Posted on 08/10/2010 5:42:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Friday was the anniversary of the U.S. Bombing of Hiroshima during World War II. Monday is the anniversary of its bombing of Nagasaki.
The explosion of the Fat Man atomic device over Nagasaki is pictured. It rose eleven miles into the sky over Ground Zero.
The important thing, though, is that it—together with the Little Boy device that was deployed over Hiroshima—killed approximately 200,000 human beings. And it ended the war with Japan.
It is understandable that many Americans at the time were relieved that the long burden of the bloodiest war in human history could finally be laid down. Many then, as now, saw the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a necessary step to preventing even more casualties.
However, some of the blogging being done to commemorate the attack is most unfortunate.
Consider Michael Graham, who wishes his readers a “Happy Peace Through Victory Day.”
Today marks the anniversary of the single greatest act in the cause of peace ever taken by the United States:
Dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. That one decision, that one device, saved more lives, did more to end war, and created more justice in the world in a single stroke than any other. It was done by America, for Americans. It saved the lives of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of American soldiers and sailors.
So, obviously, President Obama’s not too happy about it. . . .
Euroweenie peaceniks and an annoying number of American liberals see the bombing of Hiroshima as a shameful act. What is it America should be ashamed for—defeating an enemy that declared war on us? Bringing about the end of a fascist empire that killed millions of people, mostly Asians? Preventing the slaughter of the good guys—Americans—by killing the bad guys—the Japanese?
I am not a Euroweenie or a peacenik or a political liberal or even someone opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in principle. I can imagine scenarios in which their use would be justified. I can even deal with the cheeky “Happy Peace Through Victory Day” headline.
But Mr. Graham’s analysis of the situation on a moral level is faulty.
It is true that, by instilling terror in the Japanese government, the use of atomic weapons prevented further and, in all probability, greater casualties on both sides.
Preventing further and greater casualties is a good thing, but as the Catechism reminds us:
The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties [CCC 2312].
It isn’t just a question of the goal of an action. The goal may be a good one, but the means used to achieve it may be evil. The Catechism 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. 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 [CCC 2314].
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war directed to the destruction of whole cities or—at least—vast areas with their inhabitants. The only quibbling could be about whether this was “indiscriminate” destruction. Someone might argue (stretching the word “indiscriminate” rather severely and taking it in a sense probably not meant by the Catechism) that they were not indiscriminate attacks in that they were aimed at vital Japanese war resources (munitions factories, troops, etc.) and the only practical way to take out these resources was to use atomic weapons.
Mounting such a case would face a number of problems. One would have to show that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such resources (not that difficult to show) and that these resources themselves were proportionate in value to the massive collateral damage that would be inflicted (a much more difficult task) and that there was no other practical way—like a more targeted bombing—to take them out (again a difficult task).
But for purposes of argument, let’s grant all this. Let’s suppose that there were such resources, and that they were proportionate in value to the massive loss of civilian lives and that there was no other way to get rid of them.
Does that absolve the U.S. of guilt in these two bombings?
No.
You can see why in the logic that Mr. Graham used. It stresses the fact that the use of these weapons saved net lives. This was undoubtedly uppermost in the U.S. military planners’ thinking as they faced the possibility of an extremely bloody invasion of Japan in which huge numbers on both sides would die.
But notice what is not being said—either by Mr. Graham or anybody else: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such important war widgets that without those widgets Japan would be unable to prosecute the war. Thus by taking out those military resources we could deprive Japan of its ability to make war.”
Neither is anybody saying something like this: “We needed to scare Japan into surrender by showing them that we could destroy all of their military resources. We needed to make them terrified of losing all their military resources so that, out of a desperate desire to preserve their military resources, they would surrender.”
These are the dogs that didn’t bark, and they are why this line of argument is a dog that won’t hunt.
The reason nobody says these things is that they were not the thinking behind the U.S.‘s actions. The idea was not to end the war through the direct destruction of military resources in these two cities, nor was it to end the war by scaring Japan into thinking we might destroy all of its military resources. It was scaring Japan into surrendering by threatening (explicitly) to do this over and over again and inflict massive damage on the Japanese population. In other words, to make them scared that we would engage in “the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.”
That means that, even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had contained military resources that of themselves would have justified the use of atomic weapons (which is very hard to argue), our intention still was not pure. We were still using Japanese civilians as hostages to the war effort, still threatening to kill civilians if Japan did not surrender. That was the message we wanted the Japanese leadership to get—not, “We will take out your military resources if you keep this up,” but, “We will take out big chunks of your population if you keep this up.”
