Posted on 08/08/2015 6:20:03 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Little Boy was a 15 kiloton weapon.
“Yes. That’s very disappointing, indicative of shallow, uninformed, unrestrained thinking.”
So, is the wholesale killing of the innocent—for instance, the rape of Nanking—likely to please God?
What is your point?
“What is your point?”
From a secular standpoint, there are overwhelming arguments to show that dropping the bombs saved millions of lives. Further, it came at the end of a war in which the bombing of civilians had become commonplace. I have always supported Truman’s decision.
As a Catholic, I believe that intrinsically evil means may *never* be used, no matter how laudable the goal.
I wish I could ask Bishop Sheen how to resolve this conflict.
Good thing we scooped up more than our share of German rocket scientists!
First, I agree that nuclear bombs saved millions of lives, both in Japan (by ending the war before (1) Allied and Japanese troops and civilians died during combat, and (2) Japanese civilians died of starvation and disease), but also postwar by discouraging, for example, Soviet and Chinese military expansion.
Second, it appears your dilemma is rooted in a faulty presumption: that nuclear arms are "intrinsically evil means," for which I faulted the Vatican for its knee-jerk "shallow, uninformed" reaction. To be consistent, your presumption requires arguing that all weapons are intrinsically evil, because the nuclear variety is simply on a larger scale. How, then, did God oversee the arming of the Israelites, or Jesus advocate carrying a sword? Thus, it is not the inert weapon that is evil, but rather the intrinsically evil humans who wield them. It is noteworthy that none has been used in the intervening seventy years.
A necessarily related question is whether God ever condones mass death, whether nuclear or otherwise. Clearly, the answer is a resounding "Yes." Indeed, He has actually perpetrated it Himself on many occasions, either personally (e.g., the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), or through His agents (e.g., Israel's many military conquests, but also those God permitted against Israel by way of punishment and lessons, by Pharaoh, Salmaneser, Nebuchadezzar, Caesar, etc.). And He has promised to do so again, during the soon-coming Great Tribulation. He uses these mass deaths as only He can, for good, in love: to limit evil, as in the Flood and Sodom--and Hiroshima/Nagasaki; and to scare people enough, by reminding them of their frailty and mortality, and their need to rely on Him as their only Rescuer, that as many as possible will turn to Him as their Savior and Lord.
If you still wish to discuss Nanking, so indicate.
Thank you for the thoughtful answer.
“Second, it appears your dilemma is rooted in a faulty presumption: that nuclear arms are “intrinsically evil means,” for which I faulted the Vatican for its knee-jerk “shallow, uninformed” reaction.”
At that time—and, indeed, throughout the cold war—nuclear weapons were all about destroying cities. Remember MAD? Some people, deceived by Doctor Strangelove, thought that the use of a single weapon would result in the destruction of all cities of any consequence. In my view it is evil to drop a nuke on a city, because of the indiscriminate killing of the innocent. It is also evil to firebomb a city in full knowledge that you will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In WWII, the US obeyed the laws of war in that they warned the people of the cities they intended to firebomb. I’m not really sure why the Japanese didn’t evacuate. My late MIL survived the firebombing of Yokohama, but since she was only a little girl at the time, she couldn’t tell me why they didn’t run.
The difference is that the megaton range nuclear weapon is designed and intended as a city killer, while conventional incendiary bombs have many uses—only some of which would be evil. The nuclear variety is not simply on a larger scale; it is different in kind, because it has only one use.
Now, a small tactical nuke, intended for knocking down aircraft, sinking ships, destroying submarines, or killing troops in the field during time of war, I do not think to be intrinsically evil.
“Thus, it is not the inert weapon that is evil, but rather the intrinsically evil humans who wield them.”
I don’t know. If the only use a weapon has is intrinsically evil, then it seems to be a distinction without a difference. That said, when the Vatican issued its statement, the only use seen for nukes was killing cities…which is intrinsically evil.
“It is noteworthy that none has been used in the intervening seventy years.”
Two reasons for that. One is that the Soviets never achieved the accuracy needed for a first strike; and the second is that we are the good guys.
“A necessarily related question is whether God ever condones mass death, whether nuclear or otherwise. Clearly, the answer is a resounding “Yes.” … (e.g., the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), or through His agents (e.g., Israel’s many military conquests, but also those God permitted against Israel by way of punishment and lessons, by Pharaoh, Salmaneser, Nebuchadezzar, Caesar, etc.).
All true and correct, and the only answer I have is that God has the authority to do that. He made sure that the Sodomites were evil before he acted, and I’m sure the same is true of the worshippers of Baal. I mean, you have to go some to find something worse than infant sacrifice by means of chucking them into a fire.
“He uses these mass deaths as only He can”
Yes. As *only*He*can. Who did our fathers obey when they developed and used those small nuclear weapons? Is that what God wanted, or was it the work of the Evil one? I really don’t know, but if He wants me to support nuking cities, He is going to have to tell me so.
“If you still wish to discuss Nanking, so indicate.”
