved) and ended evil--continuance of a war of which the outcome was by now obvious to all involved.

Again, justifying the means by ends. This directly goes against Church teaching.

Originally Posted by Ross54

Believe it or not, his measure of the validity of using the bomb was consulted by our leaders. While you may think it irrelevant, our Church has had 2,000+ years to contemplate, build on and help us develop our faith. Personally held values hold value to the person owning them. Church values guide us in our faith

Simply because Truman may or may not have consulted people doesn't justify anything. Heck, with a little searching I can find PLENTY of priests that would counsel me that committing certain immoral acts would be morally permissible. The question is not "did a priest tell him its morally permissible?" the question is "IS IT morally permissible?".

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by Ross54

One important point in this discussion deserves clarification. CCC #2314 has been quoted as the single damning indictment of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. #2314 states, "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." That certainly sounds just to me. But let's examine that statement again. There's a key word--a qualifier--"indiscriminate."

The CCC is not saying "destroying cities is okay as long as it is discriminate", the CCC is saying "destroying cities is NOT okay BECAUSE it is indiscriminate". I recognize that the wording in the CCC supports either interpretation, but if you look closely, you'll see that the CCC is actually quoting a Vatican II document - Gaudium et Spes in that paragraph. If you read through Gaudium et Spes, you see that it defines WHY it is immoral:

The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense.

Source: Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 80.

So as we can clearly see here, it is the fact that the A-bomb has an EFFECT of indiscriminate destruction that renders it immoral.

Originally Posted by Ross54

Should others complain about the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, I'd agree with their complaints, with what I know of those raids. They do seem to have been indiscriminate. Their stated goal was to create firestorms and havoc among the populace. I'm not aware of any significant military value that those poor cities harbored.

Yes, those acts were immoral. Any act of war that targeted cities was immoral. I believe that Nazi Germany was the first to start employing such tactics, and then over time, the Allies begin to retaliate with similar. Why we thought it was a good idea to copy the military tactics of Adolf Hitler is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Ross54

But both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were first and foremost, military targets. Both presented a clear and present military threat to the Allies' planned landings. Both were armed camps. (Neighboring Kokura was a manufacturing hub for war material and was thus also a valid target.)

They were certainly NOT military targets. There's nothing wrong with targeting legitimate military targets within cities, such as factories, military bases, or army camps. But targeting a city as a whole is immoral as your target is now a civilian population and NOT a military target.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clearly immoral. It goes against what the Church has clearly and definitively taught on war.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by starshiptrooper

What if the city is a military target like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were?

An entire city cannot be held as a military target. Church teaching clearly defines this, you can see my responses above to Ross for more info on where the Church has taught this.

There's nothing wrong with attacking military targets IN a city, but not the city itself.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by smichhertz

An entire city cannot be held as a military target. Church teaching clearly defines this, you can see my responses above to Ross for more info on where the Church has taught this.

There's nothing wrong with attacking military targets IN a city, but not the city itself.

You can if the entire city, or a very large part of the city, is military in purpose.

The value of the military contained in each city is well documented.
As is the case that the civilian populace was an effective militia.

So we have a city that houses a vast number of military assets, trains vast numbers of soldiers, manufactures military weapons, and nearly the entire populace is in the militia.
It appears to be a legitimate target to me.