That meant that the U.S. leadership was formally participating in evil. It does not matter if the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could (through some stretch of the imagination) be justified in themselves. The fact is that they were used to send a message telling the Japanese government that we would kill massive numbers of the military and civilian population, without discrimination. That message is evil, and to knowingly and deliberately send that message is to formally participate in evil.
That made these attacks war crimes.
Now, make no mistake. I’m an American. I’m a fan of the U.S. But love of the United States should not preclude one from being able to look honestly at the mistakes it has committed in the past. Indeed, it is only by looking at and frankly acknowledging the mistakes of the past that we can learn from them. Love of one’s country should impel one to help it not commit such evils.
Racial discrimination? Bad thing. Allowing abortions? Bad thing. Dropping nukes to deliberately kill civilians? Bad thing. Let’s try not to have things like these mar America’s future.
Thank God that Jimmy Akin didn’t make the decision Truman was facing. Truman’s constitutional obligation was to save as many American lives as possible as soon as possible. He did his duty to the American people.
In my view that decision made him one of the greatest of American presidents.
Can you for even one second imagine what Obama would do in similar circumstances?
Both theaters of the Second World War were stopped by mass civilian casualties. Incendiary bombing in Europe and Atomic bombing in Japan. It was a VERY good move by the U.S. in the Pacific and the Allies in Europe.
The message: Stop trying to take over the world, or you will have no master race to rule it, or to even nurse back to health.
"You are assuming that our Commanders did not know the Japanese mindset which had an ultranationalist government and a state religion which worshiped the emperor."
Actually, I'm not assuming that. And the author, Jimmy Akin, is not assuming that, either. So I think we can set that aside.
"Our Commanders knew how radical those people were and how willingly they would kill—even themselves in battle. They were brutal, inhumane and ruthless to all their enemies which made a joke of the Geneva Convention and made water boarding look like paradise. ANY regard for individual rights, life, women, and their people, was non-existent."
True.
"Our Commander knew that they would probably give up only under a dire situation and he was willing to drop that bomb and create that situation to get the insane Japanese to surrender. They didn’t care about their own people, but, our Commanders DID care about their people. They had to force the Japanese to give up and, thus, not only saving many of our men from a brutal insane tortured death, but also theirs. “Them or us” was Truman’s ONLY decision. He said “Them!”, thank God."
I can agree on he "them" part, and (re-reading Akin's article) it's clear he does too, as long as "them" refers to the savage Japanese military machine, which ought to have been exterminated.
As FReeper Siobhan pointed out awhile back in a similar FR war thread (Link), the relevant military target would have been the gigantic number of Japanese troops massing in the southern Kyushu: an atomic bomb there would have wiped them out and sent the same kind of shock through the Japanese military establishment: it wouild have been morally and militarily justified. Deliberately and indiscriminately killing noncombatants is something else entirely.
All of our fathers (or grandfathers) would have supported targetting troop concentrations. Just as the U.S. Army Air Corps targetted military targets with devastating effectiveness in Europe. It would have been justified even if it had killed, not just 100,000 or 200,000, but a million Japanese soldiers.
It's what they should have done.
Targetting civilians is, as I said, "something else entirely." But I'll agree it is not "morally ambiguous." It is murder.
I don't know. Kill the innocent? He's cetainly shown a willingness to do that in the past.
Hindsight is just that.....If....If....if....You can not possibly know intent, exact circumstances, and know that YOUR DROPPING of the bomb on YOUR target would have worked, etc.
The U.S. warned the civilians to vacate, so civilians were NOT targeted. Their infrastructure was, not the civilians.
The Japanese FAILED to surrender. It was THEIR decision to have the bomb dropped and the civilians stay. The ball was in their court, and if they would have surrendered, the bombs would not have been dropped.
Responsibility fell upon the Japanese military. We did not start the war, so we could not decide when to end it. We did what needed to be done to END the war, which was "moral" in the context of wars, because it saved so many more lives as previous posters have documented.
Kind of like God killing men, women and children and saving Noah, huh? Suppose God was "immoral" also to drown so many people, so many civilians, because they were caught up in a society that worshiped a pagan god.
I thought Jimmy Akin made it clear enough that he's not even against nuclear weapons per se, let alone atomic energy. To quote the author,
"I am not a Euroweenie or a peacenik or a political liberal or even someone opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in principle. I can imagine scenarios in which their use would be justified."
