Does Jesus Really Love Nukes?
August 24, 2011
Joe Carter
As I walked along the streets of Hiroshima I tried to imagine the city on fire. Fifty-six years earlier the atomic bomb “Little Boy” had set the area aflame, killing nearly a third of the population within twenty-four hours. According to the local prefectural health department estimates, of the people who perished on the day of the explosion, 60 percent died from flash or flame burns. Most of the dead were “noncombatants”—innocent men, women, and children. 
Like many Americans I had always believed that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan had been a necessary evil, the only way to end the bloody, protracted war. Now, looking into the faces of smiling children strolling down the bustling sidewalks, I wasn’t so sure. Civilians just like the ones I was watching—mothers fussing over infants, grandmothers holding the hands of little girls—had been targeted by my country in order to bend the will of Japan’s political and military leaders.
Being an American, I had heard all of the arguments for why sacrificing these noncombatants was the only way to spare the lives of thousands that would be killed in the inevitable invasion. Being a Christian, though, I struggled with a more essential question: How is it ever justifiable to target innocent men, women, and children?
I was preoccupied by that question during the thirty-mile trip back to the Marine air station at Iwakuni. And then, once I stepped back onto the base, I put it out of mind.
That was in August 2001.
Two weeks later, in the predawn hours, I stood with my squadron in a hanger bay waiting to hear news from the east coast of the United States. Despite living in an age of fiber optics and satellite communications, the information couldn’t reach us on the other side of the world quickly enough. We were desperate to know what was happening back home. A few Marines knew people who were scheduled to fly out of Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. Many knew someone who lived or worked in downtown Manhattan. Everyone knew someone in the Pentagon.
We felt helpless. While we were in a foreign land “defending our country” thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—were dead or dying in America. Almost all were “noncombatants”—innocent men, women, and children.
Thinking about the deaths of civilians on my own soil caused me to reconsider the deaths of civilians in WWII-era Japan. After much prayer, reflection, and study I came to some radically unpopular conclusions. I realized, for instance, that no matter how much my country might have benefited from the decision, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the indiscriminate fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities could not be squared with my view of Christian morality.
In retrospect it seems like an obvious position for a Christian. Yet despite having been a Marine for 13 years I had never heard anyone other than pacifists claim that was an acceptable, much less obligatory opinion to hold. There were few resources available to help me think through my moral obligations as a Christian who served in the vocation of a warrior.
Recently, I was reminded of this lack of instruction on justice in warfare. The Air Force has suspended a training course for nuclear missile launch officers because it used Bible passages and religious imagery to teach them about the ethics of war.
The impetus, of course, was another ludicrous campaign by the Church-State seperationists. In this case, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is the group of screwy, shortsighted ideologues who believes that when it comes to launching a nuclear weapon, its best not to have anyone who might be influenced by an ethic of “love your neighbor.” Unfortunately, as happens all too often nowadays, the Christians sided with the secularists. According to the reports, the anti-religion group was “approached late last month by about 30 officers, most of them Protestant or Roman Catholic, who said they objected to the presentation.”
Despite the group’s ridiculous motives, they have done us a service by bringing attention to this program, a counterproductive training session that has been going on for decades.
The problem with the religious section of the ethics training—dubbed by the attendees as the “Jesus loves nukes speech”—is that it appears to present a truncated and distorted view of just war thinking, particularly as it applies to the use of nuclear weapons.
The PowerPoint presentation briefly lists “Augustine’s Qualifications for Just War” as “Just Cause” and “Just Intent.” Although these are a couple of the qualifications for jus ad bellum ("right to wage war"), there is no mention of jus in bello (“justice in war”). Instead, the presentation merely lists a few Old Testament figures who engaged in war (Abraham, Samson, David) and a handful of verses from the New Testament that present a positive impression of soldiers.
From there it shifts to the section on Hiroshima. The presentation mentions that 80,000 were killed instantly and that 200,000 died by 1950 before adding a “However . . .” that points out “Tokyo firebombed 80,000 to 100,000 in one night!” and “If the Japanese or Germans had made the atomic bomb first, they have testified that they would have used it.” Arguing that the people behind the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking would have done it too if they had the opportunity is not exactly a compelling ethical justification. Sadly, this appears to be the primary mode of reasoning used in the presentation.
Judging the training based solely on the supporting materials is admittedly unfair. Perhaps the complete presentation was more nuanced and rooted in Christian moral reasoning. That is certainly my hope, though it appears the training had less to do with teaching Christian ethics than with salving the qualms of religious airmen who may have to “turn the key” and launch nuclear weapons against civilian populations.
Therein lies the true problem with this sort of training. If the role of the chaplain in ethical training is reduced to providing Bible verses to support whatever choices are made in warfare, then it is worse than ineffective. And if the chaplaincy is disappointed and considers the training a failure when an airmen decides that maybe Jesus doesn’t loves nukes, they have failed to do their duty as religious counselors.
This is not the type of training that is needed. The men and women of the military do not need pastors who will tell them that sometimes you have to destroy a village in order to save it. They need religious leaders who will inform them about the rich tradition of just warfare thinking that has been handed down by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Vitoria, Grotius and others.
Most of all, Christians in the military need to be inculturated in a Christianity that does not put the interest of the nation-state ahead of the Kingdom of God. By doing so we are creating a climate of consequentialism, where the morality of an action is judged based on whether it leads to a favorable outcome. This not only leads to unethical post hoc rationalizations for previous actions, it provides cover for future violations. If Christian civilians are willing to overlook and justify outrages in war when they align with the nation’s strategic interests, we should not be surprised when outrages in warfare become more frequent.
Christians were at the forefront of providing a moral context for warfare. But we are in danger of losing all that we have achieved. “The distinction between combatants and the civilian population has been characterized not only as one of the fundamental principles of international law, but as its greatest triumph,” wrote Capt. Lester Nurick in the American Journal of International Law, two months after the bombing of Hiroshima. Yet he also noted that, “The trend in war is to treat combatant and noncombatant alike, if to do so will realize any substantial military gain.” This trend starts not with the military but with a civilian population that is willing to subscribe to a “do what needs to be done” attitude to waging war.
Although none of us are likely to have to enter the codes to launch a nuclear missile, all thinking Christians are obligated to reason through the underlying moral issues. If we are willing and able to set aside our moral obligations when they conflict with the strategic needs of our nation, how can we argue that the same obligations can’t be set aside for the personal needs of the individual? If we can target children in war, then why can children not be targeted in the womb?
The Machiavellian pragmatism that justifies the slaughter of innocents in a foreign city eventually leads to the devaluation of innocent life in our country. We can’t leave the consequentialism on the battlefield, for it always follows us back home. Once we untether justice from warfare, there is no firebreak that can hold back the inferno of relativism from scorching our own land.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Washington Post, Air Force suspends ethics course that used Bible passages to train missile launch officers
Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear War PowerPoint Presentation
Joe Carter, A Jus In Bello Defense of Nuclear Weapons
James Turner Johnson, Just War, As It Was and Is
Catholic Moral Theology, On the Vandenberg Air Force Base Nuclear Ethics & Nuclear War Course
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.24.2011 | 7:10am
ppeter says:
Great article.
However, it may be a little late for the current generation of Christians. The problem is not so much with the military. Consequentialism, although clearly condemned by the NT (Ro 3:8) and Church teaching, has already so thoroughly penetrated our mentalities that most of us cannot even grasp the concept of morality any more.
We conservatives are generally of the opinion that we can be cheerleaders for all the nation's endless and pointless wars and that these wars will not end up cheapening human life at home. This sort of reasoning exposes much pro-life support as mere right-wing tribalism, mirroring the left-wing tribalism of "choice".
However, it may be a little late for the current generation of Christians. The problem is not so much with the military. Consequentialism, although clearly condemned by the NT (Ro 3:8) and Church teaching, has already so thoroughly penetrated our mentalities that most of us cannot even grasp the concept of morality any more.
We conservatives are generally of the opinion that we can be cheerleaders for all the nation's endless and pointless wars and that these wars will not end up cheapening human life at home. This sort of reasoning exposes much pro-life support as mere right-wing tribalism, mirroring the left-wing tribalism of "choice".
8.24.2011 | 7:17am
Paul T. McCain says:
Joe, thanks for your post.
I've been doing a lot of reading and study of the Pacific Theater in World War II in the past six months and after that research I have no doubt in my mind that the USA made the correct decision in using nuclear weapons to end WW II. Without their use and the demonstration of their use on population centers, the Japanese simply would not have surrendered and the carnage that was seen on Peleliue, Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have continued on the Japanese mainland, with millions of lives lost in a full scale assault on the Japanese homeland would have been the result.
I've been doing a lot of reading and study of the Pacific Theater in World War II in the past six months and after that research I have no doubt in my mind that the USA made the correct decision in using nuclear weapons to end WW II. Without their use and the demonstration of their use on population centers, the Japanese simply would not have surrendered and the carnage that was seen on Peleliue, Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have continued on the Japanese mainland, with millions of lives lost in a full scale assault on the Japanese homeland would have been the result.
8.24.2011 | 7:18am
DE Las Casas says:
How did you conclude that the" innocent men, women, and children" are each separately innocent and that the young infantry man or woman who was a "child" only yesterday, and may die or be maimed to protect them, are collectively non-innocents?
The demotion of drafted non-civilians or heroic volunteers to a state of non-innocence is logically unsupportable .
Only the command structure makes strategic decisions.
The demotion of drafted non-civilians or heroic volunteers to a state of non-innocence is logically unsupportable .
Only the command structure makes strategic decisions.
8.24.2011 | 7:29am
Dean from Ohio says:
Joe,
Where is the discussion of the Japanese militarists and their planned "Glorious Death of 100 Million" Japanese in the to-the-last-child defense of the homeland? Where is the description of the Japanese death-cult culture that would have made combatants of them all and killed many, if not most of them? Where are the estimates of American casualties in assaulting the Japanese home islands? Where are the estimates of what the Soviets were planning to do in Europe if we did not have (and demonstrate) the bomb?
Okinawa had casualties of 60,000 out of 180,000 Americans and nearly all of the 100,000 Japanese. At Iwo Jima there were 26,000 American casualties out of 60,000, and all but 22,000 of the 26,000 Japanese (only 216 allowed themselves to be captured). These two battles closest to the home islands signaled a new strategy of bleeding the Americans white until they accepted Japanese surrender terms. They also give me confidence in the high American casualty estimates for the assault of the home islands, which reach to a million. Would fewer people have died if Japan had not been pressed to unconditional surrender through the use of the atomic bomb? I think not. The refusal to use the bomb is the true "destroying a village to save it" alternative.
Your thoughts, and your personal perspective informed by your military service, is helpful as far as it goes. But in war, as in politics, sometimes we don't get to frame the choice in such black and white terms. We choose from the options we have at the time. In this respect, your article's leap from personal musings and decisions to equating a war choice with the abortion deaths of 50 million in the U.S. is just as weak and misleading as the "Jesus loves the bomb" caricature, and I believe more so.
Where is the discussion of the Japanese militarists and their planned "Glorious Death of 100 Million" Japanese in the to-the-last-child defense of the homeland? Where is the description of the Japanese death-cult culture that would have made combatants of them all and killed many, if not most of them? Where are the estimates of American casualties in assaulting the Japanese home islands? Where are the estimates of what the Soviets were planning to do in Europe if we did not have (and demonstrate) the bomb?
Okinawa had casualties of 60,000 out of 180,000 Americans and nearly all of the 100,000 Japanese. At Iwo Jima there were 26,000 American casualties out of 60,000, and all but 22,000 of the 26,000 Japanese (only 216 allowed themselves to be captured). These two battles closest to the home islands signaled a new strategy of bleeding the Americans white until they accepted Japanese surrender terms. They also give me confidence in the high American casualty estimates for the assault of the home islands, which reach to a million. Would fewer people have died if Japan had not been pressed to unconditional surrender through the use of the atomic bomb? I think not. The refusal to use the bomb is the true "destroying a village to save it" alternative.
Your thoughts, and your personal perspective informed by your military service, is helpful as far as it goes. But in war, as in politics, sometimes we don't get to frame the choice in such black and white terms. We choose from the options we have at the time. In this respect, your article's leap from personal musings and decisions to equating a war choice with the abortion deaths of 50 million in the U.S. is just as weak and misleading as the "Jesus loves the bomb" caricature, and I believe more so.
8.24.2011 | 7:41am
Brian English says:
"Being an American, I had heard all of the arguments for why sacrificing these noncombatants was the only way to spare the lives of thousands that would be killed in the inevitable invasion."
Thousands? Try millions, with the vast majority of those lives being Japanese.
"Thinking about the deaths of civilians on my own soil caused me to reconsider the deaths of civilians in WWII-era Japan. "
I must have missed the part where al Qaeda dropped leaflets over New York advising people to get out of the city before the attack.
And you really don't see the difference between a sneak attack using commercial aircraft and the bombings using military aircraft to try to end a six-year world war?
"If Christian civilians are willing to overlook and justify outrages in war when they align with the nation’s strategic interests, we should not be surprised when outrages in warfare become more frequent."
What are you talking about? Is it your position that "outrages" by US troops have become more frequent since 1945? I don't think history supports you on that.
"Although none of us are likely to have to enter the codes to launch a nuclear missile, all thinking Christians are obligated to reason through the underlying moral issues."
So should we dismantle all of our nuclear weapons? If not, why not?
"The Machiavellian pragmatism that justifies the slaughter of innocents in a foreign city eventually leads to the devaluation of innocent life in our country."
Oh brother. Seriously? You can draw a straight line between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Roe v. Wade? The ideology that gave us Roe was in full swing well before August 1945.
Furthermore, I think the majority of the No-Nukes types are perfectly fine with Roe. On the other hand, I think the majority of those who see the Bombings as the best choice out of a group of terrible options see Roe for the evil that it is.
Thousands? Try millions, with the vast majority of those lives being Japanese.
"Thinking about the deaths of civilians on my own soil caused me to reconsider the deaths of civilians in WWII-era Japan. "
I must have missed the part where al Qaeda dropped leaflets over New York advising people to get out of the city before the attack.
And you really don't see the difference between a sneak attack using commercial aircraft and the bombings using military aircraft to try to end a six-year world war?
"If Christian civilians are willing to overlook and justify outrages in war when they align with the nation’s strategic interests, we should not be surprised when outrages in warfare become more frequent."
What are you talking about? Is it your position that "outrages" by US troops have become more frequent since 1945? I don't think history supports you on that.
"Although none of us are likely to have to enter the codes to launch a nuclear missile, all thinking Christians are obligated to reason through the underlying moral issues."
So should we dismantle all of our nuclear weapons? If not, why not?
"The Machiavellian pragmatism that justifies the slaughter of innocents in a foreign city eventually leads to the devaluation of innocent life in our country."
Oh brother. Seriously? You can draw a straight line between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Roe v. Wade? The ideology that gave us Roe was in full swing well before August 1945.
Furthermore, I think the majority of the No-Nukes types are perfectly fine with Roe. On the other hand, I think the majority of those who see the Bombings as the best choice out of a group of terrible options see Roe for the evil that it is.
8.24.2011 | 8:28am
Michael Jones says:
I am one of those may have been ordered to "turn key". I am also one one a small group who may have had to advise military/civilian authorities of nuclear options available when under attack. I knew the presidential "Blackbook" and understood the details supporting it. In every exrcise I can remember, the militay senior leadership acted with a more complete moral prospective than the civilians. They had abetter understanding and fear of the consequences of war.
It's been over 25 years ago, but back then all the options targeted certain objectives and in no way targeted inocents indicrimattely, except one. That one was to throw everything we had because no one knews what was happening and no one knew what weapons had not already been destroyed. I did not attend any Just War classes but like many, I prayed often for guidance.
This whole issue goes back to WWII. It seems that firebombing and dropping the atomic bomb are all judged the same. They should not be. For instance, I believe that the bombing of Dresden was a shameful if not criminal, but I can understand the fireboming of Japan and dropping the atomic bombs. The battle for Okinawa opened our eyes to the fact that to the Japanese, there were no non-conbatants. We were horrified at the prospect of ending that war with invasion and the slaughter on both sides that would result. Maybe the dropping of the bomb was an act of mercy. Maybe not. I believe that Truman had a terrribly tough call to make and I'll not judge him, That's God's call to make.
It's been over 25 years ago, but back then all the options targeted certain objectives and in no way targeted inocents indicrimattely, except one. That one was to throw everything we had because no one knews what was happening and no one knew what weapons had not already been destroyed. I did not attend any Just War classes but like many, I prayed often for guidance.
This whole issue goes back to WWII. It seems that firebombing and dropping the atomic bomb are all judged the same. They should not be. For instance, I believe that the bombing of Dresden was a shameful if not criminal, but I can understand the fireboming of Japan and dropping the atomic bombs. The battle for Okinawa opened our eyes to the fact that to the Japanese, there were no non-conbatants. We were horrified at the prospect of ending that war with invasion and the slaughter on both sides that would result. Maybe the dropping of the bomb was an act of mercy. Maybe not. I believe that Truman had a terrribly tough call to make and I'll not judge him, That's God's call to make.
8.24.2011 | 9:28am
Goldberg says:
One should not conflate or confuse the obligations of the individual Christian with the obligations of the state as the author clearly does. The Christian should look to those without sin to cast the first stone. The state needs to be a little more exacting. Otherwise, in the anarchy and chaos that ensues, the Christian perishes. Thus, while the author finds it acceptable to kill ten to twenty million Japanese civilians (not to mention another 150,000 to 200,000 U.S. military personnel) to avoid killing one hundred thousand civilians, the basic question comes back to whether self-defense is allowable. Perhaps the author should spend a little time in the Old Testament and understand that God's instruction to the Hebrews to destroy every man, woman, child, dog, and cat was not simple bloodlust, but rather, the way to establish lasting peace. If the author is so lacking in discernment as to not see the difference between an unprovoked attack on civilians for the purpose of starting a war and the attack on an industrial hub to end a war, it may be time for him to seek conscientous objector status so not to endanger his country and his fellow marines.
8.24.2011 | 9:52am
Joe Carter says:
As I was writing this article I predicted that this was the type of reaction it would receive. I was under no illusion that I was likely to change many minds on this issue. The "we did what was necessary" mentality is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind. I respect these types of views even if I can no longer agree.
All I do ask is that you think about the issue and consider whether you are not succumbing to an an "ends justify the means" justification. If you believe you are not, then I would be interested in hearing how under traditional just war thinking, the targeted bombing of civilians can be justified.
Also, if it is possible to *end* a war by targeting civilians, then why should we not target them from the *beginning* of the war. I ask that seriously. The laws of war don't just because a war is dragging on for years. So if it is legitimate to target civilians at the end, why not at the start?
Finally, let me add that one of the reasons I changed my mind on this issue was because I developed a greater appreciation for the sovereignty of God. I had previously bought into the idea that since the cost of the invasion would be considerable, the moral calculus justified killing civilians now to prevent killing more civilians in the future. I realized that the reason I had felt this way (and I'm not saying that it is the reason anyone else does) is because I assumed that it was man's job to end the war in whatever way possible rather than relying on God to find a solution that would be just.
I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable.
All I do ask is that you think about the issue and consider whether you are not succumbing to an an "ends justify the means" justification. If you believe you are not, then I would be interested in hearing how under traditional just war thinking, the targeted bombing of civilians can be justified.
Also, if it is possible to *end* a war by targeting civilians, then why should we not target them from the *beginning* of the war. I ask that seriously. The laws of war don't just because a war is dragging on for years. So if it is legitimate to target civilians at the end, why not at the start?
Finally, let me add that one of the reasons I changed my mind on this issue was because I developed a greater appreciation for the sovereignty of God. I had previously bought into the idea that since the cost of the invasion would be considerable, the moral calculus justified killing civilians now to prevent killing more civilians in the future. I realized that the reason I had felt this way (and I'm not saying that it is the reason anyone else does) is because I assumed that it was man's job to end the war in whatever way possible rather than relying on God to find a solution that would be just.
I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable.
8.24.2011 | 10:12am
joe bissonnette says:
Both Joe Carter's article and those commenting on it accept without question the premise that it was the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which prompted Japan's unconditional surrender and thereby cut short the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. However University of California Santa Barbara historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argues that this was not the case.
The comparable number of civilian deaths wrought by the Tokyo firebombing did not cause Japan to surrender so why should the nuclear bombings? Instead, Hasegawa argues that Japan was waiting for the Soviet Union to broker a favourable surrender to the United States in exchange for Japanese occupied territories in China, but that this hope was squashed when the Soviet Union joined the United States in declaring war on Japan.In short, Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union declared war on them, and Japan preferred surrendering to the U.S. rather than to both the United States and the less merciful Soviet Uniion. (see Boston Globe article by Garett Cook, August 7, 2011)
So according to Hasegawa the principal evidence for the sui generis deterent effect of nuclear weapons is misconstrued.
