Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

"One good thing may arise out of it, I suppose, if the write-ups are not overheated: Japan ought to cave in. Well we're in God's hands. But He does not look kindly on Babel-builders." - J.R.R Tolkein on Hiroshima.

www.chroniclesmagazine.org

An article from Chronicles Magazine on how the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the "greatest generation's" version of "shock and awe," affected the imagaination on men. Up until the rise of neo-Conservatism, the Old Right agreed with the Catholic Church's assessment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as grave sins and crimes against mankind.

orientem.blogspot.com

While some can come up with all sorts of goods that came out of it, we must remember that one is not allowed to do evil that good may come.

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).









LOCKED
Aug 07 new
I have noticed that criticisms of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignore the question of how to end the war. The Japanese appeared willing to fight to the death. Had we invaded Japan proper, there would have been enough civilians dead to make several Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: I have noticed that criticisms of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignore the question of how to end the war. The Japanese appeared willing to fight to the death. Had we invaded Japan proper, there would have been enough civilians dead to make several Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.
This still would not make doing evil that good may come of it licit, moral action.

Everyone can conjecture in light of hindsight as to what might have been better or worse, but the fact is that moral action is black and white. People try to contort the full-scale destruction wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as in conformity with just war doctrine:

The purpose must be just.
The instigating agent must have properly instituted authority.
The end must be peace.

The acts perpetrated upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not fit, as the Catechism lays out:

"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 purpose cannot be just if it is directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities, etc. No one has the authority to commit crimes against God...and peace is not established if another nation is placed in perverted subjection for another nation's interests.

This is not ignoring the question of how to end the war, but rather pointing out that the means to end the war with Japan was unjust and actually a crime against God and man. It is up to the reigning authorities to come up with just answers to the end of the war BEFORE the war is ever waged (since that end must be kept at least virtually in mind while the war is waged to make sure no immoral deviation occurs).

What good reason did we have to invade Japan at that time anyway?
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: I have noticed that criticisms of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignore the question of how to end the war. The Japanese appeared willing to fight to the death. Had we invaded Japan proper, there would have been enough civilians dead to make several Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.
Isn't that like asking how we feed a town of poor people without killing the millionaire that lives on the hill and taking his goods?

Yes, that was from a "Catholic Answers" explanation on material cooperation with evil.

Whatever act that could have been chosen, that was an objectively evil one, and was so condemned by many as such at the time.
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Isn't that like asking how we feed a town of poor people without killing the millionaire that lives on the hill and taking his goods?

Yes, that was from a "Catholic Answers" explanation on material cooperation with evil.

Whatever act that could have been chosen, that was an objectively evil one, and was so condemned by many as such at the time.
From Major General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the 20th Century's great military historians:

Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified.


LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: This still would not make doing evil that good may come of it licit, moral action.

Everyone can conjecture in light of hindsight as to what might have been better or worse, but the fact is that moral action is black and white. People try to contort the full-scale destruction wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as in conformity with just war doctrine:

The purpose must be just.
The instigating agent must have properly instituted authority.
The end must be peace.

The acts perpetrated upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not fit, as the Catechism lays out:

"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 purpose cannot be just if it is directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities, etc. No one has the authority to commit crimes against God...and peace is not established if another nation is placed in perverted subjection for another nation's interests.

This is not ignoring the question of how to end the war, but rather pointing out that the means to end the war with Japan was unjust and actually a crime against God and man. It is up to the reigning authorities to come up with just answers to the end of the war BEFORE the war is ever waged (since that end must be kept at least virtually in mind while the war is waged to make sure no immoral deviation occurs).

What good reason did we have to invade Japan at that time anyway?
The purpose must be just.
The objective was to end a war without invading Japan.

The instigating agent must have properly instituted authority.
The US had been attacked 3.5 years earlier; and the act was ordered by the President of the US pursuant to authority granted by Article 2 of the US Constitution. The war was pursued subsequent to a Declaration of War passed by Congress and had funding authorized by Congress.

The end must be peace.
This was the objective.

2314 "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."110 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.

A ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in "the indiscriminate destruction of a whole country and with their inhabitants". Is the objection to the use of atomic weaponry?

What good reason did we have to invade Japan at that time anyway?
How would we end the war? In a manner similar to how the Korean war didn't end; North Korea is hell on earth. In a manner that would have let the Soviet Union conquer South Korea as well? Looking at the tremendous suffering in Russia and Eastern Europe because of the Soviet Union this would be unacceptable. In a manner that would let the USSR invade and occupy half or all of Japan? When the USSR invaded Manchuria and North Korea, her troops raped and murdered large numbers of civilians. In addition East Germany and North Korea were not pleasant places to be.



LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Isn't that like asking how we feed a town of poor people without killing the millionaire that lives on the hill and taking his goods?

Yes, that was from a "Catholic Answers" explanation on material cooperation with evil.

Whatever act that could have been chosen, that was an objectively evil one, and was so condemned by many as such at the time.
It is like asking which is better: killing 1 person or killing 10.
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: I have noticed that criticisms of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignore the question of how to end the war. The Japanese appeared willing to fight to the death. Had we invaded Japan proper, there would have been enough civilians dead to make several Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.
It should be noted that this does not say I believe dropping the bomb was a good decision, but the least bad of several bad options.
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: "One good thing may arise out of it, I suppose, if the write-ups are not overheated: Japan ought to cave in. Well we're in God's hands. But He does not look kindly on Babel-builders." - J.R.R Tolkein on Hiroshima.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/08/06/staring-at-hiroshima-from-babel/

An article from Chronicles Magazine on how the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the "greatest generation's" version of "shock and awe," affected the imagaination on men. Up until the rise of neo-Conservatism, the Old Right agreed with the Catholic Church's assessment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as grave sins and crimes against mankind.

http://orientem.blogspot.com/2008/08/old-rightist-voices-against-atomic-mass.html

While some can come up with all sorts of goods that came out of it, we must remember that one is not allowed to do evil that good may come.

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).









It gets tiring listening to people second guess everything that went on in days
past.

These same people would not be second guessing anything if we spoke
Japanese now.

And not everyone who was responsible for the decision to drop the bomb
had allegiance to the Pope.

Yes, it was a heinous use of force at the time, but it seems the world has
learned many lessons from that act, in addition to ending a brutal war.

An enemy that is trying to kill you is to be taken seriously, especially an
enemy with the scruples of the Japanese at that time. The whole
earth and its inhabitants were worn out from the years of battle. Putting
an end to WW2 was a good thing.
LOCKED
Aug 07 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: It is like asking which is better: killing 1 person or killing 10.
This is the same logic employed to hand Jesus Christ over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified:

"But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation." John 11:49-51

It is not "more good" to kill one person versus killing ten. There may be a lesser evil, but that doesn't turn the evil into a good. However, there is never a lesser evil involved in committing an evil with the hope of a resultant good.




LOCKED
Posts 1 - 10 of 189