So Akin is not against nuclear weapons. Consider that there were a number of possible targets on Kyushu: Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as gigantic troop concentrations on the southern third of the island. Akins would have had no problem, I daresay, with nuking the troops, not the cities. That's certainly my position.
The Akin article, above, centera rather exactly on the Catholic moralperspective, and is worth reading. My own comments can be easily found, if you look for them, here and there.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
140,000 people died in Hiroshima & 80,000 in Nagasaki. The radiation later caused the deaths of thousands more. Its estimated that over 300,000 Japanese died from the bombings until today.
60,000 may have died in the firebombing of Dresden the figures are not really known.
32,000 died in the Blitz and 87,000 seriously injured.
When we speak of proportionate, the people of England were targeted because they were civilians. The people of Dresden were also targeted civilians. Dresden had no military presence or munitions. Some think this was a means to tell the Russians the West was doing all it could to help their advance into Germany, or it was a warning to Russia and the first salvo of the Cold War.
In any event it was disproportionate. Can we say that the civilian deaths are justified if they back their government? Isn’t that what the Islamists use as their reason for targeting civilians?
The Japanese put their munitions and armament plants in those cities with predictable results. If any are to blame for the deaths of so many, it would be those in the Japanese Imperial Army and the Emperor himself for placing targets within civilian housing.
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,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This a **major** reason why I am no longer Catholic. I just couldn’t stand it anymore. God is rational. Why should I align myself with a church that preaches irrationality in the name of God?
I stand with the poster in the article who said this:
“That one decision, that one device, saved more lives, did more to end war, and **CREATED MORE JUSTICE** in the world in a single stroke than any other. “
Swift and decisive **JUSTICE** is a rare thing and should be celebrated.
Mr.Akin,...Yes! You are! Quick! Your nose is growing.
Thank you, sitetest.
That this article deserves to be Zotted?
Everything I've read indicates that Japanese resistance to an Allied invasion would have been far greater than anticipated and that the loss of life would have been far worse than anyone believed (both civilian and military).
The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 promised "prompt and utter destruction" if the Japanese did not surrender immediately. The REPEATED Japanese response was mokusatsu which means that they intended to "kill" Allied demands with "silent contempt." Less than a week later we bombed Hiroshima with the most destructive weapon that has ever been used in wartime. Over the course of the next two days we heard nothing, so the presumption was that the policy of mokusatsu was still in effect and that's when we decided to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki. It's worth noting that even with these bombings American leaders deliberately AVOIDED bombing the more populated and significant cities of Tokyo and Kyoto.
Throughout World War II American commanders had gone out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, it was impossible to do this with the Atomic Bomb. Certainly it was a tragedy of horrific proportions, but that does not mean it was avoidable.
If you're aiming at Mitsubishi, a military target, and a whole city goes up in flames because that's what cities do when they're made out of kindling, you can plausibly claim proportionality and justification, no matter how many died. One historian put civilian deaths caused by the Japanese military in Asia and the Pacific, at 400,000 a month, which makes almost any number of collateral fatalities proportionate, if one is aiming at military targets and one reasonably intends to end the war.
As it happens, Mitsubishi wasn't even damaged: but the bombing was a great success.
Because as it happens, Mitsubishi wasn't the target. The city was the target. But if city=target, it's what we call murder. The Church's teaching against this follows the same logic via Natural law, and has the same level of authortity--- exactly the same authority --- as the doctrine against abortion and infanticide.
Akin says it better than I do, and deserves more careful reading than anyone here has yet given him.
There’s an amazing Japanese film, not great production values, about the 24 hours before the Japanese surrender. There were still people who wanted to fight till they could fight no more.
I THINK there was an agreement not to harm Kyoto because of it’s fantastic artistic and historical value.
Our entire nuclear deterrence is based upon our Presidents willingness to (supposedly) commit war crimes.
I hate to break it to you, but international “law” has only one precept...
The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.
Well said. I don’t think many of those who are alive today but who did not live through WW2 have an inkling of the cruelty and determination of the Japanese, both military and civilian. Anyone who has studied the subject will likely agree that there would have been monumental loss of American lives, not only if the war continued, but afterward. Americans would have become virtual slaves, and that is if they survived. It is all too easy to sit back from a place of safety and judge the actions and decisions of our predecessors. Imho, allowing the Japanese to win WW2 would be the equivalent of national suicide.
Everything I’ve ever seen indicates that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the LEAST LETHAL method to ending the War.
Kyoto was spared because of it’s major religious significance to the Japanese and Tokyo because MacArthur and others realized that we would need something on which to rebuild Japan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.