Further, non nuclear weaponly like the Daisy Cutter which was a principal tool in the Shock and Awe strategy in the early years of Afganistan has as much destructive force as most nuclear weapons.
The discussion then should be refined away from the highly evocative nuclear question to the justification of civilian targets.
The comparable number of civilian deaths wrought by the Tokyo firebombing did not cause Japan to surrender so why should the nuclear bombings? Instead, Hasegawa argues that Japan was waiting for the Soviet Union to broker a favourable surrender to the United States in exchange for Japanese occupied territories in China, but that this hope was squashed when the Soviet Union joined the United States in declaring war on Japan.In short, Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union declared war on them, and Japan preferred surrendering to the U.S. rather than to both the United States and the less merciful Soviet Uniion. (see Boston Globe article by Garett Cook, August 7, 2011)
So according to Hasegawa the principal evidence for the sui generis deterent effect of nuclear weapons is misconstrued.
Further, non nuclear weaponly like the Daisy Cutter which was a principal tool in the Shock and Awe strategy in the early years of Afganistan has as much destructive force as most nuclear weapons.
The discussion then should be refined away from the highly evocative nuclear question to the justification of civilian targets.
8.24.2011 | 10:35am
Brian English says:
"All I do ask is that you think about the issue and consider whether you are not succumbing to an an "ends justify the means" justification."
You can double-effect your way through a full scale invasion of Japan and end-up with millions of Japanese dead and several hundred thousand dead Americans. A simplistic application of the concept of consequentialism may look brilliant in Elizabeth Anscombe's office at Oxford, but it kind of falls apart when you look at reality. If your proposed course of action leads to a lot more dead people, it is probably time to reconsider the morality of your plan.
"Also, if it is possible to *end* a war by targeting civilians, then why should we not target them from the *beginning* of the war. I ask that seriously. The laws of war don't just because a war is dragging on for years. So if it is legitimate to target civilians at the end, why not at the start?"
The bombs were not dropped because the war was going to last another year and Truman was worried that people would get bored and lose interest; they were dropped because of the massive casualties that would be inflicted on both sides in a full scale invasion. People also forget that thousands of completly innocent civilians were being murdered every day in the areas occupied by the Japanese military.
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable. "
This is simply magical thinking. God gave people free-will. Nothing in the Japanese conduct of the war, and nothing in the defense planning that we were aware of, would lead anyone to believe that they would have simply laid down their arms. Note it took two bombs, and then the Emperor's intervention, to cause the Japanese military to surrender.
You can double-effect your way through a full scale invasion of Japan and end-up with millions of Japanese dead and several hundred thousand dead Americans. A simplistic application of the concept of consequentialism may look brilliant in Elizabeth Anscombe's office at Oxford, but it kind of falls apart when you look at reality. If your proposed course of action leads to a lot more dead people, it is probably time to reconsider the morality of your plan.
"Also, if it is possible to *end* a war by targeting civilians, then why should we not target them from the *beginning* of the war. I ask that seriously. The laws of war don't just because a war is dragging on for years. So if it is legitimate to target civilians at the end, why not at the start?"
The bombs were not dropped because the war was going to last another year and Truman was worried that people would get bored and lose interest; they were dropped because of the massive casualties that would be inflicted on both sides in a full scale invasion. People also forget that thousands of completly innocent civilians were being murdered every day in the areas occupied by the Japanese military.
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable. "
This is simply magical thinking. God gave people free-will. Nothing in the Japanese conduct of the war, and nothing in the defense planning that we were aware of, would lead anyone to believe that they would have simply laid down their arms. Note it took two bombs, and then the Emperor's intervention, to cause the Japanese military to surrender.
8.24.2011 | 10:45am
Nathan Duffy says:
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable."
By this logic, couldn't you justify not going to WWII in the first place? After all, deaths of civilians when going to war are inevitable. At what number does the lives lost become acceptable? As Christians, shouldn't we advocate just sitting back and taking whatever ill falls upon us?
I realize your view isn't that radical, but this seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of this line of reasoning.
That being said, I'm not completely convinced that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were just actions, but trust that God is sovereign and uses people in power to bring about his purposes. Luckily none of us will ever have to make decisions weighing tens of thousands of lives against tens of thousands of other lives, and can leave that issue between those who do have to make those decisions and God.
By this logic, couldn't you justify not going to WWII in the first place? After all, deaths of civilians when going to war are inevitable. At what number does the lives lost become acceptable? As Christians, shouldn't we advocate just sitting back and taking whatever ill falls upon us?
I realize your view isn't that radical, but this seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of this line of reasoning.
That being said, I'm not completely convinced that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were just actions, but trust that God is sovereign and uses people in power to bring about his purposes. Luckily none of us will ever have to make decisions weighing tens of thousands of lives against tens of thousands of other lives, and can leave that issue between those who do have to make those decisions and God.
8.24.2011 | 10:48am
jason taylor says:
"DE Las Casas says:
How did you conclude that the" innocent men, women, and children" are each separately innocent and that the young infantry man or woman who was a "child" only yesterday, and may die or be maimed to protect them, are collectively non-innocents?
The demotion of drafted non-civilians or heroic volunteers to a state of non-innocence is logically unsupportable .
Only the command structure makes strategic decisions. "
That is incoherent. If one holds to a pacifist argument all soldiers are murderers and therefore non-innocents. If one holds to just-war we are back where we are started. In any case no baby ever deliberately tried to kill anybody, justly or not.
How did you conclude that the" innocent men, women, and children" are each separately innocent and that the young infantry man or woman who was a "child" only yesterday, and may die or be maimed to protect them, are collectively non-innocents?
The demotion of drafted non-civilians or heroic volunteers to a state of non-innocence is logically unsupportable .
Only the command structure makes strategic decisions. "
That is incoherent. If one holds to a pacifist argument all soldiers are murderers and therefore non-innocents. If one holds to just-war we are back where we are started. In any case no baby ever deliberately tried to kill anybody, justly or not.
8.24.2011 | 10:57am
Joe Carter says:
@Nathan Duffy ***By this logic, couldn't you justify not going to WWII in the first place? After all, deaths of civilians when going to war are inevitable. At what number does the lives lost become acceptable? As Christians, shouldn't we advocate just sitting back and taking whatever ill falls upon us? ***
Fair questions. I think the answer is that war is an unfortunate outcome of living in a fallen world. But that does not mean that "anything goes" during wartime. Saying that we should trust the sovereignty of God does not mean that we do nothing, only that the actions we take should be consistent the ethic he has set before us.
What if the only way we could have won the war was by engaging in mass rape. No doubt some people would support it as a "necessary evil," but most of us would say that is a line we will not cross. In my opinion, the line we shouldn't cross isn't movable based on strategic objectives. If it is wrong to commit an action, it does not make it right simply because it leads to a preferred outcome.
Fair questions. I think the answer is that war is an unfortunate outcome of living in a fallen world. But that does not mean that "anything goes" during wartime. Saying that we should trust the sovereignty of God does not mean that we do nothing, only that the actions we take should be consistent the ethic he has set before us.
What if the only way we could have won the war was by engaging in mass rape. No doubt some people would support it as a "necessary evil," but most of us would say that is a line we will not cross. In my opinion, the line we shouldn't cross isn't movable based on strategic objectives. If it is wrong to commit an action, it does not make it right simply because it leads to a preferred outcome.
8.24.2011 | 11:06am
Vincent Torley says:
Hi everyone,
This is an article I wrote a while ago on the issue of Hiroshima. I hope you find it interesting.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/hiroshima.html
joe bissonnette also makes a valid point about Japan's desire to surrender to the U.S.A., rather than the U.S.S.R.
This is an article I wrote a while ago on the issue of Hiroshima. I hope you find it interesting.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/hiroshima.html
joe bissonnette also makes a valid point about Japan's desire to surrender to the U.S.A., rather than the U.S.S.R.
8.24.2011 | 11:29am
kennethos says:
I'm thankful for much of what Joe Carter has written. However, this is outweighed by the severity of his historical and theological ignorance, and his outright lack of humility in stating his argument. I suspect that he still has an immature conscience in this as well (as do many of us, to a degree). While chaplains need to do a better job illustrating just war theory especially for nuclear reality, the sad fact is that we have an pacifism mentality behind the scenes that cannot be lived out, and cannot abide by the reality of living in a fallen world populated by sinners willing to do horrid things to us, stopped only when we do harsh things to them. Immature consciences then will be our downfall, as St. Paul noted throughout Scripture.
8.24.2011 | 11:32am
David Nickol says:
I had long defended the decision to drop the bomb on Japan until I discovered that General Eisenhower had opposed the decision:
**********
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
**********
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
**********
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
**********
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
8.24.2011 | 11:50am
HT says:
Joe is of course absolutely sound here. That such an issue is even controversial among so many pro-life Christians is one of the reasons I stopped going to Mass. One of the Vatican II documents is explicit about not destroying cities for any reason, though the assertion ought to have been unnecessary, given the Pauline Principle. Peter Geach has written eloquently about this: to imagine that God sometimes requires great evil of us to counter the evil of others is a sort of blasphemy. (Others such as Anscombe, Anthony Kenny and J. M. Cameron have as well.)
Now Joe, why don't you re-examine your knee-jerk American "the Market is always best" attitudes in the same glaring light of the Gospel as well? No reason to believe the only wrong American moral reflex is Hiroshima-rationalization.
Now Joe, why don't you re-examine your knee-jerk American "the Market is always best" attitudes in the same glaring light of the Gospel as well? No reason to believe the only wrong American moral reflex is Hiroshima-rationalization.
8.24.2011 | 11:53am
Joe Carter says:
I appreciate the defense, HT, but I'm not sure when I ever said ""the Market is always best." In fact, almost every day on the blog I post something that shows that is not the case (e.g., http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/23/the-economics-of-erotic-capital/)
8.24.2011 | 12:01pm
Ray Ingles says:
"In this case, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is the group of screwy, shortsighted ideologues who believes that when it comes to launching a nuclear weapon..."
...the military cannot explicitly espouse the doctrine of any religion as a religious doctrine.
(Fixed that for you.)
...the military cannot explicitly espouse the doctrine of any religion as a religious doctrine.
(Fixed that for you.)
8.24.2011 | 12:14pm
Jack says:
As I was writing this article I predicted that this was the type of reaction it would receive. I was under no illusion that I was likely to change many minds on this issue. The "we did what was necessary" mentality is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind. I respect these types of views even if I can no longer agree.
As the son of a WWII vet, who is named after an uncle who died fighting in Italy and who had uncles at Normandy and Iwo Jima, I am going to have to disagree with you Joe - you have changed my mind, or at least opened it to the possibility that dropping nuclear weapons isn't something Christian morality can justify.
As one who frequently has discussions with atheists regarding the importance of moral absolutes, I can say it is virtually impossible to defend the position that these bombings could be justified by the teachings of Christ; you have helped me here to realize why.
As the son of a WWII vet, who is named after an uncle who died fighting in Italy and who had uncles at Normandy and Iwo Jima, I am going to have to disagree with you Joe - you have changed my mind, or at least opened it to the possibility that dropping nuclear weapons isn't something Christian morality can justify.
As one who frequently has discussions with atheists regarding the importance of moral absolutes, I can say it is virtually impossible to defend the position that these bombings could be justified by the teachings of Christ; you have helped me here to realize why.
8.24.2011 | 12:17pm
Bender says:
How much moral responsibility did the Japanese people and government have in adamantly refusing to surrender and continuing to war against the United States even after the U.S. had warned them of imminent destruction before Hiroshima?
And how much more moral responsibility lies at the feet of the Japanese for their own destruction in refusing to surrender and continuing the war even after the bomb at Hiroshima had been dropped? Even after hundreds of thousands had been killed, the Japanese STILL refused to give up the fight.
It is indeed morally troublesome that one bomb was dropped. It is morally abhorent that the second bomb was necessary. If the Japanese had only surrendered -- after THEY started the war -- then none of this would have happened. All war is hell. That is why it is best not to start it in the first place.
And how much more moral responsibility lies at the feet of the Japanese for their own destruction in refusing to surrender and continuing the war even after the bomb at Hiroshima had been dropped? Even after hundreds of thousands had been killed, the Japanese STILL refused to give up the fight.
It is indeed morally troublesome that one bomb was dropped. It is morally abhorent that the second bomb was necessary. If the Japanese had only surrendered -- after THEY started the war -- then none of this would have happened. All war is hell. That is why it is best not to start it in the first place.
8.24.2011 | 12:23pm
Ray Inlgles says:
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs."
What if we'd simply dropped them on an uninhabited atoll, and let the Japanese imagine what would happen if we used them on a city?
I have heard speculation, though I've seen no 'smoking-gun' documents, that part of the reason for dropping the bombs was to gather information about the effects of such a bomb on an actual city.
What if we'd simply dropped them on an uninhabited atoll, and let the Japanese imagine what would happen if we used them on a city?
I have heard speculation, though I've seen no 'smoking-gun' documents, that part of the reason for dropping the bombs was to gather information about the effects of such a bomb on an actual city.
8.24.2011 | 12:33pm
David Nickol says:
Bender,
Exactly how much say did Japanese civilians (including women and children) have in deciding whether the military would surrender or not? And even if civilians had had the power, what kind of information did they have?
I can't imagine Jesus looking at the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saying, "It's their own fault. They started it. War is hell."
Exactly how much say did Japanese civilians (including women and children) have in deciding whether the military would surrender or not? And even if civilians had had the power, what kind of information did they have?
I can't imagine Jesus looking at the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saying, "It's their own fault. They started it. War is hell."
8.24.2011 | 12:33pm
Scott Wolfe says:
I think many commenters have missed Mr. Carter's point -- some unintentionally, but most probably willfully. I take his point to be that we should not have dropped the bomb IF our intent was "to target innocent men, women, and children." Mr. Carter doesn't include a lot of evidence that that was our intent. He simply assumes that to have been the case because the vast majority of the casualties were innocent men, women, and children. Maybe that assumption is well founded; maybe not. While I agree that it was probably foreseeable that that would be the result of our actions, I'm too young (and ill-informed) to know whether that was our actual intent. Is it possible that our intent was to destroy military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (e.g., bomb factories located near residential areas, etc.), and that the civilian casualties were incidental to that objective? Certainly, if that was not the case, and if we had no other legitimate intent, then I agree with Mr. Carter. It should never be acceptable to target innocents during war or otherwise. That's what terrorists do.
8.24.2011 | 12:40pm
Brian English says:
" I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
**********
Since we now know that the Japanese military was divided on surrender even after the second bomb, it looks like Ike was wrong.
**********
Since we now know that the Japanese military was divided on surrender even after the second bomb, it looks like Ike was wrong.
8.24.2011 | 12:47pm
Brian English says:
" One of the Vatican II documents is explicit about not destroying cities for any reason, though the assertion ought to have been unnecessary, given the Pauline Principle."
Written 20 years after the bombings, and more likely referring to the pressing issue of scores of ICBMs aimed at major cities.
Find me some contemporaneous condemnations outside of Sheen (and he even appears to have later softened his view on this) of the August 1945 bombings.
Written 20 years after the bombings, and more likely referring to the pressing issue of scores of ICBMs aimed at major cities.
Find me some contemporaneous condemnations outside of Sheen (and he even appears to have later softened his view on this) of the August 1945 bombings.
8.24.2011 | 12:48pm
Goldberg says:
While the author is telling us the mind of God, perhaps he can share some further, more topical prophecies to help the world through its current problems. Such foresight and moral superiority, unseen since the days of John of Patmos, would further Christ's work much more than jeremiad bleatings about a war long past.
It's one thing to question whether the events of August 1945 would have been preferable to an Asian Treaty of Versailles. It's entirely another to suggest that argument made in support of decisions taken in the exigencies of war seeks to diminish or is contrary to the "sovereignty of God." The utter lack of humility and smug moral superiority of the author is most unwelcome and fails to advance his argument.
It's one thing to question whether the events of August 1945 would have been preferable to an Asian Treaty of Versailles. It's entirely another to suggest that argument made in support of decisions taken in the exigencies of war seeks to diminish or is contrary to the "sovereignty of God." The utter lack of humility and smug moral superiority of the author is most unwelcome and fails to advance his argument.
8.24.2011 | 12:57pm
Citizen Jerry says:
Innocent civilians, dehumanized by the term "collateral damage," have always been a casualty of war, even just wars. But the collateral damage would have been even worse if America had to implement the invasion of the Japanese mainland, scheduled for early 1946.
8.24.2011 | 1:02pm
toddes says:
"I can't imagine Jesus looking at the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saying, "It's their own fault. They started it. War is hell." "
The question then comes was the destruction from the Flood, of Sodom, of Jericho and the cities of Canaan, of Ninevah, and of Jerusalem multiple times "their own fault"? If not, whose fault was it?
The idea you seem to put forth, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that GOD no longer acts in this world, that He no longer judges nations. If a nation abandons GOD should we not expect for some type of judgement to be met against them?
And Brian English has posted a comment (several actually) that no one has disputed. Did the US warn the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that their cities would be bombed in the near future? To me this takes away from any argument that the US acted in a manner that required the bombing of civilians.
The question then comes was the destruction from the Flood, of Sodom, of Jericho and the cities of Canaan, of Ninevah, and of Jerusalem multiple times "their own fault"? If not, whose fault was it?
The idea you seem to put forth, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that GOD no longer acts in this world, that He no longer judges nations. If a nation abandons GOD should we not expect for some type of judgement to be met against them?
And Brian English has posted a comment (several actually) that no one has disputed. Did the US warn the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that their cities would be bombed in the near future? To me this takes away from any argument that the US acted in a manner that required the bombing of civilians.
8.24.2011 | 1:08pm
Albert says:
Mr. Carter, I think you're right about this. Thank you.
As for the amateur historians: even professional historians should avoid the hubris of imagining we know what would have happened, given the complexity and the multiple options available. We don't know. Sometimes, as in this case, we only know what we should not do; then we pick from the other options.
As for the amateur historians: even professional historians should avoid the hubris of imagining we know what would have happened, given the complexity and the multiple options available. We don't know. Sometimes, as in this case, we only know what we should not do; then we pick from the other options.
8.24.2011 | 1:17pm
Gordon Hackman says:
Great article Joe. I'm a bit disappointed by the knee-jerk reactions of a lot of the commenters. As a former service member (Air Force) and a believer in just war doctrine, I have wrestled with this very same issue and have come to similar conclusions as yours.
@Goldberg -- exactly where does the article display an "utter lack of humility and smug moral superiority?" I don't see it. I can respect someone disagreeing with the article, as this is a difficult issue, but that is a harsh accusation to make just because you disagree with Joe's conclusions.
@Goldberg -- exactly where does the article display an "utter lack of humility and smug moral superiority?" I don't see it. I can respect someone disagreeing with the article, as this is a difficult issue, but that is a harsh accusation to make just because you disagree with Joe's conclusions.
8.24.2011 | 1:31pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@ Joe - "I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable."
Thanks for your replies; I appreciate the thought you put into them.
However, I think we have already seen the test case of not using the A-bomb and its approximate equivalents (firebombing whole cities) in modern war. It is called World War I. The innovations of heavy modern artillery, machine guns, chemical weapons aimed almost exclusively at combatants resulted bled the armed forces of Britain, France, Germany and others white. The peoples of Germany and Italy--Germany especially--did not learn the lesson that could have prevented WW II.
I expect that not firebombing Germany and not using both firebombing and the atomic bomb in Japan would have resulted in more of the same after WW II. The use of the A-bomb in Japan was, I believe, a necessary if not also sufficient condition to establish relative peace of the past 65 years.
Thanks for your replies; I appreciate the thought you put into them.
However, I think we have already seen the test case of not using the A-bomb and its approximate equivalents (firebombing whole cities) in modern war. It is called World War I. The innovations of heavy modern artillery, machine guns, chemical weapons aimed almost exclusively at combatants resulted bled the armed forces of Britain, France, Germany and others white. The peoples of Germany and Italy--Germany especially--did not learn the lesson that could have prevented WW II.
I expect that not firebombing Germany and not using both firebombing and the atomic bomb in Japan would have resulted in more of the same after WW II. The use of the A-bomb in Japan was, I believe, a necessary if not also sufficient condition to establish relative peace of the past 65 years.
8.24.2011 | 1:34pm
Brian English says:
"I'm a bit disappointed by the knee-jerk reactions of a lot of the commenters."
Why are the comments knee-jerk reactions? These annual August festivals of self-flagellation and Western self-loathing are not anything new, so I doubt the comments represent unthinking reactions to an issue that has never been considered before.
