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.
It was two exhausted nations and dropping the bomb was a merciful coupe de grace. I don't see why he can't just take a step back and see that.
He's so wrong that he's not even wrong. His argument doesn't have standing. It would be a waste of words to rebut him.
We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.” President Truman
Thank God we had a President ready to do whatever it took to end the War. Apparently this author's view of a “just war” is one that goes on needlessly. Is it any wonder that people had reservations about handing the Presidency to the disciple of such a doctrine? Our entire nuclear deterrence is BASED upon the President's willingness to “commit war crimes, apparently.”
The day I read about Nanking was the day any feeling of guilt over Hiroshima was forever swept away.
“
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.
“
Funny (i.e., ironic) that folks forget the firebombing the proceeded
the atomic bomb drops.
IIRC, more civilians (some wartime workers) were hideously fried by firebombing
than by the two nukes.
When you have an adversary that refuses to surrender and is ready to
send all its’ men (the ones remaining), women and children at you
with a “take one with you” on steroids attitude...
extreme measures are indicated.
What has always baffled me is that it took TWO bombs to get the Japanese
leaders to face the truth that they were done.
And for those that think the US forces were barbarians...heck, we
bombed the most Christianized city in Japan (Nagasaki) instead of
Kobe, the cultural capital of Japan.
Talk about “cultural sensitivity”.
Watch the films of japanese civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs when the U.S. took Saipan. They had been told by their leaders that the U.S. troops would brutalize them. Now imagine those scenes played out thousands of times if we had invaded Japan. The atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of japanese lives.
Well, then you have a poor knowledge of history then. Japan was NOT going to surrender. In fact it took two A bombs before they did surrender and there was a plot by military leaders to scotch that surrender but it didn't work out.
The US was expecting a million US troop casualties and Japan about the same. The people were gearing up to fight alongside the Japanese armed forces in order to protect their homeland.
The bombs were necessary in order to save millions of lives.
I cheer what he had done as well.
My dad was in the Army during WWII - ended up in Europe just after the Battle of the Bulge, so he was fortunate enough to be involved in a somewhat less deadly time (as compared to, say, the Normandy invasion). There is no doubt that had the US not had and used the Atom bomb, he would have been involved in the invasion of Japan. Hundreds of thousands would have died for no good reason. The bombs saved the lives of many, American and Japanese.
Truman did the right thing.
To use the quote from Billy Madison:
“Mr. Akin, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
No one with an IQ even approaching room temperature would think that Obama would use a nuclear weapon to deter attack on the United States. Obama is about causing the destruction of the country, not protecting it.
You need to look at the Japanese plans for civilian resistance to an invasion -- civilians using spears and such if that's all they had -- and consider who a "noncombatant" would be.
The protest is really about one plane dropping one bomb and killing all those people. Then it was done again a few days later.
If five hundred planes had dropped firebombs on the same cities and killed the same ammount of people nothing would have been said about it.
A few days after the bombing of Nagasaki a large raid was done with conventional bombs on (I believe) Tokyo. Tens of thousands were killed yet no one remembers them because all people remember is the BOMB!
I would like to take every one of the protesters and eurowenies, then place them in the front wave of landing craft heading into Japan just so they can feel good about not dropping the BOMBS.
This guy, atkin, is a revisionist moron. I happily would volunteer him to be in the front of the Japan invasion uf I had a time machine. I think he’s drinking too much free wine at the altar.
Try 1974 when Lt. Hiroo Onoda surrendered to local authorities on Luzon, Philippines, after getting official orders to do so from Tokyo! There were multiple other Japanese holdouts, mostly where the conditions allowed them to be self-sufficient.
Well dandy, wasn’t vatican II implemented AFTER WW II??
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
I don't think I buy Mr. Akin’s analysis.
It was not our intention to kill civilians indiscriminately. Here, Mr. Akin gets it wrong. We specifically warned the Japanese to get the heck out of Dodge, cause a really big ugly thing was coming their way.
The purpose of the bomb was two-fold: to destroy anything that could be remotely used for war materiel, and to show the Japanese that we could destroy everything they had that could be used for war materiel. And without breaking much of a sweat.
If the intention of the American government was to show that we could kill lots of Japanese in one, fell swoop, it wouldn't have warned them to get out of their cities before the bomb fell.
sitetest
Agree! What kind of crimes would these same utter fools be accusing Truman of if he had left the atomic bombs on the shelf and invaded Japan after months of preparatory bombing on cutoff of all supplies? Millions of women and children would have died needlessly.
The war needed to be over, and over in a way that it would not be repeated, as the war in Europe was ended in 1918, only to rekindle in 1939. And the proof is in the pudding. Japan has not had a war in 65 years.
There is no pleasing these fools until they surrender themselves and all their listeners to a violent death at the hands of the thugs of the world. Ignore them. Or, in time of war, lock them away.
Unbelievable and they continued to wage “war” against the locals. Nuts.
Interesting that the catechism blurbs were written after the fact. This screed is from the same trashheap as the “Just War” knucklehead Catholics working with Commies.
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.