I suspect that we are pretty much on the same page regarding the Rape of Nanking.
I have long held that the reason some folks hold the atomic bottom of Japan as “evil” is that we moved up the killing of the “enemy” from a ‘retail’ proposition to a ‘wholesale’ proposition’.
I will try to flesh this out later when I get home from work, if I can stay awake :-)
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
Also because the Japanese weren't "white."
Thank you for doing this. Have followed most every day since Montgomery and Rommel in North Africa.
personal note my father was the “second son” and so in 1940 or early 41 he enlisted in the Navy as he knew he was to be drafted anyway. Was in San Diego after Pearl Harbor saw flying boats loaded with to much crash. Was on a sea going tugboat ,for the war Portland Maine , Panama Canal to Portland , Oregon . Only time he was afraid was when they towed a floating dry dock through a hurricane in the Caribbean. Homer thanks again.
I'm willing to stipulate that no one can use such weapons of mass destruction without God's permission. He could prevent it if He wished, and the Bible makes clear that nothing happens which He does not permit. So, their limited use in 1945 Japan was, in fact, His method for restraining further evil.
You reiterate and generalize your Nanking reference to "the innocent": "the indiscriminate killing of the innocent." In God's eyes, and those are the only eyes that truly matter, no human is "innocent," as He makes abundantly clear:
“You describe, in reality, a distinction without a difference, in distinguishing nuclear destruction from conventional (cf. Dresden, etc.).”
I did not distinguish nuclear destruction from conventional; I *equated* nuclear destruction of a city with destruction by conventional bombing.
I distinguished between a megaton nuclear device, which has only one purpose, and conventional bombs, which can have many.
“Ultimately, it comes down to who wields them, and why.”
It seems that you don’t want to acknowledge the fact that megaton bombs have only one use.
“It’s not much of a leap to expect their use in the near-future as part of the Tribulation, along with neutron bombs, with God’s permission.”
If God directs it. However, this might not be the Tribulation. It could be just more of Satan’s work. In which case the use of large nuclear weapons would not carry God’s permission. How could we know?
“I’m willing to stipulate that no one can use such weapons of mass destruction without God’s permission.”
Well, we’re pretty much in agreement on that.
“He could prevent it if He wished, and the Bible makes clear that nothing happens which He does not permit. So, their limited use in 1945 Japan was, in fact, His method for restraining further evil.”
Could be, but we also know that God sometimes allows evil to persist for quite some time before He acts.
“In God’s eyes, and those are the only eyes that truly matter, no human is “innocent,”
I hate to do this, but I’m going to have to bring up children again. The chirruns. They, I believe, are innocent of serious sin. Also, in the society in which Romans was written, women were generally excluded from serious matters. I wonder if the passage should be translated to refer to men, excluding wimmen and chirruns.
Let’s look at the DR, a more accurate translation:
3:9. What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.
3:10. As it is written: There is not any man just.
(There is not any man just, viz…by virtue either of the law of nature, or of the law of Moses; but only by faith and grace.)
3:11. There is none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh after God.
3:12. All have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one.
That is, I extend it universally, even to the fetus: those who die in utero, or before some mythical "age of accountability," still have the choice whether they will accept God's salvation or not. In other words, from their conception onward all are self-willed rebels--each his own god--but God is fully capable of communicating successfully with their spirits and convincing some. That's the best understanding, I am persuaded, of both the Bible's compelling argument for sin's universality, coupled with God's expressed willingness that none should perish.
Tsutomu Yamaguchi has been recuperating at home from his injuries suffered in the atomic bombing he experienced on his business trip to Hiroshima. Tomorrow he will go to work at his job at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in his hometown...
...of Nagasaki.
And thank you, sir, for an excellent post.
Thanks for an outstanding post.
You have made the case I've been mulling over for some time now, in terms that I probably couldn't match.
Much appreciated, FRiend.
"Tojo Hediki, Ri Ku Gun" s/b "Tojo Hideki, Ri Ku Gun"...
Others wonder how the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament could have become the God of love portrayed in the New Testament. But God hasn't changed--people have. There were numerous reprobate societies in the pre-Christian era, in which evil was pervasive and destructive. Upwards of 95% of all humans were being murdered before the Flood. " The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." (Genesis 6:5) Again, in Sodom, "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." (Genesis 13:13) And "...all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' " (Genesis 19:4-5) Quite a welcoming committee!
But after Christ's resurrection, He sent us the Holy Spirit. Since then and because of His presence and influence, although there are still reprobate individuals and groups, there are no more reprobate societies on Earth. That's why God treats men differently now--He need no longer cause mass deaths to limit evil and cleanse the Earth--until the Great Tribulation, whence He will renew those efforts in earnest, in order to pressure the last holdouts into getting "off the fence" and choosing finally whether to continue serving only themselves or to turn to Him in repentance and faith as their Lord and Savior.
“You have made the case I’ve been mulling over for some time now, in terms that I probably couldn’t match.”
Yes, I copied it to my hard drive for future reference and possible plagiarism.
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.