"As a former service member (Air Force) and a believer in just war doctrine, I have wrestled with this very same issue and have come to similar conclusions as yours."
Were the crewmen on the planes who delivered the bombs war criminals?
Why are the comments knee-jerk reactions? These annual August festivals of self-flagellation and Western self-loathing are not anything new, so I doubt the comments represent unthinking reactions to an issue that has never been considered before.
"As a former service member (Air Force) and a believer in just war doctrine, I have wrestled with this very same issue and have come to similar conclusions as yours."
Were the crewmen on the planes who delivered the bombs war criminals?
8.24.2011 | 1:35pm
DennisM says:
Will we never stop second-guessing the decisions made by our leaders in World War II?
I don't know about Hiroshima offhand, but as far as intent goes, our intent with the second bomb was to destroy the largest ship-building complex in the world then, in Kokura Japan, well north of Nagasaki. Nagasaki was the secondary choice, selected after conditions prevented bombing the primary target. The intent with Nagasaki was to destroy the huge Mitsubishi manufacturing plants there. It was unfortunate that the region was also the most Christian-populated area of Japan.
I think Mr Carter is correct that dropping the bomb was not a morally right thing to, but I'm still convinced that it was necessary.
I don't know about Hiroshima offhand, but as far as intent goes, our intent with the second bomb was to destroy the largest ship-building complex in the world then, in Kokura Japan, well north of Nagasaki. Nagasaki was the secondary choice, selected after conditions prevented bombing the primary target. The intent with Nagasaki was to destroy the huge Mitsubishi manufacturing plants there. It was unfortunate that the region was also the most Christian-populated area of Japan.
I think Mr Carter is correct that dropping the bomb was not a morally right thing to, but I'm still convinced that it was necessary.
8.24.2011 | 1:37pm
Chuck says:
It is necessary to put to rest the notion that the Japanese surrendered because they were afraid of the Russians. The Japanese military knew that the Russians could not successfully invade Japan.
Now, why do I say that. The Russian tactics were based around massed forces, heavy concentrations of men and artillery, with lots of tanks. These tactics were perfect for the plains of Europe and for chasing the Japanese about of Manchuria. But they would have been absolutely useless in an amphibious landing. At that time the Russians had no experience in amphibious assault (they never did learn how to do it even during the Cold War) and did not have the equipment to carry it out. What transports they had could not have carried the forces required and they had no way of getting them ashore in the face of heavy opposition.
Any Russian invasion force would have been wiped out on the beach, assuming the massed kamikaze attacks on the transports would have left any Russians to get to the beach.
Now, why do I say that. The Russian tactics were based around massed forces, heavy concentrations of men and artillery, with lots of tanks. These tactics were perfect for the plains of Europe and for chasing the Japanese about of Manchuria. But they would have been absolutely useless in an amphibious landing. At that time the Russians had no experience in amphibious assault (they never did learn how to do it even during the Cold War) and did not have the equipment to carry it out. What transports they had could not have carried the forces required and they had no way of getting them ashore in the face of heavy opposition.
Any Russian invasion force would have been wiped out on the beach, assuming the massed kamikaze attacks on the transports would have left any Russians to get to the beach.
8.24.2011 | 1:56pm
kelso says:
Very good article. And the quote from commenter Nikol from Eisenhower was very important. It takes away the main argument from those who defend the bombings. And with the authority of a general. Then, too, wasn't Hiroshima enough? Why Nagasaki? Why either? We could have invited Japanese observers to see an explosion on a deserted island. Did not the Japanese offer surrender through Russia prior to the bombings? If I remember correctly, it was the demand for "unconditional" surrender, no terms, that made Japan hesitate. If the powers wanted to save lives and end the war by treaty then why harden the proud by demanding their surrender be unconditional? And what exactly coaxed the Japanese to dare attack Pearl Harbor in the first place? And since our state department knew the attack was coming, why didn't FDR or Secretary of War warn the fleet?
8.24.2011 | 2:43pm
Jonathan Roberts says:
I am actually not surprised at the reactions and accusations made to Mr. Carter. He is accused of lacking humility and considering himself to be morally superior for challenging the infallibility of the state in making moral decisions during war time.
It is also not surprising that many responded with consequentialist and pragmatic arguments. What is unbelievable is how we who claim Christ forget that we are called to the via dolorosa. Sometimes we ought to do that which seems utterly impractical to follow the path of righteousness.
To fight a war justly, civilian targets MUST be avoided. Targeting them is not even a remote option. Combatants choose to lay down their lives when they enlist. Civilians do not.
As a society we have thrown just war theory thinking away. I'm afraid that many within the Church have done the same. Sometimes due to ignorance and other times out of contempt developed by an idolatrous sense of patriotism.
It is also not surprising that many responded with consequentialist and pragmatic arguments. What is unbelievable is how we who claim Christ forget that we are called to the via dolorosa. Sometimes we ought to do that which seems utterly impractical to follow the path of righteousness.
To fight a war justly, civilian targets MUST be avoided. Targeting them is not even a remote option. Combatants choose to lay down their lives when they enlist. Civilians do not.
As a society we have thrown just war theory thinking away. I'm afraid that many within the Church have done the same. Sometimes due to ignorance and other times out of contempt developed by an idolatrous sense of patriotism.
8.24.2011 | 2:44pm
FIRE says:
Don`t worry about it. God often put bans (kills everyone) on peoples that He does not like. I am not saying you have the right to do the same, because you don`t, but to put a ban on people in general is not a bad thing.
It all about who is doing the banning.
But to answer your question:
The Japanese would have continued the war until this day.
And they had chosen to ally with the nazis, and thus they doomed themselves.
Avoid Nazism and Feminism and you will live long and happily.
:-)
It all about who is doing the banning.
But to answer your question:
The Japanese would have continued the war until this day.
And they had chosen to ally with the nazis, and thus they doomed themselves.
Avoid Nazism and Feminism and you will live long and happily.
:-)
8.24.2011 | 3:02pm
Mike Melendez says:
There are those that claim not just the A bombs but also the city-wide fire bombings in Japan and Germany should have given more pause to our leadership. We know now, thanks to the Strategic Bombing Survey, that Dresden, for example, did not weaken the will of the German people as per Douhet, but rather strengthened it. Whatever we believed then, I know my time in the military -- 1967-74 and 1978-87 -- taught me that the Strategic Deterrence mission had failed if the weapons needed to be used. That leads to MAD, i.e. it doesn't work if we're unwilling to respond, but with an awareness of the mind-bending insanity of that willingness. Let us not condemn those who made the decisions then, now more than 60 years ago, but consider seriously what such decisions mean for us.
8.24.2011 | 3:03pm
JDD says:
@ Dean from Ohio
Where is the discussion of the Japanese militarists and their planned "Glorious Death of 100 Million" Japanese in the to-the-last-child defense of the homeland? Where is the description of the Japanese death-cult culture that would have made combatants of them all and killed many, if not most of them? Where are the estimates of American casualties in assaulting the Japanese home islands? Where are the estimates of what the Soviets were planning to do in Europe if we did not have (and demonstrate) the bomb?"
What has any of this to do with the morality of *our* decision? If the people of Japan had decided to do any of these things, they would have stood before God in judgement for their actions. What you seem to be suggesting above is that the Nation of Japan was planning a really atrocious act, therefore we had to carry out a less atrocious one.
And you are interchanging innocent civilians and military soldiers in your above list.
"Would fewer people have died if Japan had not been pressed to unconditional surrender through the use of the atomic bomb? I think not. The refusal to use the bomb is the true "destroying a village to save it" alternative."
In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory.
Where is the discussion of the Japanese militarists and their planned "Glorious Death of 100 Million" Japanese in the to-the-last-child defense of the homeland? Where is the description of the Japanese death-cult culture that would have made combatants of them all and killed many, if not most of them? Where are the estimates of American casualties in assaulting the Japanese home islands? Where are the estimates of what the Soviets were planning to do in Europe if we did not have (and demonstrate) the bomb?"
What has any of this to do with the morality of *our* decision? If the people of Japan had decided to do any of these things, they would have stood before God in judgement for their actions. What you seem to be suggesting above is that the Nation of Japan was planning a really atrocious act, therefore we had to carry out a less atrocious one.
And you are interchanging innocent civilians and military soldiers in your above list.
"Would fewer people have died if Japan had not been pressed to unconditional surrender through the use of the atomic bomb? I think not. The refusal to use the bomb is the true "destroying a village to save it" alternative."
In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory.
8.24.2011 | 3:17pm
David Nickol says:
As someone who used to be utterly convinced that dropping the bomb was the right choice at the time, it is not the fact that people defend the decision that I find disturbing, but rather the vehemence with which many do so. The destruction wrought by the bombs was horrific, and the effects of the radiation on survivors linger even to this day. It seems wrong to me for either side to say to the other, "How DARE you raise questions. How DARE you disagree with me."
8.24.2011 | 3:27pm
R Hampton says:
How odd that this appears one day after a friend (an immigrant born in 1970's Russia, moved to the u.s. about 10 years ago) asked about this very issue. In Russia, the American use of the Atomic bombs against civilians were a very important lesson in Russian schools, demonstrating our evil character. While friend knows that the Cold War propaganda often strayed very far from the truth, he still believes this event was morally wrong. Nonetheless, he was very interested in my opinion.
I'm of two minds: one, it is was a necessary evil on the part of a secular government that I support; two, it was a grave sin on the part of Christians. You might think this illogical, but our secular government requires it to be, and act, beyond the limits of Christianity - otherwise it would be a theocracy. Granted the scale differs, but sins like abortion, divorce, adultery, etc. are legal options for our citizenry, though some may choose to abstain.
Thus I agree with the 30 or so Christians who objected to the Just War theory class on the grounds of separation of Church and State. The class was specifically and purposefully Christian in its theological instruction, with no apparent effort made to incorporate other religious, agnostic, or atheists arguments.
Lastly, I have come to learn (not by way of my friend) that Russia's entry into the Pacific War (the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) on the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, was the key factor in convincing the Emperor and his Generals that they had to accept complete surrender to the Americans. They feared the Russians more than the bomb. It's likely that even without the bomb, the Japanese would have surrendered to us within the month. Of course we have the historical benefit of knowing what our enemy was thinking, unlike our commanders at the time.
I'm of two minds: one, it is was a necessary evil on the part of a secular government that I support; two, it was a grave sin on the part of Christians. You might think this illogical, but our secular government requires it to be, and act, beyond the limits of Christianity - otherwise it would be a theocracy. Granted the scale differs, but sins like abortion, divorce, adultery, etc. are legal options for our citizenry, though some may choose to abstain.
Thus I agree with the 30 or so Christians who objected to the Just War theory class on the grounds of separation of Church and State. The class was specifically and purposefully Christian in its theological instruction, with no apparent effort made to incorporate other religious, agnostic, or atheists arguments.
Lastly, I have come to learn (not by way of my friend) that Russia's entry into the Pacific War (the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) on the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, was the key factor in convincing the Emperor and his Generals that they had to accept complete surrender to the Americans. They feared the Russians more than the bomb. It's likely that even without the bomb, the Japanese would have surrendered to us within the month. Of course we have the historical benefit of knowing what our enemy was thinking, unlike our commanders at the time.
8.24.2011 | 3:31pm
Brian English says:
"Sometimes we ought to do that which seems utterly impractical to follow the path of righteousness."
So what should Truman have done?
"To fight a war justly, civilian targets MUST be avoided. Targeting them is not even a remote option. Combatants choose to lay down their lives when they enlist. Civilians do not."
Then why do you believe we should have pursued a course of conduct that would have resulted in the deaths of far more civilians?
"As a society we have thrown just war theory thinking away."
Because of something that happened 66 years ago? How does your theory account for the rise of weapons and tactics that are specifically meant to avoid civilian casualties?
So what should Truman have done?
"To fight a war justly, civilian targets MUST be avoided. Targeting them is not even a remote option. Combatants choose to lay down their lives when they enlist. Civilians do not."
Then why do you believe we should have pursued a course of conduct that would have resulted in the deaths of far more civilians?
"As a society we have thrown just war theory thinking away."
Because of something that happened 66 years ago? How does your theory account for the rise of weapons and tactics that are specifically meant to avoid civilian casualties?
8.24.2011 | 3:35pm
Brian English says:
"In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory."
The methods used to wage war, and the impact they will have on both the military and civilians, are not part of Just War theory? You are simply wrong about that.
The methods used to wage war, and the impact they will have on both the military and civilians, are not part of Just War theory? You are simply wrong about that.
8.24.2011 | 3:53pm
Matthew Mainte says:
Joe, you are correct in ascribing the inability to see the sin in the targeting of civilians as consequentialism. This mindset will further not see the value in choosing martyrdom over the sprinkling of incense to a pagan god. Catholic morality teaches that it's better to suffer horribly and lose one's life rather than commit a sin against God. Consequentialism laughs at that type of moral uprightness.
8.24.2011 | 3:54pm
arty says:
@ Ray Ingles:
The standard argument as to why the "test drop on an uninhabited island" option was rejected, is that the US had too few bombs to begin with, to waste one on another test, and that the technology was so new, there was the risk of the bomb failing to detonate as planned, which would have been sort of embarrassing.
I'm in general agreement with Carter, but simply as a matter of fact, the above argument was part of the equation.
The standard argument as to why the "test drop on an uninhabited island" option was rejected, is that the US had too few bombs to begin with, to waste one on another test, and that the technology was so new, there was the risk of the bomb failing to detonate as planned, which would have been sort of embarrassing.
I'm in general agreement with Carter, but simply as a matter of fact, the above argument was part of the equation.
8.24.2011 | 3:56pm
Scaevola says:
Will someone please answer some objections to the article, namely that 1) the Japanese were warned in advance about the bombings and 2) all of the Japanese were drafted and thus non-civilian? I don't know who raised the first one, but Michael Jones asked the second, and hasn't been answered. Also, Brian English's objections still have not been answered. If the author of this post feels so strongly about the immorality of the bombings, then surely he can show why these objections are not the stumbling blocks they seem.
8.24.2011 | 3:56pm
JDD says:
(Joe Carter said) "I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable."
(Nathan Duffy responded) "By this logic, couldn't you justify not going to WWII in the first place? After all, deaths of civilians when going to war are inevitable. At what number does the lives lost become acceptable? As Christians, shouldn't we advocate just sitting back and taking whatever ill falls upon us?
I realize your view isn't that radical, but this seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of this line of reasoning."
I don't see this reduction at all. I think you are confusing (as another commentator has noted) 'going to war' with 'targeting civilians in order to influence military and national leadership.' No one's advocating becoming a doormat.
(Nathan Duffy responded) "By this logic, couldn't you justify not going to WWII in the first place? After all, deaths of civilians when going to war are inevitable. At what number does the lives lost become acceptable? As Christians, shouldn't we advocate just sitting back and taking whatever ill falls upon us?
I realize your view isn't that radical, but this seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of this line of reasoning."
I don't see this reduction at all. I think you are confusing (as another commentator has noted) 'going to war' with 'targeting civilians in order to influence military and national leadership.' No one's advocating becoming a doormat.
8.24.2011 | 4:01pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
It's not often that I disagree with Joe, but on this I most certainly do. I don't have time to read all the comments, but saw his first comment and have a huge problem with the sovereign God would have kept the worst from happening argument. Really? That's how as a Christian you're supposed to run a war? Believe it or not, sometimes the ends do justify the means. Dropping atomic bombs that target civilians outside of the conflagration that was WWII can have no justification (but would you want to be the president had the Cold War gotten hot and we'd been targeted by Soviet nukes). But the end, saving likely millions of lives and ending the war, most definitely justified the means. No doubt about it.
But look where we've come as a nation. Our military personnel today go so far to keep civilians in war zones safe that they put themselves at risk. I would go so far as to say that the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the world from much, much worse in the decades that followed. And most of the world because of WWII targeting of civilians has come to embrace that as wrong, unless your name is Bashar al-Assad.
But look where we've come as a nation. Our military personnel today go so far to keep civilians in war zones safe that they put themselves at risk. I would go so far as to say that the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the world from much, much worse in the decades that followed. And most of the world because of WWII targeting of civilians has come to embrace that as wrong, unless your name is Bashar al-Assad.
8.24.2011 | 4:19pm
Joe Carter says:
@Scaevola ***Will someone please answer some objections to the article, namely that 1) the Japanese were warned in advance about the bombings***
1) Because of the American raids on Japanese cities, 8.5 million Japanese civilians were displaced, including 120,000 of Hiroshima's population of 365,000.
2) Leaflets were dropped over 33 cities that said that said, "In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs."
3) 67 Japanese cities had already been fire-bombed.
Now imagine if during the Cold War the Soviet Union had said that over the the next few days they were going to start bombing NYC, Philly, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, and 28 other cities. Do you think it would be possible for all of the civilians to relocate in time?
Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population. The dropping of leaflets may have provided a fig-leaf of warning, but it does not resolve the U.S. of the immoral action of directly targeting civilians.
***2) all of the Japanese were drafted and thus non-civilian?***
Not true. Children certainly were not "drafted" and considered combatants. I've honestly never heard anyone make that bizarre claim before today.
By the way, I appreciate all of the comments. I think it is fair to say that the position many people are taking is that the Just War tradition is fine in theory but we should abandon it under certain circumstances and that "Total War" is ugly but sometimes necessary. I don't think that is a position that can be squared with Christianity, and no one has yet to try to argue that it can be. But I understand why some people hold that view.
The question I have left is, "Why should any enemy ever adhere to moral actions in war?" If it to the strategic advantage to directly slaughter civilians, then what arguments can we make that says they should not use them?
1) Because of the American raids on Japanese cities, 8.5 million Japanese civilians were displaced, including 120,000 of Hiroshima's population of 365,000.
2) Leaflets were dropped over 33 cities that said that said, "In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs."
3) 67 Japanese cities had already been fire-bombed.
Now imagine if during the Cold War the Soviet Union had said that over the the next few days they were going to start bombing NYC, Philly, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, and 28 other cities. Do you think it would be possible for all of the civilians to relocate in time?
Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population. The dropping of leaflets may have provided a fig-leaf of warning, but it does not resolve the U.S. of the immoral action of directly targeting civilians.
***2) all of the Japanese were drafted and thus non-civilian?***
Not true. Children certainly were not "drafted" and considered combatants. I've honestly never heard anyone make that bizarre claim before today.
By the way, I appreciate all of the comments. I think it is fair to say that the position many people are taking is that the Just War tradition is fine in theory but we should abandon it under certain circumstances and that "Total War" is ugly but sometimes necessary. I don't think that is a position that can be squared with Christianity, and no one has yet to try to argue that it can be. But I understand why some people hold that view.
The question I have left is, "Why should any enemy ever adhere to moral actions in war?" If it to the strategic advantage to directly slaughter civilians, then what arguments can we make that says they should not use them?
8.24.2011 | 4:33pm
JDD says:
@ Brian English says:
(JDD) "In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory."
"The methods used to wage war, and the impact they will have on both the military and civilians, are not part of Just War theory? You are simply wrong about that."
You just took a definition of just war theory I didn't make, and refuted it.
(JDD) "In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory."
"The methods used to wage war, and the impact they will have on both the military and civilians, are not part of Just War theory? You are simply wrong about that."
You just took a definition of just war theory I didn't make, and refuted it.
8.24.2011 | 4:41pm
arty says:
Joe:
Your article and the comments after it illustrate why I'm a pacifist. Not a pacifist of the raving lunatic kind, but as one who has concluded that the reason the questions your article raises are so difficult, is because we are not allowed to take the first steps into wars that makes asking them necessary.
Your point about God's sovereignty could just as easily be used to make the argument that we should not have gone to war in the first place.
I've been a First Things subscriber for over 10 years now, and while I've consistently appreciated the thought provoking articles on and references to Just War, by Weigel and others, I've never shaken the sense that if we really believe in God's sovereignty, then the whole business is really a grand thought experiment in what we should do had Christ not left us with the injunction to love thy neighbor.
I'm by no means suggesting that my position is problem-free, living in the City of Man that I do, but I've concluded that the best answer to the question "what is moral in war" is: "Don't fight in wars", and I've yet to see an argument that has convincing me to change my mind. (I'm open to arguments though, which is why I subscribe to FT).
Your article and the comments after it illustrate why I'm a pacifist. Not a pacifist of the raving lunatic kind, but as one who has concluded that the reason the questions your article raises are so difficult, is because we are not allowed to take the first steps into wars that makes asking them necessary.
Your point about God's sovereignty could just as easily be used to make the argument that we should not have gone to war in the first place.
I've been a First Things subscriber for over 10 years now, and while I've consistently appreciated the thought provoking articles on and references to Just War, by Weigel and others, I've never shaken the sense that if we really believe in God's sovereignty, then the whole business is really a grand thought experiment in what we should do had Christ not left us with the injunction to love thy neighbor.
I'm by no means suggesting that my position is problem-free, living in the City of Man that I do, but I've concluded that the best answer to the question "what is moral in war" is: "Don't fight in wars", and I've yet to see an argument that has convincing me to change my mind. (I'm open to arguments though, which is why I subscribe to FT).
8.24.2011 | 4:44pm
Ethan C. says:
Well, I'll write the same thing on this thread that I've written on the identical threads in years past:
Joe's argument is faulty because one of his unspoken assumptions is wrong: the atomic bombs were not dropped on innocent civilians.
World War II was a total, industrialized, national war. It was fought not by armies, but by entire national populations mobilized into war economies. This was openly articulated in each nation's propaganda and in their national policies and military strategies. This was especially true in Japan, and doubly true near the end of the war, when the Japanese command implemented strategies to arm every Japanese citizen to be a direct combatant.
World War II was a special case of warfare. There were no American civilians, no British civilians, no Russian civilians, no German civilians (except for the internal victims of the Nazi government), no Japanese civilians. It was entire nation versus entire nation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Japanese industrial cities. Their populations were just as much a part of the Japanese war economy as uniformed soldiers. So it's rather meaningless to object to the atomic bombing as an immoral targeting of civilians, since that wasn't what it was.
But it's very important to remember that World War II was a very special case, and that most wars aren't like it. Normally, there are indeed civilians, and it is indeed unjust to specifically target them.
Joe's argument is faulty because one of his unspoken assumptions is wrong: the atomic bombs were not dropped on innocent civilians.
World War II was a total, industrialized, national war. It was fought not by armies, but by entire national populations mobilized into war economies. This was openly articulated in each nation's propaganda and in their national policies and military strategies. This was especially true in Japan, and doubly true near the end of the war, when the Japanese command implemented strategies to arm every Japanese citizen to be a direct combatant.
World War II was a special case of warfare. There were no American civilians, no British civilians, no Russian civilians, no German civilians (except for the internal victims of the Nazi government), no Japanese civilians. It was entire nation versus entire nation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Japanese industrial cities. Their populations were just as much a part of the Japanese war economy as uniformed soldiers. So it's rather meaningless to object to the atomic bombing as an immoral targeting of civilians, since that wasn't what it was.
But it's very important to remember that World War II was a very special case, and that most wars aren't like it. Normally, there are indeed civilians, and it is indeed unjust to specifically target them.
8.24.2011 | 5:16pm
Ed says:
Relatively speaking, it is the Gospel that has the mysticism and the Church that has the rationalism. As I should put it, of course, it is the Gospel that is the riddle and the Church that is the answer. But whatever be the answer, the Gospel as it stands is almost a book of riddles.
First, a man reading the Gospel sayings would not find platitudes. If he had read even in the most respectful spirit the majority of ancient philosophers and of modem moralists, he would appreciate the unique importance of saying that he did not find platitudes. It is more than can be said even of Plato. It is much more than can be said of Epictetus or 'Seneca or Marcus Aurelius or Apollonius of Tyana. And it is immeasurably more than can be said of most of the agnostic moralists and the preachers of the ethical societies; with their songs of service and their religion of brotherhood. The moral of most moralists, ancient and modern, has been one solid and polished cataract of platitudes flowing forever and ever. That would certainly not be the impression of the imaginary independent outsider studying the New Testament. He would be conscious of nothing so commonplace and in a sense of nothing so continuous as that stream. He would find a number of strange claims that might sound like the claim to be the brother of the sun and moon; a number of very startling pieces of advice; a number of stunning rebukes; a number of strangely beautiful stories. He would see some very, gigantesque figures of speech about the impossibility of threading a needle with a camel or the possibility of throwing a mountain into the sea. He would see a number of very daring simplifications of the difficulties of life; like the advice to shine upon everybody indifferently as does the sunshine or not to worry about the future any more than the birds. He would find on the other hand some passages of almost impenetrable darkness, so far as be is concerned, such as the moral of the parable of the Unjust Steward. Some of these things might strike him as fables and some as truths; but none as truisms. For instance, he would not find the ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace. He would find several ideals of non-resistance, which taken as they stand would be rather too pacific for any pacifist. He would be told in one passage to treat a. robber not with passive resistance, but rather with positive and enthusiastic encouragement, if the terms be taken literally; heaping up gifts upon the man who had stolen goods. But he would not find a word of all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the wastefulness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ's attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers. Indeed it is another perplexity, speaking from the same external and human standpoint, that he seems to have got on much better with Romans than he did with Jews. But the question here is a certain tone to be appreciated by merely reading a certain text; and we might give any number of instances of it.
G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 190-91. This is not in serious dispute. So, most Catholics turn to Aquinas to assess whether war is just. According to Aquinas, war is just when (a) the ruler under whom the war is to be fought has the authority to conduct it; (b) those against whom the war is waged deserve the response because of some offense on their part; and (c) the war has a right intention, to achieve some good or avoid some evil. Summa Qu. 40. Indeed, Paul wrote "He does not bear the sword without cause, for he is a minister of God, an avenger in wrath against the evildoer." Romans 13. Too, both Aquinas and Augustine state that innocents may be victims of just wars, but that does not make the war less just.
A fair reading of the proposition seems to suggest that nuclear (or atomic) weapons render war per se unjust. With respect, I cannot find support for that in Church teaching, and certainly not, as Chesterton makes clear, in the New Testament.
First, a man reading the Gospel sayings would not find platitudes. If he had read even in the most respectful spirit the majority of ancient philosophers and of modem moralists, he would appreciate the unique importance of saying that he did not find platitudes. It is more than can be said even of Plato. It is much more than can be said of Epictetus or 'Seneca or Marcus Aurelius or Apollonius of Tyana. And it is immeasurably more than can be said of most of the agnostic moralists and the preachers of the ethical societies; with their songs of service and their religion of brotherhood. The moral of most moralists, ancient and modern, has been one solid and polished cataract of platitudes flowing forever and ever. That would certainly not be the impression of the imaginary independent outsider studying the New Testament. He would be conscious of nothing so commonplace and in a sense of nothing so continuous as that stream. He would find a number of strange claims that might sound like the claim to be the brother of the sun and moon; a number of very startling pieces of advice; a number of stunning rebukes; a number of strangely beautiful stories. He would see some very, gigantesque figures of speech about the impossibility of threading a needle with a camel or the possibility of throwing a mountain into the sea. He would see a number of very daring simplifications of the difficulties of life; like the advice to shine upon everybody indifferently as does the sunshine or not to worry about the future any more than the birds. He would find on the other hand some passages of almost impenetrable darkness, so far as be is concerned, such as the moral of the parable of the Unjust Steward. Some of these things might strike him as fables and some as truths; but none as truisms. For instance, he would not find the ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace. He would find several ideals of non-resistance, which taken as they stand would be rather too pacific for any pacifist. He would be told in one passage to treat a. robber not with passive resistance, but rather with positive and enthusiastic encouragement, if the terms be taken literally; heaping up gifts upon the man who had stolen goods. But he would not find a word of all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the wastefulness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ's attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers. Indeed it is another perplexity, speaking from the same external and human standpoint, that he seems to have got on much better with Romans than he did with Jews. But the question here is a certain tone to be appreciated by merely reading a certain text; and we might give any number of instances of it.
G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 190-91. This is not in serious dispute. So, most Catholics turn to Aquinas to assess whether war is just. According to Aquinas, war is just when (a) the ruler under whom the war is to be fought has the authority to conduct it; (b) those against whom the war is waged deserve the response because of some offense on their part; and (c) the war has a right intention, to achieve some good or avoid some evil. Summa Qu. 40. Indeed, Paul wrote "He does not bear the sword without cause, for he is a minister of God, an avenger in wrath against the evildoer." Romans 13. Too, both Aquinas and Augustine state that innocents may be victims of just wars, but that does not make the war less just.
A fair reading of the proposition seems to suggest that nuclear (or atomic) weapons render war per se unjust. With respect, I cannot find support for that in Church teaching, and certainly not, as Chesterton makes clear, in the New Testament.
8.24.2011 | 5:35pm
Brian English says:
"Catholic morality teaches that it's better to suffer horribly and lose one's life rather than commit a sin against God. Consequentialism laughs at that type of moral uprightness."
Catholicism is not a death cult, and it is in no way morally upright to embark on a course of action that will cause far greater loss of life. Civilians killed by bullets and conventional bombs are no less dead than those killed by atomic bombs.
And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen?
Catholicism is not a death cult, and it is in no way morally upright to embark on a course of action that will cause far greater loss of life. Civilians killed by bullets and conventional bombs are no less dead than those killed by atomic bombs.
And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen?
8.24.2011 | 6:02pm
Brian English says:
"Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."
Where in the world did you come up with that gem? Probably in the same place as the claim that Nagasaki was bombed because it had most of Japan's Catholics.
"The dropping of leaflets may have provided a fig-leaf of warning, but it does not resolve the U.S. of the immoral action of directly targeting civilians."
Below is a link discussing the leaflets and radio broadcasts:
http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/
"By the way, I appreciate all of the comments. I think it is fair to say that the position many people are taking is that the Just War tradition is fine in theory but we should abandon it under certain circumstances and that "Total War" is ugly but sometimes necessary."
That is not fair at all. I disagree with your conclusion that the Just War Doctrine required an invasion of Japan that would have killed millions.
"I don't think that is a position that can be squared with Christianity, and no one has yet to try to argue that it can be."
Once again, if it is so obvious, where are your contemporaneous condemnations of the bombings by Christian leaders?
Where in the world did you come up with that gem? Probably in the same place as the claim that Nagasaki was bombed because it had most of Japan's Catholics.
"The dropping of leaflets may have provided a fig-leaf of warning, but it does not resolve the U.S. of the immoral action of directly targeting civilians."
Below is a link discussing the leaflets and radio broadcasts:
http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/
"By the way, I appreciate all of the comments. I think it is fair to say that the position many people are taking is that the Just War tradition is fine in theory but we should abandon it under certain circumstances and that "Total War" is ugly but sometimes necessary."
That is not fair at all. I disagree with your conclusion that the Just War Doctrine required an invasion of Japan that would have killed millions.
"I don't think that is a position that can be squared with Christianity, and no one has yet to try to argue that it can be."
Once again, if it is so obvious, where are your contemporaneous condemnations of the bombings by Christian leaders?
8.24.2011 | 6:18pm
Mark Tooley says:
Avoidance of the atomic attacks presumably would have resulted in a U.S. invasion resulting in hundreds of thousands of U.S. military dead and millions of dead Japanese, mostly civilian. With or without a U.S. invasion, the war among a dozen or more nations in Asia struggling against Japan would have continued, especially in China, resulting in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, more dead, mostly civilians. Here is my question, for which I do not know the answer. Would the Just War theorists of past centuries who argued against civilian casualties have still insisted on their point even knowing the alternative would be far more civilian casualties? Can anyone answer if this issue was substantively and directly addressed in the evolving Just War tradition?
8.24.2011 | 6:21pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English:
You ask, "And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen? The following is not contemporaneous. It is a statement from the US Council of Catholic Bishops in 2004:
**********
. . . . the permanent graves of Hiroshima and Nagasaki compel us to declare once again our rejection of total war and our commitment to the advance of Christ’s peace in the furthest reaches of the globe.
World War II liberated many and defeated tyranny but left as a shameful legacy instances of combat conducted without distinction between civilian and soldier. In the decades since the bombing, some have advanced the argument that despite the horrendous magnitude of civilian suffering, these actions can be justified by the efficient end of combat it effected. But secular ethicists and moral theologians alike echo the words of the Second Vatican Council: “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.” The Church has a long tradition of condemning acts of war that bring “widespread, unspeakable suffering and destruction.” At a time when much of the world is gripped by fear of terrorism and a few voices hint that the time may again come when the United States should call upon its nuclear arsenal to make “quick work” of frightening threats, it is fitting to reassert our commitment to disarmament and the conduct of limited war only as a last resort.
**********
http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/international/nwstatement.shtml
The USCCB has expressed grave doubts as to whether the use of nuclear weapons can ever be moral, including retaliation in the event of a nuclear attack.
You ask, "And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen? The following is not contemporaneous. It is a statement from the US Council of Catholic Bishops in 2004:
**********
. . . . the permanent graves of Hiroshima and Nagasaki compel us to declare once again our rejection of total war and our commitment to the advance of Christ’s peace in the furthest reaches of the globe.
World War II liberated many and defeated tyranny but left as a shameful legacy instances of combat conducted without distinction between civilian and soldier. In the decades since the bombing, some have advanced the argument that despite the horrendous magnitude of civilian suffering, these actions can be justified by the efficient end of combat it effected. But secular ethicists and moral theologians alike echo the words of the Second Vatican Council: “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.” The Church has a long tradition of condemning acts of war that bring “widespread, unspeakable suffering and destruction.” At a time when much of the world is gripped by fear of terrorism and a few voices hint that the time may again come when the United States should call upon its nuclear arsenal to make “quick work” of frightening threats, it is fitting to reassert our commitment to disarmament and the conduct of limited war only as a last resort.
**********
http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/international/nwstatement.shtml
The USCCB has expressed grave doubts as to whether the use of nuclear weapons can ever be moral, including retaliation in the event of a nuclear attack.
8.24.2011 | 6:46pm
Joe Z says:
The arguments in favor of dropping the bombs all rely (as consequentialist reasoning is wont to do) on highly precise foreknowledge and highly limited choices - i.e. the villain is holding seven billion people hostage and you know with certainty that he will let them go if you let the train roll over the fat man, etc etc. In particular, defenders always bring up the estimated casualties of a land invasion of Japan. What I'm now wondering is this: why, if we were basically done or well on our way to destroying Japan's naval and industrial capacities, would we need to launch a land invasion? Why not just contain Japan and try for something less than unconditional surrender? (By the way, the fact that we were demanding unconditional surrender should give defenders pause all by itself - how can you be so sure that this was the least worst choice if we hadn't offered them anything but unconditional surrender?) But I'm seriously wondering why we couldn't have tried besieging this island nation whose navy we had just wiped off the face of the earth, and whose industrial capacities we had just demolished. In the whole discussion above "ending the war" is seen as necessarily some kind of discrete event and overriding moral imperative, so that if we hadn't dropped the bomb there would have been no choice but to walk into the worst casualty situation imaginable. But that's just a false dilemma, or at the very very least an oversimplification.
Anscombe, by the way, was really perceptive about this: she saw that these made-up cases where you know with perfect certainty that executing the innocent will save a million lives, blah blah blah are really just a way for people to use unrealistic scenarios to corrupt their own moral judgment. Of course if one had been Truman at that point in history, the decision would have been horrible and the case for the bomb would have seemed quite strong, perhaps. But contemplating these scenarios in advance, precisely in order to weaken our commitment not to commit gravely and inherently evil actions, is a kind of self-tempting. Frankly I think she was basically right about that.
Anscombe, by the way, was really perceptive about this: she saw that these made-up cases where you know with perfect certainty that executing the innocent will save a million lives, blah blah blah are really just a way for people to use unrealistic scenarios to corrupt their own moral judgment. Of course if one had been Truman at that point in history, the decision would have been horrible and the case for the bomb would have seemed quite strong, perhaps. But contemplating these scenarios in advance, precisely in order to weaken our commitment not to commit gravely and inherently evil actions, is a kind of self-tempting. Frankly I think she was basically right about that.
8.24.2011 | 6:59pm
Joe McFaul says:
Excellent commentary Joe Carter,
Food for thought. No Jesus does not really love nukes. Now, how do we get to peace without killing our neighbor? We don't seem to be able to do that very well.
Food for thought. No Jesus does not really love nukes. Now, how do we get to peace without killing our neighbor? We don't seem to be able to do that very well.
8.24.2011 | 6:59pm
Bethanie Ryan says:
Your description of the ethics course is disheartening. Morality in the Christian tradition truly is much richer than what is presented. Not only the Chaplains, but all Christians in the military should use their faith to question violence, not twist their faith to support it.
8.24.2011 | 8:20pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Hey Joe, go tell your thoughts to my great uncle, who fought the Germans from D-day through the outskirts of Berlin. The army then shipped him into the pacific. He said the day that he heard about the a-bomb he was bobbing of the coast of Japan. He also said that that day was one of the happiest days of his life. It meant that he had a chance to live. Dont those soldiers, marines, air force and navy count for anything Joe?
People like to bring in great generals, secret messages and the sort but the reality all of that material is speculative, and there is no way of truly knowing what could or would have happened.
The grunts killed on the ground testify to the fact that those messages mean diddly squat to the guy in the front line. There were plenty of rumours about the Nazis surrendering due to bombings, secret plots etc. Did it happen before Russian troops planted the red flag on the Rheichstag?
That being said, how about the fact that they Japanese were hording airplanes for suicide missions. I have read estimates of between 6000-11000 planes. How many men would have died before they even hit the beaches? There were also upwards of 6 million trained IJA soldiers ready to fight to the utter extremes. How late were soldiers still surrendering in Guam, the Philppines and other islands? 1972 if I remember right. These men speak to the fact that the majority of the Imperial army were completely committed, brainwashed, etc. There are numerous sources that are out there that showed the civilians to be of the same mindset. The Americans would have met the defence with overwhelming firepower and yet how many would have died? I would wager that the deaths would have been way over the numbers killed in the bombings.
The fact is the shock of the atomic weapons were a significant chunk of there power. The shock of two cities destroyed by two airplanes with two bombs makes a pretty good case that they Japanese had to surrender or face utter oblivion.
So how do you then justify blood vs blood? Yes there were countless innocent children killed but do you think that the majority of American soldiers coming from the agraian isolated backgrounds of a faithful christian country that was the U.S.A in 1940 were any less so?
Granted after fighting there way through Nazi's, Fascists, and the IJA many of those men were irrevocably changed. I know my great uncle was never the same, but he deserved a chance at life as much as any of those children. How do you weigh the weight of blood? Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany deserve the blame of starting and sustaining an unwinnable war. The best thing that we can do today if pray for the innocents, pray for those that made the decisions and to pray that we never have to make those kind of decisions again.
People like to bring in great generals, secret messages and the sort but the reality all of that material is speculative, and there is no way of truly knowing what could or would have happened.
The grunts killed on the ground testify to the fact that those messages mean diddly squat to the guy in the front line. There were plenty of rumours about the Nazis surrendering due to bombings, secret plots etc. Did it happen before Russian troops planted the red flag on the Rheichstag?
That being said, how about the fact that they Japanese were hording airplanes for suicide missions. I have read estimates of between 6000-11000 planes. How many men would have died before they even hit the beaches? There were also upwards of 6 million trained IJA soldiers ready to fight to the utter extremes. How late were soldiers still surrendering in Guam, the Philppines and other islands? 1972 if I remember right. These men speak to the fact that the majority of the Imperial army were completely committed, brainwashed, etc. There are numerous sources that are out there that showed the civilians to be of the same mindset. The Americans would have met the defence with overwhelming firepower and yet how many would have died? I would wager that the deaths would have been way over the numbers killed in the bombings.
The fact is the shock of the atomic weapons were a significant chunk of there power. The shock of two cities destroyed by two airplanes with two bombs makes a pretty good case that they Japanese had to surrender or face utter oblivion.
So how do you then justify blood vs blood? Yes there were countless innocent children killed but do you think that the majority of American soldiers coming from the agraian isolated backgrounds of a faithful christian country that was the U.S.A in 1940 were any less so?
Granted after fighting there way through Nazi's, Fascists, and the IJA many of those men were irrevocably changed. I know my great uncle was never the same, but he deserved a chance at life as much as any of those children. How do you weigh the weight of blood? Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany deserve the blame of starting and sustaining an unwinnable war. The best thing that we can do today if pray for the innocents, pray for those that made the decisions and to pray that we never have to make those kind of decisions again.
8.24.2011 | 9:44pm
FIRE says:
But seriously folks, it is sweet of you to feel guilty about this, but seriously: don`t worry about it.
If the Nazi`s and the Japanese had had the bomb before you did, I can positively guarantee you that this catholic website would not be here today, and neither would any of us.
After all, it was the Catholic church who first decleared war on Nazisim through the declaration named "Mit brander sorge" (With burning sorrow) in 1938. And of that, we should be very, very proud.
Now there was a guy earlier here named "Joe" who said he could not see Jesus claiming "war is Hell" or that "the Nazis can blame themselves for starting it". But Joe, you are wrong.
War is Hell AND the Nazis can blame themselves for starting it.
It is as simple as that.
Now I have told you, so you can put the debate to rest.
Jesus does not love nukes, but as Son of God, He can surely apreciate a good raining of fire and brimstone from the Lord thy God out of Heaven, upon great congregations of sinners who have stretched His patience long enough.
Now, see what you can do about putting an end to abortion for me, will you?
Thanx
G.
NB:
By the way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aparently the chief supliers of war materials on the Japanese side, so it wasn`t just tough luck for them, but it also had a practical side to it.
Now carry on with the end-abortion thing, please.
Thank you.
G. A. A. A
If the Nazi`s and the Japanese had had the bomb before you did, I can positively guarantee you that this catholic website would not be here today, and neither would any of us.
After all, it was the Catholic church who first decleared war on Nazisim through the declaration named "Mit brander sorge" (With burning sorrow) in 1938. And of that, we should be very, very proud.
Now there was a guy earlier here named "Joe" who said he could not see Jesus claiming "war is Hell" or that "the Nazis can blame themselves for starting it". But Joe, you are wrong.
War is Hell AND the Nazis can blame themselves for starting it.
It is as simple as that.
Now I have told you, so you can put the debate to rest.
Jesus does not love nukes, but as Son of God, He can surely apreciate a good raining of fire and brimstone from the Lord thy God out of Heaven, upon great congregations of sinners who have stretched His patience long enough.
Now, see what you can do about putting an end to abortion for me, will you?
Thanx
G.
NB:
By the way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aparently the chief supliers of war materials on the Japanese side, so it wasn`t just tough luck for them, but it also had a practical side to it.
Now carry on with the end-abortion thing, please.
Thank you.
G. A. A. A
8.24.2011 | 9:56pm
Alan says:
Two comments: First, part of the reason that the Japanese refused to surrender was that the United States demanded unconditional surrender. It is possible that a different posture, one that for example guaranteed the continuation of the Emperor, might have avoided either the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion. At least this was worth considering before undertaking either of the two morally calamitous options. Second, there is a tendency to move from the aggression of the Japanese government (jus in bellum) to the legitimacy of using morally questionable means against the aggressor. But jus in bello is separate and must be kept so. For a very thoughtful discussion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in the context of just war theory, see Michael Walzer's classic work.
Dropping the bombs may have saved the life of many American soldiers but, hard as it is to recognize, under just war theory, the lives of non-combatants, even those who are citizens of a country that has launched an aggressive war, are entitled to greater protection than those of combatants, even our own combatants.
Dropping the bombs may have saved the life of many American soldiers but, hard as it is to recognize, under just war theory, the lives of non-combatants, even those who are citizens of a country that has launched an aggressive war, are entitled to greater protection than those of combatants, even our own combatants.
8.24.2011 | 10:01pm
Zac says:
Dear Joe,
I want to commend you for this article on the killing of civilians during wartime, and for your response to the inevitable comments. I've written a couple of pieces on the bombings, and it is both sad and disconcerting to receive comments from Christians who see no problem with the standard arguments in favour of the bombings, or who raise fearsome historical spectres in support of their position. 'We dropped leaflets' therefore the consequences of the bombings were not our responsibility. 'Every man, woman and child would fight to the death' therefore there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
I recently found a video of Bishop Fulton Sheen giving voice to his theory that the bombing marked a turning point for the whole world and American culture in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZgWOmnSoIY&feature=player_detailpage#t=272s
As you pointed out, the bombings cannot be squared with Just War theory, so the majority of Americans (and American Christians) who affirm the bombing cannot reconcile their beliefs with this basic moral teaching. The implication is that in 'hard cases' morality can be put aside...that it promotes ideals rather than practical solutions. Another implication is that good intentions matter more than the moral quality of our actions; that the ethics of war can be reduced to jus ad bellum, and that everything done by the righteous party under the guise of necessity is justified by extension. I had a piece published last week, arguing that we need to start viewing the bombing of civilian targets in the same way that we view the slaughter of the trenches in WWI. That is, we view them as a terrible moral and military failure, and we lay the blame at the feet of those commanders who ordered those disproportionately deadly engagements. Here is the link, if you are interested: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=27573
Finally, I wanted to put to you the idea that the supposed alternative to the bombings - invasion of the main Japanese islands - would also fail the jus in bello test, if it was indeed expected to be so costly a venture in terms of military and civilian casualties. Basically, I think that the principles of proportionality and military necessity would rule out invasion if it was truly expected to be such a bloody enterprise, in the same way that these principles condemn the slaughter of the trenches in WWI. The first priority of the defensive war against Japan had to be neutralising the threat, which could be achieved through blockade of the main islands.
In any case, please accept my sincere appreciation for your excellent work.
Kind regards,
Zac Alstin
I want to commend you for this article on the killing of civilians during wartime, and for your response to the inevitable comments. I've written a couple of pieces on the bombings, and it is both sad and disconcerting to receive comments from Christians who see no problem with the standard arguments in favour of the bombings, or who raise fearsome historical spectres in support of their position. 'We dropped leaflets' therefore the consequences of the bombings were not our responsibility. 'Every man, woman and child would fight to the death' therefore there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
I recently found a video of Bishop Fulton Sheen giving voice to his theory that the bombing marked a turning point for the whole world and American culture in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZgWOmnSoIY&feature=player_detailpage#t=272s
As you pointed out, the bombings cannot be squared with Just War theory, so the majority of Americans (and American Christians) who affirm the bombing cannot reconcile their beliefs with this basic moral teaching. The implication is that in 'hard cases' morality can be put aside...that it promotes ideals rather than practical solutions. Another implication is that good intentions matter more than the moral quality of our actions; that the ethics of war can be reduced to jus ad bellum, and that everything done by the righteous party under the guise of necessity is justified by extension. I had a piece published last week, arguing that we need to start viewing the bombing of civilian targets in the same way that we view the slaughter of the trenches in WWI. That is, we view them as a terrible moral and military failure, and we lay the blame at the feet of those commanders who ordered those disproportionately deadly engagements. Here is the link, if you are interested: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=27573
Finally, I wanted to put to you the idea that the supposed alternative to the bombings - invasion of the main Japanese islands - would also fail the jus in bello test, if it was indeed expected to be so costly a venture in terms of military and civilian casualties. Basically, I think that the principles of proportionality and military necessity would rule out invasion if it was truly expected to be such a bloody enterprise, in the same way that these principles condemn the slaughter of the trenches in WWI. The first priority of the defensive war against Japan had to be neutralising the threat, which could be achieved through blockade of the main islands.
In any case, please accept my sincere appreciation for your excellent work.
Kind regards,
Zac Alstin
8.24.2011 | 10:09pm
Benighted Savage says:
Joe Carter writes:
Not true. Children certainly were not "drafted" and considered combatants. I've honestly never heard anyone make that bizarre claim before today.
*****************************************************
Scaevola's claim is neither false nor bizarre.
It's not a bizarre claim if you've bothered to read the literature on Imperial Japan's response to what would have been a US invasion of their home islands.
On 23 June 1945 Imperial Japan's Diet passed the Volunteer Service Military Law. This law established the National Volunteer Combat Force (People's Volunteer Corps) as a paramilitary supplement to their regular army. It did this by mandating military service in the Corps for all males ages fifteen to sixty and all females ages seventeen to forty.
So, yes, children were forced to take part in what would have been a combat role. Not only that, these paramilitary conscripts were not given uniforms: consequently, US soldiers and Marines would not have been able to distinguish between 17 year-old girls who were combatants and 15 year-old girls who were not.
I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."
Not true. Children certainly were not "drafted" and considered combatants. I've honestly never heard anyone make that bizarre claim before today.
*****************************************************
Scaevola's claim is neither false nor bizarre.
It's not a bizarre claim if you've bothered to read the literature on Imperial Japan's response to what would have been a US invasion of their home islands.
On 23 June 1945 Imperial Japan's Diet passed the Volunteer Service Military Law. This law established the National Volunteer Combat Force (People's Volunteer Corps) as a paramilitary supplement to their regular army. It did this by mandating military service in the Corps for all males ages fifteen to sixty and all females ages seventeen to forty.
So, yes, children were forced to take part in what would have been a combat role. Not only that, these paramilitary conscripts were not given uniforms: consequently, US soldiers and Marines would not have been able to distinguish between 17 year-old girls who were combatants and 15 year-old girls who were not.
I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."
8.24.2011 | 10:59pm
Jeff says:
If consequentalism is invalid, I would like all Catholics who oppose it to stop basing their argument on the supposedly nefarious consequences of accepting it. Take, for example, the last paragraph in the author's article: "The Machiavellian pragmatism that justifies the slaughter of innocents in a foreign city eventually leads to the devaluation of innocent life in our country. We can’t leave the consequentialism on the battlefield, for it always follows us back home. Once we untether justice from warfare, there is no firebreak that can hold back the inferno of relativism from scorching our own land." What happens if one accepts consequentialism should be utterly irrelevant to the question of its validity.
8.24.2011 | 11:18pm
Mary says:
The question then comes was the destruction from the Flood, of Sodom, of Jericho and the cities of Canaan, of Ninevah, and of Jerusalem multiple times "their own fault"? If not, whose fault was it?
The idea you seem to put forth, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that GOD no longer acts in this world, that He no longer judges nations.
I recommend the Book of Job. And Jesus's words about the tower at Siloam.
If it pleases God to reveal by divine inspiration that certain disasters were judgements, it does not follow that we may then claim all disasters are judgements.
The idea you seem to put forth, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that GOD no longer acts in this world, that He no longer judges nations.
I recommend the Book of Job. And Jesus's words about the tower at Siloam.
If it pleases God to reveal by divine inspiration that certain disasters were judgements, it does not follow that we may then claim all disasters are judgements.
8.24.2011 | 11:24pm
Mary says:
Leaving aside the matter that both cities were producing war material that could be the target of the raid -- the battle that really is relevant for understanding was on Saipan, where thousands of Japanese lived before the battle. Virtually all died. Men. Women. Children. Babies.
The Americans had every reason to believe that all these men, women, and children would die whatever they did. If you see a boat sinking, and you could rescue some of the people onboard by blowing a hole in its side at the price of killing some with the explosion -- blow the hole.
The Americans had every reason to believe that all these men, women, and children would die whatever they did. If you see a boat sinking, and you could rescue some of the people onboard by blowing a hole in its side at the price of killing some with the explosion -- blow the hole.
8.25.2011 | 12:04am
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Joe, with all due respect, your thoughts here are simply misinformed and have no basis in hard facts, but are simply reflecting the emotionalism typical of these conversations about the use of nuclear weapons to end WW II. Kind of sad.
Have you actually, very carefully, studied the Japanese tactics during WWII, particularly in the later part of the Pacific campaign? Your comments indicate that you really have not.
The fact is that millions of lives would have been lost during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The use of two nuclear bombs prevented that.
Case closed.
Have you actually, very carefully, studied the Japanese tactics during WWII, particularly in the later part of the Pacific campaign? Your comments indicate that you really have not.
The fact is that millions of lives would have been lost during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The use of two nuclear bombs prevented that.
Case closed.
8.25.2011 | 12:13am
Joseph Quixote says:
Hey Zac. If the United States had followed your advice we would have never won the war. You people remind me of the appeasers of the 1930s. Do you really think that allowing the Soviet Union to crush Japan (after we sat around and watched them starve) would have been a morally justifiable act?
It could easily be argued that you just created another China with all the problems and nastyness that country has brought into the 21st century.
Japan (after being defeated by the U.S.) is a functioning Constitutional monarchy where the people rule. Do you really like the idea of a Communist Japan? It sure would have made the last 70 years interesting, one can say that.
It could easily be argued that you just created another China with all the problems and nastyness that country has brought into the 21st century.
Japan (after being defeated by the U.S.) is a functioning Constitutional monarchy where the people rule. Do you really like the idea of a Communist Japan? It sure would have made the last 70 years interesting, one can say that.
8.25.2011 | 12:16am
Joe Carter says:
@Rev. Paul T. McCain ***The fact is that millions of lives would have been lost during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The use of two nuclear bombs prevented that.***
Actually, that is not a fact, as numerous people have pointed out. The Japanese wanted a conditional surrender; the U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender. To get what we wanted we bombed civilians.
***Case closed. ***
It is deeply disappointing to see a minister of the gospel set aside the ethic of Jesus for the morality of Machiavelli. The idea that we have to discard the Just War tradition because of we don't like what happens when we adhere to it strikes me as bizarre. Even if an invasion was necessary, it doesn't justify the bombing. The "ends justifies the means" is not a biblical concept.
Actually, that is not a fact, as numerous people have pointed out. The Japanese wanted a conditional surrender; the U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender. To get what we wanted we bombed civilians.
***Case closed. ***
It is deeply disappointing to see a minister of the gospel set aside the ethic of Jesus for the morality of Machiavelli. The idea that we have to discard the Just War tradition because of we don't like what happens when we adhere to it strikes me as bizarre. Even if an invasion was necessary, it doesn't justify the bombing. The "ends justifies the means" is not a biblical concept.
8.25.2011 | 12:24am
SeanNY says:
Rev. Paul T. McCain says: "The fact is that millions of lives would have been lost during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The use of two nuclear bombs prevented that. Case closed."
Dear Rev. Joe,
Could you re-open the case long enough to explain why the U.S. was obligated to invade the Japanese mainland? With their Navy destroyed, did they pose any further threat to us or our Pacific allies even if they did not surrender?
Might you hold the case open long enough to consider the opinion of General Douglas MacArthur, who (to use your test) "actually, very carefully, studied the Japanese tactics during WWII, particularly in the later part of the Pacific campaign."
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Dear Rev. Joe,
Could you re-open the case long enough to explain why the U.S. was obligated to invade the Japanese mainland? With their Navy destroyed, did they pose any further threat to us or our Pacific allies even if they did not surrender?
Might you hold the case open long enough to consider the opinion of General Douglas MacArthur, who (to use your test) "actually, very carefully, studied the Japanese tactics during WWII, particularly in the later part of the Pacific campaign."
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
8.25.2011 | 12:49am
Joe Carter says:
@Benighted Savage ***It did this by mandating military service in the Corps for all males ages fifteen to sixty and all females ages seventeen to forty. So, yes, children were forced to take part in what would have been a combat role.***
For the sake of argument, let's grant that everyone over the age of 15 was conscripted into the role of "combatant." What about the children age 14 and younger?
***I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."***
The evidence is the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
in Los Alamos on May 10-11, 1945. There qualifications for the targeted city were: "(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."
Here is why they considered dropping it on Kyoto:
"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed.From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget."
The claim that the cities were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations has never been a point of serious dispute.
For the sake of argument, let's grant that everyone over the age of 15 was conscripted into the role of "combatant." What about the children age 14 and younger?
***I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."***
The evidence is the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
in Los Alamos on May 10-11, 1945. There qualifications for the targeted city were: "(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."
Here is why they considered dropping it on Kyoto:
"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed.From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget."
The claim that the cities were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations has never been a point of serious dispute.
8.25.2011 | 1:02am
Zac says:
Hi Joseph,
I'm impressed by your ability to unilaterally determine that blockading Japan would never have ended the war. Would it be too much to offer a rationale for this perspective?
"You people" routinely make the same ethical mistake committed by the pro-abortion, and pro-euthanasia crowds: you fail to recognise the limits of your own actions and moral responsibility. You think your duty is to achieve ideal outcomes rather than to merely do what is objectively right. As a consequence, you end up feeling morally responsible for things that are totally outside your responsibility.
'Choose between nuking Japan, or starving its people to death' is a false dilemma. Firstly, because a defensive blockade would not necessarily have to restrict food shipments to the islands. Secondly, and more importantly, because the sole purpose of the blockade would be to contain the threat. How Japan chose to respond would be entirely their responsibility. If they refuse to surrender and instead endured the blockade, that would be their choice, not ours.
Your whole weighing of hypothetical outcomes is contingent on the idea that the Allies emerged morally unscathed from the intentional targeting of civilians across Europe and Japan. But each time we engage in these debates, it is painfully obvious how thoroughly the bombings have warped the public's moral reasoning.
In the end your logic is no different from someone who endorces euthanasia on the grounds that it is more morally justified than 'forcing' someone to die a prolonged and undignified death, or those who are pro-abortion because they consider it much more immoral to 'force' women to bear unwanted children.
I'm impressed by your ability to unilaterally determine that blockading Japan would never have ended the war. Would it be too much to offer a rationale for this perspective?
"You people" routinely make the same ethical mistake committed by the pro-abortion, and pro-euthanasia crowds: you fail to recognise the limits of your own actions and moral responsibility. You think your duty is to achieve ideal outcomes rather than to merely do what is objectively right. As a consequence, you end up feeling morally responsible for things that are totally outside your responsibility.
'Choose between nuking Japan, or starving its people to death' is a false dilemma. Firstly, because a defensive blockade would not necessarily have to restrict food shipments to the islands. Secondly, and more importantly, because the sole purpose of the blockade would be to contain the threat. How Japan chose to respond would be entirely their responsibility. If they refuse to surrender and instead endured the blockade, that would be their choice, not ours.
Your whole weighing of hypothetical outcomes is contingent on the idea that the Allies emerged morally unscathed from the intentional targeting of civilians across Europe and Japan. But each time we engage in these debates, it is painfully obvious how thoroughly the bombings have warped the public's moral reasoning.
In the end your logic is no different from someone who endorces euthanasia on the grounds that it is more morally justified than 'forcing' someone to die a prolonged and undignified death, or those who are pro-abortion because they consider it much more immoral to 'force' women to bear unwanted children.
8.25.2011 | 1:09am
Joseph Quixote says:
Hey Joe, Sean, and all the others who condemn U.S. actions at the end of world war II. Did you ever actually consider that maybe God used the United States to end the evil that was in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? If we as Christians can see the hand of God in so many other areas of history why is this terrible event suddenly just free from God's dominion?
That being said go ahead and keep throwing stones at the decisions of the past, I for one would shake Harry Truman's hand. At a certain point evil must be met with force. The United States should not have wasted its own innocent lives because the leaders of Jpapan would not surrender even when the war was long past over. It is easy to condemn the actions of the past, I ask you what would you have done if you were Harry Truman? Would you really have faced the million American moms whos son's were filling the coffins with your cavalier arguments? I believe it is easy for us in the year 2011 to judge the actions of men in 1945 with the benefit of hindsight. Much to easy.
That being said go ahead and keep throwing stones at the decisions of the past, I for one would shake Harry Truman's hand. At a certain point evil must be met with force. The United States should not have wasted its own innocent lives because the leaders of Jpapan would not surrender even when the war was long past over. It is easy to condemn the actions of the past, I ask you what would you have done if you were Harry Truman? Would you really have faced the million American moms whos son's were filling the coffins with your cavalier arguments? I believe it is easy for us in the year 2011 to judge the actions of men in 1945 with the benefit of hindsight. Much to easy.
8.25.2011 | 1:36am
Joseph Quixote says:
Zac. So you are saying that you have the evidence about what Imperial Japan would have done. At least my speculation is based upon some evidence. My rationale; we had already destroyed the Imperial Japanese Navy, essentially destroyed the I.J. merchant marine, and reduced the Japanese caloric intake by over two thirds. We had also obliterated numerous cities with firebombing and they still would not budge. They already were enduring.
Your comments about food are simply utopian.
We also did not know the limits of Japanese techology. What weapons could or would they use on the United States? We did not have effective spies in Japan in any way. The United States did have numerous codes broken but they did not reveal secret programs or weapons in development.
Do you not take into the equation what the Soviet Union would be up to?
If this thought does not concern you then I guess we are arguing from very different realms. Look what they did to Eastern Europe after they took control.
I never said that the allies were morally unscathed in there actions. I am saying that the allies did what they needed to. Big difference.
Your comments about food are simply utopian.
We also did not know the limits of Japanese techology. What weapons could or would they use on the United States? We did not have effective spies in Japan in any way. The United States did have numerous codes broken but they did not reveal secret programs or weapons in development.
Do you not take into the equation what the Soviet Union would be up to?
If this thought does not concern you then I guess we are arguing from very different realms. Look what they did to Eastern Europe after they took control.
I never said that the allies were morally unscathed in there actions. I am saying that the allies did what they needed to. Big difference.
8.25.2011 | 1:46am
Zac says:
Joseph,
"Did you ever actually consider that maybe God used the United States to end the evil that was in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?"
So, the US is Babylon? That doesn't bode well for the US, does it?
By the way, it's not just at the end of WWII. Bombing campaigns against civilian targets were used by both sides in the war, even though it was contrary to the rules of war and the ethics of warfare.
"At a certain point evil must be met with force."
So where was the evil? Was it in the civilians killed and horribly maimed by the bombs? How many German civilians had to be killed to expunge the evil in the Nazi regime? I've seen estimates of 300-600,000 killed in Allied bombing campaigns over Europe.
Your sentiment is admirably expressed by Air Chief Marshall Harris, who wrote: 'I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.'
"Did you ever actually consider that maybe God used the United States to end the evil that was in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?"
So, the US is Babylon? That doesn't bode well for the US, does it?
By the way, it's not just at the end of WWII. Bombing campaigns against civilian targets were used by both sides in the war, even though it was contrary to the rules of war and the ethics of warfare.
"At a certain point evil must be met with force."
So where was the evil? Was it in the civilians killed and horribly maimed by the bombs? How many German civilians had to be killed to expunge the evil in the Nazi regime? I've seen estimates of 300-600,000 killed in Allied bombing campaigns over Europe.
Your sentiment is admirably expressed by Air Chief Marshall Harris, who wrote: 'I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.'
8.25.2011 | 2:00am
Zac says:
Joseph, My rationale is pretty straightforward. If we had the capacity to invade, then we also had the ability to contain. Since invasion seemed too costly, postpone it in favour of containment.
As for the Soviets - it seems the Allied leaders were keen for them to enter the war with Japan. They were happy for Soviet assistance as they were in Europe, presumably because the Soviets would share the burden of invasion.
Isn't it an assumption on your part that the Soviets would invade of their own accord unless the Allies beat them to the punch?
In any case, as I suggested before, you are stuck trying to balance a number of worst-case scenarios without the benefit of moral guidance.
As for the Soviets - it seems the Allied leaders were keen for them to enter the war with Japan. They were happy for Soviet assistance as they were in Europe, presumably because the Soviets would share the burden of invasion.
Isn't it an assumption on your part that the Soviets would invade of their own accord unless the Allies beat them to the punch?
In any case, as I suggested before, you are stuck trying to balance a number of worst-case scenarios without the benefit of moral guidance.
8.25.2011 | 2:03am
son of vet says:
I think one should also understand that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "Catholic cities" of Japan.
The Bells of Nagasaki: Takashi Nagai
"“We are inheritors of Adam’s sin…of Cain’s sin…. Hating one another, killing one another, joyfully killing one another!… but mere repentance was not enough for peace…. We had to offer a stupendous sacrifice…. Cities had been leveled, but that was not enough…. Only this hansai in Nagasaki sufficed, and at that moment God inspired our Emperor to issue the sacred proclamation that ended the war. The Christian flock of Nagasaki was true to the Faith through three centuries of persecution. During the recent war it prayed ceaselessly for a lasting peace. Here was the one pure lamb that had to be sacrificed as hansai on His altar…so that many millions of lives might be saved… Let us be thankful that Nagasaki was chosen for the whole burnt sacrifice! Let us be thankful that through this sacrifice, peace was granted to the world and religious freedom to Japan.”
The Bells of Nagasaki: Takashi Nagai
"“We are inheritors of Adam’s sin…of Cain’s sin…. Hating one another, killing one another, joyfully killing one another!… but mere repentance was not enough for peace…. We had to offer a stupendous sacrifice…. Cities had been leveled, but that was not enough…. Only this hansai in Nagasaki sufficed, and at that moment God inspired our Emperor to issue the sacred proclamation that ended the war. The Christian flock of Nagasaki was true to the Faith through three centuries of persecution. During the recent war it prayed ceaselessly for a lasting peace. Here was the one pure lamb that had to be sacrificed as hansai on His altar…so that many millions of lives might be saved… Let us be thankful that Nagasaki was chosen for the whole burnt sacrifice! Let us be thankful that through this sacrifice, peace was granted to the world and religious freedom to Japan.”
8.25.2011 | 2:16am
Chris Ruddy says:
1944, the Jesuit John C. Ford wrote, "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing," the pathbreaking and still-definitive essay on this topic in the journal Theological Studies. He addressed most, if not all, of the issues raised in this thread, including the relevance of the combatant/noncombatant distinction in a modern, industrialized era. He concluded: “Obliteration bombing, as defined, is an immoral attack on the rights of the innocent. It includes a direct intent to do them injury. Even if this were not true, it would still be immoral, because no proportionate cause could justify the evil done; and to make it legitimate would soon lead the world to the immoral barbarity of total war. The voice of the Pope and the fundamental laws of the charity of Christ confirm this condemnation.”
The essay can be found online at the Theological Studies website: http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/5/5.3/5.3.1.pdf
A year later, in 1945, Ford wrote in Theological Studies that “The last fifteen years have taught us to what utter extremes of horror human beings can go in inflicting torture on their fellow-men. The concentration camps of the Soviets, the mass-tortures by the radicals during the Spanish civil war, the unspeakable atrocities committed on a large scale by the Nazis and the Japanese, the occasional stories we hear about cruel treatment of the enemy by American soldiers, and, to top it all off, the greatest and most extensive single atrocity in the history of all this period, our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— all this has been more than enough to teach us how prone to cruelty the human animal is.”
This is the same John C. Ford who strongly defended Humanae vitae’s teaching on the regulation of births.
The essay can be found online at the Theological Studies website: http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/5/5.3/5.3.1.pdf
A year later, in 1945, Ford wrote in Theological Studies that “The last fifteen years have taught us to what utter extremes of horror human beings can go in inflicting torture on their fellow-men. The concentration camps of the Soviets, the mass-tortures by the radicals during the Spanish civil war, the unspeakable atrocities committed on a large scale by the Nazis and the Japanese, the occasional stories we hear about cruel treatment of the enemy by American soldiers, and, to top it all off, the greatest and most extensive single atrocity in the history of all this period, our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— all this has been more than enough to teach us how prone to cruelty the human animal is.”
This is the same John C. Ford who strongly defended Humanae vitae’s teaching on the regulation of births.
8.25.2011 | 2:57am
Benighted Savage says:
Joe Carter writes:
For the sake of argument, let's grant that everyone over the age of 15 was conscripted into the role of "combatant." What about the children age 14 and younger?
*******************************
According to the “Decisive Battle Educational Measures Guidelines,” a governmental directive dated 18 March 1945, all school classes were suspended for grades 7 and up from 1 April 1945 until 31 March 1946. All these students and their teachers were to be mobilized to participate in support activities (production of military supplies and food, participation in civil defense and air raid work, etc.).
This is a directive that would have sent even more children into harm's way, and in such a way that it would have been quite difficult for invading US soldiers and Marines to distinguish between “combatant” and “non-combatant."
For the sake of argument, let's grant that everyone over the age of 15 was conscripted into the role of "combatant." What about the children age 14 and younger?
*******************************
According to the “Decisive Battle Educational Measures Guidelines,” a governmental directive dated 18 March 1945, all school classes were suspended for grades 7 and up from 1 April 1945 until 31 March 1946. All these students and their teachers were to be mobilized to participate in support activities (production of military supplies and food, participation in civil defense and air raid work, etc.).
This is a directive that would have sent even more children into harm's way, and in such a way that it would have been quite difficult for invading US soldiers and Marines to distinguish between “combatant” and “non-combatant."
8.25.2011 | 3:30am
Rick says:
There have been many well-informed comments here about the grim realities of the Japanese wartime mentality and their fanatical ruthlessness. Moreover, my father was a navy pilot who fought in the Pacific war, and I had an uncle (also in Naval aviation) who was caught in the attack on Pearl Harbor. If any more credentials are necessary, I was once, long ago, a B-52 crew member in the Strategic Air Command.
None of that, though, can shake my profound conviction that participation in any of the world's murderous wars, on any side, is morally compromising by its very nature. And it doesn't really matter if the kid you shoot is wearing a uniform. You have been contaminated the act of killing. I've alway been rather suspicious of the "Just War" theorists, despite my admiration of St. Augustine. EVERYONE thinks their war is just and that their enemies are evil. This is human nature. Luther was named as one who had made contributions to just war theory. But Luther was also an incendiary anti-semite who once wrote of the Jews, "We err if we do not kill them." Hardly an antisemitic tract was produced by the Nazis that didn't include quotations from Luther to support their case.
The only way to avoid the stain of participation in violence is to take Jesus' teachings seriously: "Pay no attention to wars and rumors of wars." Those that are obliged to participate, though, and strive to do it with honor, will still have my profound sympathies.
On another note, I spent a summer in Japan five years ago which included a visit to Hiroshima. I was with a group from our university here in Kentucky which was being led by Yoko, a Japanese professor at the university. She had an intriguing anecdote related to the atomic bombings. Her grandfather lived in Kokura, which, as it was pointed out above, was the primary target for the second bomb. There was a heavy overcast in Kokura on the morning of August 9, 1945, but her grandfather told her that he heard the sound of airplane engines flying high above the clouds. After a few minutes, the planes flew away. Of course, they were headed to Nagasaki because of the poor visibility in Kokura. It is interesting to note that had there been clear skies in Kokura that morning, Yoko would never have been born.
None of that, though, can shake my profound conviction that participation in any of the world's murderous wars, on any side, is morally compromising by its very nature. And it doesn't really matter if the kid you shoot is wearing a uniform. You have been contaminated the act of killing. I've alway been rather suspicious of the "Just War" theorists, despite my admiration of St. Augustine. EVERYONE thinks their war is just and that their enemies are evil. This is human nature. Luther was named as one who had made contributions to just war theory. But Luther was also an incendiary anti-semite who once wrote of the Jews, "We err if we do not kill them." Hardly an antisemitic tract was produced by the Nazis that didn't include quotations from Luther to support their case.
The only way to avoid the stain of participation in violence is to take Jesus' teachings seriously: "Pay no attention to wars and rumors of wars." Those that are obliged to participate, though, and strive to do it with honor, will still have my profound sympathies.
On another note, I spent a summer in Japan five years ago which included a visit to Hiroshima. I was with a group from our university here in Kentucky which was being led by Yoko, a Japanese professor at the university. She had an intriguing anecdote related to the atomic bombings. Her grandfather lived in Kokura, which, as it was pointed out above, was the primary target for the second bomb. There was a heavy overcast in Kokura on the morning of August 9, 1945, but her grandfather told her that he heard the sound of airplane engines flying high above the clouds. After a few minutes, the planes flew away. Of course, they were headed to Nagasaki because of the poor visibility in Kokura. It is interesting to note that had there been clear skies in Kokura that morning, Yoko would never have been born.
8.25.2011 | 4:17am
JB in CA says:
"The idea that we have to discard the Just War tradition because of we don't like what happens when we adhere to it strikes me as bizarre. Even if an invasion was necessary, it doesn't justify the bombing. The "ends justifies the means" is not a biblical concept."
What I find bizarre is that someone would think consequences have nothing to do with morality.
What I find bizarre is that someone would think consequences have nothing to do with morality.
8.25.2011 | 4:39am
Fralupo says:
If invading Japan would have killed too many civilians and therefore been unacceptable morally, then how can it be an alternative to any other choice, and be used to justify that choice? The Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings should be able to stand on their own if they're to be justified from a Christian or Catholic perspective.
Also, it seems to me that everyone is assuming that the alternatives were:
1) Nuke Japan in August 1945
2) Invade Japan in 1946
Why isn't anyone troubled by the 6+ month gap between the two choices? Would we have lost the ability to use the bombs in September, October, etc?
Also, it seems to me that everyone is assuming that the alternatives were:
1) Nuke Japan in August 1945
2) Invade Japan in 1946
Why isn't anyone troubled by the 6+ month gap between the two choices? Would we have lost the ability to use the bombs in September, October, etc?
8.25.2011 | 7:21am
Dan says:
Mr. Carter wrote a fantastic article and as usual is superb in rebuttal.
To answer one critique as a Catholic: no, the Church is not a death cult, hence Just War theory and self-defense justifications in it's basic Catechism. The Church does prescribe heroic self-sacrifice at times and this heroism usually is demanded in order to manage the avoidance of some odious evil like abortion or murder.
The dropping of the nukes is one of these grave sins.
To answer one critique as a Catholic: no, the Church is not a death cult, hence Just War theory and self-defense justifications in it's basic Catechism. The Church does prescribe heroic self-sacrifice at times and this heroism usually is demanded in order to manage the avoidance of some odious evil like abortion or murder.
The dropping of the nukes is one of these grave sins.
8.25.2011 | 7:40am
Brian English says:
"Lastly, I have come to learn (not by way of my friend) that Russia's entry into the Pacific War (the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) on the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, was the key factor in convincing the Emperor and his Generals that they had to accept complete surrender to the Americans. They feared the Russians more than the bomb. It's likely that even without the bomb, the Japanese would have surrendered to us within the month. Of course we have the historical benefit of knowing what our enemy was thinking, unlike our commanders at the time."
This new theory, floated by a Japanese historian teaching at one of California schools, doesn't make much sense:
(1) The Russians actually declared war two days before Nagasaki;
(2) As one of the comments above notes, the Russians had no way to get their army to Japan;
(3) Virtually all of their troops had just finished fighting their way into Eastern Europe, and Stalin was not going to risk losing his new empire;
(4) The theory ignores statements like the one from the memoirs of the deputy chief of the Army General Staff, where he states that the atomic bombs were the decisive factor because there was nothing the Japanese military could do in response to them.
This new theory, floated by a Japanese historian teaching at one of California schools, doesn't make much sense:
(1) The Russians actually declared war two days before Nagasaki;
(2) As one of the comments above notes, the Russians had no way to get their army to Japan;
(3) Virtually all of their troops had just finished fighting their way into Eastern Europe, and Stalin was not going to risk losing his new empire;
(4) The theory ignores statements like the one from the memoirs of the deputy chief of the Army General Staff, where he states that the atomic bombs were the decisive factor because there was nothing the Japanese military could do in response to them.
8.25.2011 | 9:09am
SG says:
I am a US Army Chaplain and I am a pacifist. I do not believe that Just War Theory is convincing and I am certainly not in my position to condone warfare or ease the choice to enter into to war. I am here because Soldiers are as much the children of God as anyone else. They are, in their own way, incredibly Christ-like in that they have volunteered to die on the behalf of others. Those others do not know the Soldiers and many (maybe even most) do not appreciate the sacrifices made of their behalf. I am here for these men and women who after the battle is done feel the damage done to their souls. I am here to explain that Jesus suffers both with them and for them.
8.25.2011 | 9:57am
Brian English says:
"The following is not contemporaneous. It is a statement from the US Council of Catholic Bishops in 2004:"
So, in other words, it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.
"Why not just contain Japan and try for something less than unconditional surrender?"
Which points would you have been willing to concede: No war crimes trials for the Japanese military? No dismantling of the Japanese military? No occupation of Japan?
"Dropping the bombs may have saved the life of many American soldiers but, hard as it is to recognize, under just war theory, the lives of non-combatants, even those who are citizens of a country that has launched an aggressive war, are entitled to greater protection than those of combatants, even our own combatants."
But when your alternative approach causes the death of a far more non-combatants, it should really be back to the drawing board.
So, in other words, it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.
"Why not just contain Japan and try for something less than unconditional surrender?"
Which points would you have been willing to concede: No war crimes trials for the Japanese military? No dismantling of the Japanese military? No occupation of Japan?
"Dropping the bombs may have saved the life of many American soldiers but, hard as it is to recognize, under just war theory, the lives of non-combatants, even those who are citizens of a country that has launched an aggressive war, are entitled to greater protection than those of combatants, even our own combatants."
But when your alternative approach causes the death of a far more non-combatants, it should really be back to the drawing board.
8.25.2011 | 10:02am
Brian English says:
"The claim that the cities were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations has never been a point of serious dispute."
If you are going to accuse US leaders of purposely trying to kill as many civilians as possible, you had better come up with evidence better than what you cite above.
If you are going to accuse US leaders of purposely trying to kill as many civilians as possible, you had better come up with evidence better than what you cite above.
8.25.2011 | 10:11am
Brian English says:
"1944, the Jesuit John C. Ford wrote, "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing," the pathbreaking and still-definitive essay on this topic in the journal Theological Studies."
I am looking for something that was read by more than 10 people.
"and, to top it all off, the greatest and most extensive single atrocity in the history of all this period, our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— all this has been more than enough to teach us how prone to cruelty the human animal is.”
I am sorry, but after that statement, how can you take anything written by Fr. Ford on this issue seriously?
I am looking for something that was read by more than 10 people.
"and, to top it all off, the greatest and most extensive single atrocity in the history of all this period, our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— all this has been more than enough to teach us how prone to cruelty the human animal is.”
I am sorry, but after that statement, how can you take anything written by Fr. Ford on this issue seriously?
8.25.2011 | 10:15am
Joe Carter says:
@Brian English ***If you are going to accuse US leaders of purposely trying to kill as many civilians as possible, you had better come up with evidence better than what you cite above. ***
As I'm sure you realize, I never said anything of the sort. I said that the US targeted a "large civilian population. That is indisputable.
As I'm sure you realize, I never said anything of the sort. I said that the US targeted a "large civilian population. That is indisputable.
8.25.2011 | 10:17am
Troy says:
Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amalekites would've benefited from your analysis -- if only God had not ordered their wholesale slaughter.
The nukes were never sold as "the only option" either to or by Truman. They were seen as the least costly in human terms -- which seems to me a moral calculation. Cost/benefit is a moral way to look at problems too. The cities were chosen (and excluded -- like Kyoto) based on moral reasoning. Equating Truman and Stimson with the Roe Court is plain wrong. Here's Stimson's piece from 1947 Time for context (and yes it's "post hoc"...)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,886289,00.html
I highly recommend reading Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas and the portions where Bonhoeffer decides that the presumably "Christian principles" of the devout Prussian officers must give way to action in trying to kill Hitler -- murder a head of state -- also frowned upon by Christians.
The nukes were never sold as "the only option" either to or by Truman. They were seen as the least costly in human terms -- which seems to me a moral calculation. Cost/benefit is a moral way to look at problems too. The cities were chosen (and excluded -- like Kyoto) based on moral reasoning. Equating Truman and Stimson with the Roe Court is plain wrong. Here's Stimson's piece from 1947 Time for context (and yes it's "post hoc"...)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,886289,00.html
I highly recommend reading Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas and the portions where Bonhoeffer decides that the presumably "Christian principles" of the devout Prussian officers must give way to action in trying to kill Hitler -- murder a head of state -- also frowned upon by Christians.
8.25.2011 | 10:26am
Brian English says:
"The first priority of the defensive war against Japan had to be neutralising the threat, which could be achieved through blockade of the main islands."
What would you do when the 1,000 kamikazee planes (most of them converted training aircraft) had ready started raining down on your blockading fleet?
"Choose between nuking Japan, or starving its people to death' is a false dilemma. Firstly, because a defensive blockade would not necessarily have to restrict food shipments to the islands. Secondly, and more importantly, because the sole purpose of the blockade would be to contain the threat. How Japan chose to respond would be entirely their responsibility. If they refuse to surrender and instead endured the blockade, that would be their choice, not ours."
So what exactly would cause the Japanese to surrender? Your "blockade that lets food through" would probably be the first of its kind in human history. How long would you keep your "food allowed" blockade in place? Five years? Ten years?
What would you do when the 1,000 kamikazee planes (most of them converted training aircraft) had ready started raining down on your blockading fleet?
"Choose between nuking Japan, or starving its people to death' is a false dilemma. Firstly, because a defensive blockade would not necessarily have to restrict food shipments to the islands. Secondly, and more importantly, because the sole purpose of the blockade would be to contain the threat. How Japan chose to respond would be entirely their responsibility. If they refuse to surrender and instead endured the blockade, that would be their choice, not ours."
So what exactly would cause the Japanese to surrender? Your "blockade that lets food through" would probably be the first of its kind in human history. How long would you keep your "food allowed" blockade in place? Five years? Ten years?
8.25.2011 | 10:34am
Brian English says:
"In the end your logic is no different from someone who endorces euthanasia on the grounds that it is more morally justified than 'forcing' someone to die a prolonged and undignified death, or those who are pro-abortion because they consider it much more immoral to 'force' women to bear unwanted children."
Ah yes, I was wondering when we were going to get to this type of direct statement. Anyone who disagrees with Joe Carter and Zac on the bombings is the moral equivalent of those advocating for euthanasia and abortion.
Zac, are we at least better than the Chinese who actually force women to have abortions, or are we as bad as them as well?
Ah yes, I was wondering when we were going to get to this type of direct statement. Anyone who disagrees with Joe Carter and Zac on the bombings is the moral equivalent of those advocating for euthanasia and abortion.
Zac, are we at least better than the Chinese who actually force women to have abortions, or are we as bad as them as well?
8.25.2011 | 10:50am
Brian English says:
"As I'm sure you realize, I never said anything of the sort. I said that the US targeted a "large civilian population. That is indisputable."
(1) Even your "limited" statement is not supported by your evidence;
(2) I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. How does saying the US intentionally targeted "a large civilian population" differ from saying that the US intentionally tried to kill as many civilians as possible? Once you posit that a large civilian population was regarded as a "check-mark" in favor of bombing a city, don't both statements mean the same thing?
(1) Even your "limited" statement is not supported by your evidence;
(2) I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. How does saying the US intentionally targeted "a large civilian population" differ from saying that the US intentionally tried to kill as many civilians as possible? Once you posit that a large civilian population was regarded as a "check-mark" in favor of bombing a city, don't both statements mean the same thing?
8.25.2011 | 11:01am
Richard W Comerford says:
Re: Why Bomb or Invade?
In December 1941 Imperial Japan possessed a superb Navy and Merchant Marine, an as yet undefeated Army and, importantly for an Island Nation at war, overseas sources of raw materials. By August 1945 the Imperial Navy and Merchant Marine were, in the main, rusting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean courtesy of the U.S. Navy. Most of Japan's regular, standing army was cut off in Manchuria, where under equipped and malnourished, it faced the victorious Red Army which would soon crush its, 1.2 million soldiers in a month of ferocious fighting at relatively small cost (10,000 KIA) to the Red Army. The regular army in Japan was in even worse shape. And the Island Nation, starved of resources, was incapable of supporting a modern war machine.
Every American Combatant Commander from Eisenhower on down, who spoke publicly on this matte,r condemned the bombing. Of the Joint Chiefs only Marshall claimed that this was a political decision and remained neutral the rest condemned or opposed the bombing. The decision to bomb was made solely by civilians of which only one (Truman and he had was elected Vice Presidency) was elected and the rest were faceless bureaucrats.
The nuclear bombing of Japan was a most unjust act of war.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
In December 1941 Imperial Japan possessed a superb Navy and Merchant Marine, an as yet undefeated Army and, importantly for an Island Nation at war, overseas sources of raw materials. By August 1945 the Imperial Navy and Merchant Marine were, in the main, rusting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean courtesy of the U.S. Navy. Most of Japan's regular, standing army was cut off in Manchuria, where under equipped and malnourished, it faced the victorious Red Army which would soon crush its, 1.2 million soldiers in a month of ferocious fighting at relatively small cost (10,000 KIA) to the Red Army. The regular army in Japan was in even worse shape. And the Island Nation, starved of resources, was incapable of supporting a modern war machine.
Every American Combatant Commander from Eisenhower on down, who spoke publicly on this matte,r condemned the bombing. Of the Joint Chiefs only Marshall claimed that this was a political decision and remained neutral the rest condemned or opposed the bombing. The decision to bomb was made solely by civilians of which only one (Truman and he had was elected Vice Presidency) was elected and the rest were faceless bureaucrats.
The nuclear bombing of Japan was a most unjust act of war.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.25.2011 | 11:13am
Joe Carter says:
@Brian English ***(1) Even your "limited" statement is not supported by your evidence***
It it not only supported, it is—as I've said—indisputable. I don't think you realize what you are claiming. My claim was that the U.S. targeted a large civilian population. You claim that has not been supported, which implies that:
a) The U.S. didn't "target" Hiroshima and only dropped the bomb there by accident.
b) The U.S. did "target" Hiroshima but did not realize there was a large civilian population living there.
c) The U.S. did "target" Hiroshima, knew there there was a large civilian population living there, but the intention was *not* to kill the civilians.
I don't think you are claiming either A or B so that leaves only C. But for option C to be possible we have to disregard what the targeting committee actually said about why they chose the target. They could have chosen a military target where there was a relative lack of civilians. But they did not do that. They expressly said that they were targeting "a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter." The fact that they selected Hiroshima—which they knew contained hundreds of thousands of civilians—is proof that they were, in fact, targeting civilians.
***Once you posit that a large civilian population was regarded as a "check-mark" in favor of bombing a city, don't both statements mean the same thing? ***
No, not at all. If the U.S. were trying to kill "as many civilians as possible" they would have taken measures to ensure that the city was packed with as many people as possible.
Imagine I stand in the door of a crowded theater and yell that everyone has three seconds to leave before I detonate a bomb. Because of the warning I give, you could correctly say that I was not intending to "kill as many people as possible." But you could *not* say that I was not intending to kill people since I knew that not all of them would be able to leave the theater in time. (The fact that I did not wait until the theater was empty before detonating the bomb would also be evidence of my intentions.)
It it not only supported, it is—as I've said—indisputable. I don't think you realize what you are claiming. My claim was that the U.S. targeted a large civilian population. You claim that has not been supported, which implies that:
a) The U.S. didn't "target" Hiroshima and only dropped the bomb there by accident.
b) The U.S. did "target" Hiroshima but did not realize there was a large civilian population living there.
c) The U.S. did "target" Hiroshima, knew there there was a large civilian population living there, but the intention was *not* to kill the civilians.
I don't think you are claiming either A or B so that leaves only C. But for option C to be possible we have to disregard what the targeting committee actually said about why they chose the target. They could have chosen a military target where there was a relative lack of civilians. But they did not do that. They expressly said that they were targeting "a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter." The fact that they selected Hiroshima—which they knew contained hundreds of thousands of civilians—is proof that they were, in fact, targeting civilians.
***Once you posit that a large civilian population was regarded as a "check-mark" in favor of bombing a city, don't both statements mean the same thing? ***
No, not at all. If the U.S. were trying to kill "as many civilians as possible" they would have taken measures to ensure that the city was packed with as many people as possible.
Imagine I stand in the door of a crowded theater and yell that everyone has three seconds to leave before I detonate a bomb. Because of the warning I give, you could correctly say that I was not intending to "kill as many people as possible." But you could *not* say that I was not intending to kill people since I knew that not all of them would be able to leave the theater in time. (The fact that I did not wait until the theater was empty before detonating the bomb would also be evidence of my intentions.)
8.25.2011 | 11:21am
Benighted Savage says:
I wrote:
I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."
In response, Joe Carter writes:
The evidence is the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
in Los Alamos on May 10-11, 1945. There qualifications for the targeted city were: "(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."
**************
Your evidence doesn't specifically refer to Hiroshima. Let's look at it anyway.
Criteria #2 and #3 don't address your point. Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size. For example, Yokohama and Kyoto in 1945 each had a population of about 1 million, while Niigata (150 000), Hiroshima (350 000) and Kokura (178 000) had much smaller populations. Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”
And let's not forget that the Official Bombing Order of 25 July 1945 lists the following 4 targets for the “special bomb”: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki. Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.
Again, Joe Carter writes:
Here is why they considered dropping it on Kyoto:
"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed.From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget."
The claim that the cities were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations has never been a point of serious dispute.
*************
That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that “Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population.” The information you quote about Kyoto, torn from its context, doesn't contribute much when we're discussing the status of another city.
However, let's look at your new and more general claim.
Of the six targets discussed in the minutes of the Targeting Committee's second meeting, population is mentioned only in the case of Kyoto (your example). It is not clear whether this mention of “a population of 1,000,000” amounts to a consideration of population size as a general criterion for targeting; the fact that population size is not mentioned for any of the other targets would argue against such a conclusion.
Instead of a discussion of population size as a targeting criterion, we find that Hiroshima “is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area,” that Yokohama “is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries,” that Kokura “is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials” etc. etc.
Presence of important war industry and significant concentrations of army personnel are the criteria for targeting here, not size of a city's civilian population.
In general, what the minutes here (and in other contemporary reports) tell me is not that these places “were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations” but that the presence of a (relatively) large population did not prevent a place from being targeted.
I, like Brian English, await some shred of evidence to back up your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population."
In response, Joe Carter writes:
The evidence is the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
in Los Alamos on May 10-11, 1945. There qualifications for the targeted city were: "(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."
**************
Your evidence doesn't specifically refer to Hiroshima. Let's look at it anyway.
Criteria #2 and #3 don't address your point. Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size. For example, Yokohama and Kyoto in 1945 each had a population of about 1 million, while Niigata (150 000), Hiroshima (350 000) and Kokura (178 000) had much smaller populations. Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”
And let's not forget that the Official Bombing Order of 25 July 1945 lists the following 4 targets for the “special bomb”: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki. Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.
Again, Joe Carter writes:
Here is why they considered dropping it on Kyoto:
"This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed.From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget."
The claim that the cities were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations has never been a point of serious dispute.
*************
That wasn't your original claim. Your claim was that “Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population.” The information you quote about Kyoto, torn from its context, doesn't contribute much when we're discussing the status of another city.
However, let's look at your new and more general claim.
Of the six targets discussed in the minutes of the Targeting Committee's second meeting, population is mentioned only in the case of Kyoto (your example). It is not clear whether this mention of “a population of 1,000,000” amounts to a consideration of population size as a general criterion for targeting; the fact that population size is not mentioned for any of the other targets would argue against such a conclusion.
Instead of a discussion of population size as a targeting criterion, we find that Hiroshima “is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area,” that Yokohama “is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries,” that Kokura “is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials” etc. etc.
Presence of important war industry and significant concentrations of army personnel are the criteria for targeting here, not size of a city's civilian population.
In general, what the minutes here (and in other contemporary reports) tell me is not that these places “were targeted in part because they had large civilian populations” but that the presence of a (relatively) large population did not prevent a place from being targeted.
8.25.2011 | 11:24am
DennisM says:
From Joseph Quixote
"We also did not know the limits of Japanese techology. What weapons
could or would they use on the United States?"
From Fralupo
"Would we have lost the ability to use the bombs in September, October, etc?"
We knew that Germany was trying to develop an atomic bomb. We didn't know, until only some months prior to the end of the war, that Japan had been working on it for years. Even then we didn't know how much progress they had made. For all we knew then, any delay could have allowed Japan to get their own bomb operational. That exact question was put to Japan's scientists before the surrender occurred -- could they do it?
"We also did not know the limits of Japanese techology. What weapons
could or would they use on the United States?"
From Fralupo
"Would we have lost the ability to use the bombs in September, October, etc?"
We knew that Germany was trying to develop an atomic bomb. We didn't know, until only some months prior to the end of the war, that Japan had been working on it for years. Even then we didn't know how much progress they had made. For all we knew then, any delay could have allowed Japan to get their own bomb operational. That exact question was put to Japan's scientists before the surrender occurred -- could they do it?
8.25.2011 | 11:53am
ed says:
Much of this is interesting history but not relevant to the "just war" criteria.
It seems the discussion is becoming more discrete, and maybe even smaller. Mr. Comerford, what is an "unjust act of war"? And, what can we read to understand this concept? Can an "unjust act of war" render an otherwise "just war" "unjust"?
Very few people, including on this post, claim World War II was an "unjust war".
It seems the discussion is becoming more discrete, and maybe even smaller. Mr. Comerford, what is an "unjust act of war"? And, what can we read to understand this concept? Can an "unjust act of war" render an otherwise "just war" "unjust"?
Very few people, including on this post, claim World War II was an "unjust war".
8.25.2011 | 12:00pm
Matthew Mainte says:
In response to the accusation that Catholicism is a death cult, I can only say that this accusation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of sin and what it means to follow Christ. A soldier is only obligated to fight in a war that is just, and is never to commit sin even on the battlefield. Yes, Virginia, there are wars where it is not a sin to kill, but you can never target civilians directly.
In fact, when I was in the Air Force (AWACS aircrew) during a combat deployment, I spent time with our Intel Shop to ensure that our more "morally loose" allied partners that we were supplying combat support to were on "the up and up" and were not targeting their personal enemies on the ground. I was fully prepared to refuse to fly if things were not kosher. This is the kind of vigilance that all Christians must have. If an action is morally wrong, you cannot participate in it, even if it means your death. The constant witness of two thousands years of the witness of martyrs bears this out.
In fact, when I was in the Air Force (AWACS aircrew) during a combat deployment, I spent time with our Intel Shop to ensure that our more "morally loose" allied partners that we were supplying combat support to were on "the up and up" and were not targeting their personal enemies on the ground. I was fully prepared to refuse to fly if things were not kosher. This is the kind of vigilance that all Christians must have. If an action is morally wrong, you cannot participate in it, even if it means your death. The constant witness of two thousands years of the witness of martyrs bears this out.
8.25.2011 | 12:26pm
JDD says:
(another poster) "One of the Vatican II documents is explicit about not destroying cities for any reason, though the assertion ought to have been unnecessary, given the Pauline Principle."
(Brian English responds) "Written 20 years after the bombings, and more likely referring to the pressing issue of scores of ICBMs aimed at major cities."
'More likely', according to whom? For reference, if we're referring to Gaudium et Spes, then paragraph 80 says: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation." What indeed do you think prompted the wording of this paragraph?
(Brian English) "Find me some contemporaneous condemnations outside of Sheen (and he even appears to have later softened his view on this) of the August 1945 bombings.
"And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen?"
"So, in other words, it [presumably, a statement being non-contemporaneous] is completely irrelevant to the point I am making."
Brian, what are you trying to get at here? Why do you keep insisting that a response to you must be a 'contemporaneous' source, (and then refining that definition down to exclude Archbishop Sheen, the Jesuit priest cited earlier, to be within a certain number of years or it doesn't count, etc.) ?
We are evaluating just war theory as applies to an historical event. Are you judging the legitimacy of its application here based on how slowly its definition was expanded, in response to a truly horrific weapons advance? You are critical of armchair quarterbacking the decisions made 60 years ago - and perhaps rightly so. Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?
There can be no doubt, based on the Catechism, the Vatican II document cited above, and the further document cited by David Nickol that the Catholic position as part of its Just War theory condemns the atomic bombing of cities as a means to 'end' - and I use that term 'end' with some hesitation - a war.
(Brian English responds) "Written 20 years after the bombings, and more likely referring to the pressing issue of scores of ICBMs aimed at major cities."
'More likely', according to whom? For reference, if we're referring to Gaudium et Spes, then paragraph 80 says: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation." What indeed do you think prompted the wording of this paragraph?
(Brian English) "Find me some contemporaneous condemnations outside of Sheen (and he even appears to have later softened his view on this) of the August 1945 bombings.
"And once again, if this point is so clear under Catholic Just War Theory, where are the contemporaneous condemnations beyond Sheen?"
"So, in other words, it [presumably, a statement being non-contemporaneous] is completely irrelevant to the point I am making."
Brian, what are you trying to get at here? Why do you keep insisting that a response to you must be a 'contemporaneous' source, (and then refining that definition down to exclude Archbishop Sheen, the Jesuit priest cited earlier, to be within a certain number of years or it doesn't count, etc.) ?
We are evaluating just war theory as applies to an historical event. Are you judging the legitimacy of its application here based on how slowly its definition was expanded, in response to a truly horrific weapons advance? You are critical of armchair quarterbacking the decisions made 60 years ago - and perhaps rightly so. Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?
There can be no doubt, based on the Catechism, the Vatican II document cited above, and the further document cited by David Nickol that the Catholic position as part of its Just War theory condemns the atomic bombing of cities as a means to 'end' - and I use that term 'end' with some hesitation - a war.
8.25.2011 | 12:33pm
Brian English says:
" The regular army in Japan was in even worse shape."
The Japanese had 2.5 million troops on the home islands, and they certainly were not in worse shape than those on the mainland.
"And the Island Nation, starved of resources, was incapable of supporting a modern war machine."
Since they were training civilians to fight with bamboo spears, I don't think they were intending to fight a modern war.
The Japanese had 2.5 million troops on the home islands, and they certainly were not in worse shape than those on the mainland.
"And the Island Nation, starved of resources, was incapable of supporting a modern war machine."
Since they were training civilians to fight with bamboo spears, I don't think they were intending to fight a modern war.
8.25.2011 | 12:44pm
Brian English says:
"My claim was that the U.S. targeted a large civilian population."
Agreed that the US dropped atomic bombs on two cities. Cities obviously have civilians in them. Your statement that the US targeted large civilian populations is implying something a little different. I think it implies that the US war planners were intentionally looking to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Agreed that the US dropped atomic bombs on two cities. Cities obviously have civilians in them. Your statement that the US targeted large civilian populations is implying something a little different. I think it implies that the US war planners were intentionally looking to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
8.25.2011 | 12:50pm
Brian English says:
"I highly recommend reading Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas and the portions where Bonhoeffer decides that the presumably "Christian principles" of the devout Prussian officers must give way to action in trying to kill Hitler -- murder a head of state -- also frowned upon by Christians."
In 1940, Pius XII and his secretary were directly involved in negotiations between a group of German officers who wanted to overthrow Hitler (and I don't believe they intended to give him a retirement party) and the British.
In 1940, Pius XII and his secretary were directly involved in negotiations between a group of German officers who wanted to overthrow Hitler (and I don't believe they intended to give him a retirement party) and the British.
8.25.2011 | 12:52pm
Steve T. says:
The use of atomic bombs against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and absolutely unacceptable from a Christian standpoint, and no amount of equivocation or extreme detail will change that.
Yes, the statements that the Jaanese people would have fought fanatically and died by the millions was empirically true. Witness the civilian population of Okinawa's response to the U.S. invasion: mass suicides of cliffs into the ocean, in such numbers that the propellors of destroyers attempting to rescue them clogged. Yes, the Japanese military would have fought to the last man. These facts are not in debate, not at least to any serious student of history.
But there were legitimate military targets that the atomic bombs could have been used against.
The Japanese had more than 14 divisions--some 900,000 men---on the southern main island of Kysh, ready to defend the obvious point for the coming American invasion. They valued Kysh to the point that some 40% of all the ammunition available to the entire Japanese military was on Kysh. If the atomic bombs had been used to annihilate several Japanese divisions in a flash, that would have been a convincing point against the Japanese militarists, who hitherto only had experienced the ability of dug-in soldiers to survive days of bombardment by the largest conventional weapons available to the Americans, as at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. If, in attacking the massive Japanese forces on Kysh, the bombs killed Japanese civilians, that would have been a horribly unfortunate consequence of targeting morally legitimate Japanese soldiers.
However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rarely bombed during the war because there was nothing of either strategic or military value in or near either city. That's how unescorted single bombers could approach them to attack. Had a militarily or strategically significant target been picked, there would have been heavy flack and defense fighters crawling all over the American bombers. These cities were targeted because they were mostly irrelevant to the conduct of the war, thus undefended. Therefore, they were targeted to kill as many civilians as possible as a demonstration.
Many commentors pose a false syllogism:
a) the Japanese wouldn't surrender without a demonstration of irresistible American might
b) an invasion of Japan would have led to massive U.S. casualties and the probable extinction of the Japanese as a people
c) use of the atomic bombs could have, and did, provide that necessary demonstration of irresistible American might, and led to the Japanese surrender
Ergo:
d) it was morally acceptable, on balance, to target the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Only if there were no other legitimate targets. And there were. And we chose not to target them. We selected women, children, and old people instead.
Yes, the statements that the Jaanese people would have fought fanatically and died by the millions was empirically true. Witness the civilian population of Okinawa's response to the U.S. invasion: mass suicides of cliffs into the ocean, in such numbers that the propellors of destroyers attempting to rescue them clogged. Yes, the Japanese military would have fought to the last man. These facts are not in debate, not at least to any serious student of history.
But there were legitimate military targets that the atomic bombs could have been used against.
The Japanese had more than 14 divisions--some 900,000 men---on the southern main island of Kysh, ready to defend the obvious point for the coming American invasion. They valued Kysh to the point that some 40% of all the ammunition available to the entire Japanese military was on Kysh. If the atomic bombs had been used to annihilate several Japanese divisions in a flash, that would have been a convincing point against the Japanese militarists, who hitherto only had experienced the ability of dug-in soldiers to survive days of bombardment by the largest conventional weapons available to the Americans, as at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. If, in attacking the massive Japanese forces on Kysh, the bombs killed Japanese civilians, that would have been a horribly unfortunate consequence of targeting morally legitimate Japanese soldiers.
However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rarely bombed during the war because there was nothing of either strategic or military value in or near either city. That's how unescorted single bombers could approach them to attack. Had a militarily or strategically significant target been picked, there would have been heavy flack and defense fighters crawling all over the American bombers. These cities were targeted because they were mostly irrelevant to the conduct of the war, thus undefended. Therefore, they were targeted to kill as many civilians as possible as a demonstration.
Many commentors pose a false syllogism:
a) the Japanese wouldn't surrender without a demonstration of irresistible American might
b) an invasion of Japan would have led to massive U.S. casualties and the probable extinction of the Japanese as a people
c) use of the atomic bombs could have, and did, provide that necessary demonstration of irresistible American might, and led to the Japanese surrender
Ergo:
d) it was morally acceptable, on balance, to target the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Only if there were no other legitimate targets. And there were. And we chose not to target them. We selected women, children, and old people instead.
8.25.2011 | 1:22pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Since I last responded there have been many comments and so I will not go back to far.
In response to Richard. Comparing the success of the Soviet Union against the ill-equipped armies of Japan in Manchuria in wars of manuever and armor is not a valid comparison to the island battles fought in the pacific. The armies of the Soviet Union were perhaps the most powerful in the world at that time. In the open field they were especially dominating. However look what happened when they were forced to fight in the streets of Berlin, even against an ill-equipped enemy. The U.S.S.R took over 361,000 casualties. (source wikipedia)
Invading Japan would not have been a walk in the park.
Some satistics from three pacific battlefields. (all wikipedia)
Saipan U.S. K.I.A. 2949 Wounded 10,364
Japan 24.000 Suicides 5000 captured 921
Civilians 22,000
Iwo Jima U.S. K.I.A. 6,812 Wounded 19,217
Japan 21,844 216 captured out of 22,060 total
Okinawa U.S. K.I.A 12,513 Wounded 38,916 and another 33,000 non combat losses
Japan 100,000 killed 10,000 captured
Civilians 42,000 to 150,000 killed
If we look then at these satistics it is easy to see the blood bath that the U.S. would have faced on the main islands. There were upwards of 60 Japanese divisions on the main islands, granted many were ill equipped and yet still this speaks of the power of defence. They were building defence lines with typical strength and ingeniousness.
Another major point; the Japanese had 10,000 planes ready for suicide missions. Not 1000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
I submit that this invasion would not in any way have been an easy doing.
As for the matter of a blockade the reality is we will never know. We can make educated guesses but the fact remains that at least through that December Japan remained quite a viable enemy. After that starvation would have set in and despite Zac's comments earlier I doubt seriously that U.S. public opinion would have allowed the sending of food ships to stop the famine.
Using the bombs to force Japans hand was the needed shock to force the militaristic leaders into submission. The U.S. method was a bit machiavellian and yet at least in this instance we were justified. The million U.S. casualties and the untold millions of innocent Japanese civilians killed justify the use of at least one of the two bombs.
My 2 cents.
In response to Richard. Comparing the success of the Soviet Union against the ill-equipped armies of Japan in Manchuria in wars of manuever and armor is not a valid comparison to the island battles fought in the pacific. The armies of the Soviet Union were perhaps the most powerful in the world at that time. In the open field they were especially dominating. However look what happened when they were forced to fight in the streets of Berlin, even against an ill-equipped enemy. The U.S.S.R took over 361,000 casualties. (source wikipedia)
Invading Japan would not have been a walk in the park.
Some satistics from three pacific battlefields. (all wikipedia)
Saipan U.S. K.I.A. 2949 Wounded 10,364
Japan 24.000 Suicides 5000 captured 921
Civilians 22,000
Iwo Jima U.S. K.I.A. 6,812 Wounded 19,217
Japan 21,844 216 captured out of 22,060 total
Okinawa U.S. K.I.A 12,513 Wounded 38,916 and another 33,000 non combat losses
Japan 100,000 killed 10,000 captured
Civilians 42,000 to 150,000 killed
If we look then at these satistics it is easy to see the blood bath that the U.S. would have faced on the main islands. There were upwards of 60 Japanese divisions on the main islands, granted many were ill equipped and yet still this speaks of the power of defence. They were building defence lines with typical strength and ingeniousness.
Another major point; the Japanese had 10,000 planes ready for suicide missions. Not 1000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
I submit that this invasion would not in any way have been an easy doing.
As for the matter of a blockade the reality is we will never know. We can make educated guesses but the fact remains that at least through that December Japan remained quite a viable enemy. After that starvation would have set in and despite Zac's comments earlier I doubt seriously that U.S. public opinion would have allowed the sending of food ships to stop the famine.
Using the bombs to force Japans hand was the needed shock to force the militaristic leaders into submission. The U.S. method was a bit machiavellian and yet at least in this instance we were justified. The million U.S. casualties and the untold millions of innocent Japanese civilians killed justify the use of at least one of the two bombs.
My 2 cents.
8.25.2011 | 1:24pm
Mike Melendez says:
I am surprised at how many think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not selected for strategic bombing due to their civilian populations, let alone Tokyo and 10s of other Japanese cities, not to mention the Germany fire bombings. You need to read the history of strategic bombing.
At the beginning of WWII strategic bombing was a new idea, not yet tried. Still, it already had a widely-read theoretician: Giulio Douhet of the Italian army. He theorized that using aircraft to devastatingly bomb your enemy's cities, taking the war directly to the civilians, would cause them to urge their government to stop fighting. In WWII, the theory was put to the test, for example, by Nazi Germany with V-1s and V-2s on England. But compared to the U.S., the Nazis were pikers at this experiment. The two atomic bombs were the period at the end of the sentence of cities firebombed with Tokyo being hit more than once. As the A-bombs only took one bomber as opposed to the 1,000 that were used in incendiary raids, the sheer efficiency focused the attention. When the war ended, the U.S. commissioned a study of the effectiveness of strategic bombing appropriately called the Strategic Bombing Survey. The evidence of the Survey was against Douhet's theory. Strategic Bombing makes those still living angry for revenge.
So civilians were the target, intentionally, but the theory behind the effort failed.
At the beginning of WWII strategic bombing was a new idea, not yet tried. Still, it already had a widely-read theoretician: Giulio Douhet of the Italian army. He theorized that using aircraft to devastatingly bomb your enemy's cities, taking the war directly to the civilians, would cause them to urge their government to stop fighting. In WWII, the theory was put to the test, for example, by Nazi Germany with V-1s and V-2s on England. But compared to the U.S., the Nazis were pikers at this experiment. The two atomic bombs were the period at the end of the sentence of cities firebombed with Tokyo being hit more than once. As the A-bombs only took one bomber as opposed to the 1,000 that were used in incendiary raids, the sheer efficiency focused the attention. When the war ended, the U.S. commissioned a study of the effectiveness of strategic bombing appropriately called the Strategic Bombing Survey. The evidence of the Survey was against Douhet's theory. Strategic Bombing makes those still living angry for revenge.
So civilians were the target, intentionally, but the theory behind the effort failed.
8.25.2011 | 1:34pm
Brian English says:
"You are critical of armchair quarterbacking the decisions made 60 years ago - and perhaps rightly so."
I am more than critical. I find the sanctimony in Mr. Carter's article and the supporting comments absolutely outrageous. That is why I keep asking for contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the bombings. The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something.
"Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?"
Absolutely. I have no problem with the statements issued in 1965 and 2004. What I have a problem with is those statements being used to villify people for their actions in 1945, after six years of the most brutal war in human history.
"There can be no doubt, based on the Catechism, the Vatican II document cited above, and the further document cited by David Nickol that the Catholic position as part of its Just War theory condemns the atomic bombing of cities as a means to 'end' - and I use that term 'end' with some hesitation - a war."
No doubt at all that such bombings at the beginning, middle and end of wars are condemned.
I am more than critical. I find the sanctimony in Mr. Carter's article and the supporting comments absolutely outrageous. That is why I keep asking for contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the bombings. The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something.
"Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?"
Absolutely. I have no problem with the statements issued in 1965 and 2004. What I have a problem with is those statements being used to villify people for their actions in 1945, after six years of the most brutal war in human history.
"There can be no doubt, based on the Catechism, the Vatican II document cited above, and the further document cited by David Nickol that the Catholic position as part of its Just War theory condemns the atomic bombing of cities as a means to 'end' - and I use that term 'end' with some hesitation - a war."
No doubt at all that such bombings at the beginning, middle and end of wars are condemned.
8.25.2011 | 1:49pm
Joe Carter says:
@Benighted Savage ***Your evidence doesn't specifically refer to Hiroshima. ***
Here's the transcript: http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html. You can see that Hirsohima is directly mentioned right after the section I quoted.
***Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size.***
Let's look at it again: "they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter"
It not just a large geographic area, but a large *urban* area.
***Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”***
True, but so what?
***Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.***
According to ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer: ""...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
There is no evidence that population size was considered a negative criterion.
@Brian English ***I find the sanctimony in Mr. Carter's article and the supporting comments absolutely outrageous.****
And I find your embrace of Machiavellian ethics absolutely outrageous.
***That is why I keep asking for contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the bombings. The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something.***
What exactly does it tell us? Are you also claiming that the relative lack of contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the Holocaust justified that action too?
Here's the transcript: http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html. You can see that Hirsohima is directly mentioned right after the section I quoted.
***Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size.***
Let's look at it again: "they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter"
It not just a large geographic area, but a large *urban* area.
***Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”***
True, but so what?
***Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.***
According to ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer: ""...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
There is no evidence that population size was considered a negative criterion.
@Brian English ***I find the sanctimony in Mr. Carter's article and the supporting comments absolutely outrageous.****
And I find your embrace of Machiavellian ethics absolutely outrageous.
***That is why I keep asking for contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the bombings. The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something.***
What exactly does it tell us? Are you also claiming that the relative lack of contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the Holocaust justified that action too?
8.25.2011 | 1:52pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@JD - Thank you for your comments. Here are my replies.
"What has any of this to do with the morality of *our* decision? If the people of Japan had decided to do any of these things, they would have stood before God in judgement for their actions. What you seem to be suggesting above is that the Nation of Japan was planning a really atrocious act, therefore we had to carry out a less atrocious one."
The idea that precisely calculated uses of force can have precisely calculated results in war is specious. Overwhelming force and the threat of complete destruction seems to be the only things that regimes such as the Japanese militarists, or indeed humanity, can unambiguously understand. If Jesus includes such a threat (a good an just and compassionate one from his lips) in commanding people to fear God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell (i.e., total destruction), why do we think that sin-hardened humans already engaged in war will listen to anything less? If the government is acting with the sword as in Romans 13, how is such a mortal threat off-limits? I am not saying that the government is God or is like God, but that appropriate use of force is appropriate in its role subordinate to God.
"And you are interchanging innocent civilians and military soldiers in your above list."
All the numbers I cited are military combatants as far as I know, although 10,000 or so civilians of Okinawa may be included. I did make the general statement that far more people--both combatants and civilians--would have been killed by an invasion of Japan than through using the atomic bomb. It's also a fair assumption that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been pulverized in seige warfare in such an invasion, resulting in horrendous loss of civilian and military life in those same cities.
"In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory."
They may not be part of just war theory, but they seem to be part of God's calculus for destruction and salvation, as illustrated in Jonah chapter 4, in which God also included not only a number of people (including children, perhaps?), but also mention of animals:
But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the
LORD, “Isn’t this what I said, LORD, when I was still at home? That is what
I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious
and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who
relents from sending calamity. Now, LORD, take away my life, for it is better
for me to die than to live.”
But the LORD replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”
Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made
himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to
the city. Then the LORD God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over
Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very
happy about the plant. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which
chewed the plant so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a
scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew
faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than
to live.”
But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”
But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you
did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.
And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there
are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their
right hand from their left—-and also many animals?” -- Jonah 4 (NIV)
Indeed, the American efforts to spare such an enumerated loss of life through repeated warnings to the military government of Japan of a truly coming disaster seems a reflection of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic than would have been displayed by either invasion or starvation. It seems to me that the pacifists and no-atomic-bombers would have been the ones sitting on the sidelines, albeit with a different attitude than Jonah, waiting for the destruction of the whole country and people of Japan.
"What has any of this to do with the morality of *our* decision? If the people of Japan had decided to do any of these things, they would have stood before God in judgement for their actions. What you seem to be suggesting above is that the Nation of Japan was planning a really atrocious act, therefore we had to carry out a less atrocious one."
The idea that precisely calculated uses of force can have precisely calculated results in war is specious. Overwhelming force and the threat of complete destruction seems to be the only things that regimes such as the Japanese militarists, or indeed humanity, can unambiguously understand. If Jesus includes such a threat (a good an just and compassionate one from his lips) in commanding people to fear God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell (i.e., total destruction), why do we think that sin-hardened humans already engaged in war will listen to anything less? If the government is acting with the sword as in Romans 13, how is such a mortal threat off-limits? I am not saying that the government is God or is like God, but that appropriate use of force is appropriate in its role subordinate to God.
"And you are interchanging innocent civilians and military soldiers in your above list."
All the numbers I cited are military combatants as far as I know, although 10,000 or so civilians of Okinawa may be included. I did make the general statement that far more people--both combatants and civilians--would have been killed by an invasion of Japan than through using the atomic bomb. It's also a fair assumption that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been pulverized in seige warfare in such an invasion, resulting in horrendous loss of civilian and military life in those same cities.
"In this argument, as well as others, I keep seeing the number comparisons. They quite simply don't belong in this discussion - if we are really considering the morality of actions. They certainly are not a part of Just War theory."
They may not be part of just war theory, but they seem to be part of God's calculus for destruction and salvation, as illustrated in Jonah chapter 4, in which God also included not only a number of people (including children, perhaps?), but also mention of animals:
But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the
LORD, “Isn’t this what I said, LORD, when I was still at home? That is what
I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious
and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who
relents from sending calamity. Now, LORD, take away my life, for it is better
for me to die than to live.”
But the LORD replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”
Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made
himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to
the city. Then the LORD God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over
Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very
happy about the plant. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which
chewed the plant so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a
scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew
faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than
to live.”
But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”
But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you
did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.
And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there
are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their
right hand from their left—-and also many animals?” -- Jonah 4 (NIV)
Indeed, the American efforts to spare such an enumerated loss of life through repeated warnings to the military government of Japan of a truly coming disaster seems a reflection of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic than would have been displayed by either invasion or starvation. It seems to me that the pacifists and no-atomic-bombers would have been the ones sitting on the sidelines, albeit with a different attitude than Jonah, waiting for the destruction of the whole country and people of Japan.
8.25.2011 | 2:05pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@SeanNY - " '[Douglas MacArthur] replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.' "
He would say that, wouldn't he? With the bomb he certainly couldn't say, "Veni, vidi, vici" afterwards quite so convincingly.
Unfair? Perhaps. But the point is that MacArthur was certainly no neutral or detached observer in such questions.
He would say that, wouldn't he? With the bomb he certainly couldn't say, "Veni, vidi, vici" afterwards quite so convincingly.
Unfair? Perhaps. But the point is that MacArthur was certainly no neutral or detached observer in such questions.
8.25.2011 | 2:07pm
Joe Carter says:
If you had told me on Tuesday that we'd have more FT readers defending Total War than Just War, I wouldn't have believed it. This has been one of the most surprising comment threads I've ever read in the OTS section.
8.25.2011 | 2:13pm
Dean from Ohio says:
Joe, what percentage of your online readers (or readers that read your work) are active duty military or veterans? That may be a large part of the answer to your question. The other part is that even dropping the bombs on Japan was not total war, as you mistakenly imply. Genghiz Khan was total war.
8.25.2011 | 2:21pm
Benighted Savage says:
Steve T. wrote:
The use of atomic bombs against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and absolutely unacceptable from a Christian standpoint, and no amount of equivocation or extreme detail will change that.
***********
As far as I can tell, the US violated no treaty obligations or international laws that were in force at the time when it atomic bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no "war crimes" according to positive law.
&
Steve T. also wrote:
However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rarely bombed during the war because there was nothing of either strategic or military value in or near either city. That's how unescorted single bombers could approach them to attack.
***********
This is clearly false.
Hiroshima in 1945 was the headquarters of an Army division (Fifth), which included substantial barracks, administrative buildings and ordnance storage houses. It also had a large military airport, a large port and dock area, several shipyards, the Japanese steel company, a railroad marshalling yards, etc. By April 1945 it ALSO housed the headquarters of Field Marshall Hata Shunroku's Second General Army, which was assigned the defense of Kyushu and Central and Western Honshu.
Nagasaki had the Mitsubishi shipyards, the largest and most productive in Japan, along with simply being a major shipping and industrial (read: production of war materiel and supplies) center.
The use of atomic bombs against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and absolutely unacceptable from a Christian standpoint, and no amount of equivocation or extreme detail will change that.
***********
As far as I can tell, the US violated no treaty obligations or international laws that were in force at the time when it atomic bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no "war crimes" according to positive law.
&
Steve T. also wrote:
However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rarely bombed during the war because there was nothing of either strategic or military value in or near either city. That's how unescorted single bombers could approach them to attack.
***********
This is clearly false.
Hiroshima in 1945 was the headquarters of an Army division (Fifth), which included substantial barracks, administrative buildings and ordnance storage houses. It also had a large military airport, a large port and dock area, several shipyards, the Japanese steel company, a railroad marshalling yards, etc. By April 1945 it ALSO housed the headquarters of Field Marshall Hata Shunroku's Second General Army, which was assigned the defense of Kyushu and Central and Western Honshu.
Nagasaki had the Mitsubishi shipyards, the largest and most productive in Japan, along with simply being a major shipping and industrial (read: production of war materiel and supplies) center.
8.25.2011 | 2:24pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Joe, the fact remains that there are millions alive who remember these events and have touched the minds of many family. In my opinion it is hard to seperate emotions from logic when you have family involved. If people are so dispassionate that they can do this, I fear that society as we know it would not last long at all.
I believe that your last response is a bit sanctimonious, you knew the hornets nest that surrounds this topic. You choose to poke it.
I believe that your last response is a bit sanctimonious, you knew the hornets nest that surrounds this topic. You choose to poke it.
8.25.2011 | 2:30pm
Joe Carter says:
@Joseph Quixote ***I believe that your last response is a bit sanctimonious, you knew the hornets nest that surrounds this topic. You choose to poke it. ***
Yes, I knew that the topic was an emotionally charged one. But FT readers are also more intellectual and theologically sophisticated that most commenters on the Internet. I expected that they might recognize that there is simply no way to square Total War with Christian ethics and would moderate, if not reconsider, their knee-jerk justifications for bombing civilians. Is it sanctimonious of me to think that Christians should stand fast on Christian ethics even when the result is costly? Then so be. I guess that makes me sanctimonious.
Yes, I knew that the topic was an emotionally charged one. But FT readers are also more intellectual and theologically sophisticated that most commenters on the Internet. I expected that they might recognize that there is simply no way to square Total War with Christian ethics and would moderate, if not reconsider, their knee-jerk justifications for bombing civilians. Is it sanctimonious of me to think that Christians should stand fast on Christian ethics even when the result is costly? Then so be. I guess that makes me sanctimonious.
8.25.2011 | 2:37pm
Joe Carter says:
@Dean from Ohio ***Joe, what percentage of your online readers (or readers that read your work) are active duty military or veterans? That may be a large part of the answer to your question. ***
Very few, I suspect. I think Christians who served in the military are likely to be more reflective and less confident about the morality of the situation than would be civilians.
***The other part is that even dropping the bombs on Japan was not total war, as you mistakenly imply.***
In a total war, there is little to no differentiation between combatants and civilians—anyone can be considered a "combatant." We have certainly seen people defend that position in this thread.
Very few, I suspect. I think Christians who served in the military are likely to be more reflective and less confident about the morality of the situation than would be civilians.
***The other part is that even dropping the bombs on Japan was not total war, as you mistakenly imply.***
In a total war, there is little to no differentiation between combatants and civilians—anyone can be considered a "combatant." We have certainly seen people defend that position in this thread.
8.25.2011 | 2:46pm
Richard W Comerford says:
Re: Unjust acts in a just war
"Mr. Comerford, what is an "unjust act of war"?"
In any just human enterprise there will always be unjust acts because the intellect and will of every human has been weakened by Original Sin. We are all fallible sinners. The Ten Commandments still apply during time of war. An unjust act of war is essentially a violation of the Ten Commandments.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
"Mr. Comerford, what is an "unjust act of war"?"
In any just human enterprise there will always be unjust acts because the intellect and will of every human has been weakened by Original Sin. We are all fallible sinners. The Ten Commandments still apply during time of war. An unjust act of war is essentially a violation of the Ten Commandments.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.25.2011 | 2:47pm
Brian English says:
"What exactly does it tell us? Are you also claiming that the relative lack of contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the Holocaust justified that action too?"
Are you kidding me? There were condemnations of the Nazis' actions during the war itself, and once the full extent of the horror was revealed there was a deluge of condemnations.
Are you kidding me? There were condemnations of the Nazis' actions during the war itself, and once the full extent of the horror was revealed there was a deluge of condemnations.
8.25.2011 | 2:52pm
Brian English says:
"This is clearly false."
Thank you for refuting those false statements. There is a definite historical knowledge deficit among the moral-posturing crowd.
Thank you for refuting those false statements. There is a definite historical knowledge deficit among the moral-posturing crowd.
8.25.2011 | 2:55pm
Joe Carter says:
@Brian English ***Are you kidding me? There were condemnations of the Nazis' actions during the war itself, ***
Were there? What did the Vatican say about it during the war? What did German religious leaders say?
Were there? What did the Vatican say about it during the war? What did German religious leaders say?
8.25.2011 | 2:56pm
Matthew Mainte says:
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal"
- General Curtis Lemay, USAF; speaking on the firebombing campaign on Tokyo.
- General Curtis Lemay, USAF; speaking on the firebombing campaign on Tokyo.
8.25.2011 | 3:04pm
Richard W Comerford says:
Re: Justification for Mass Murder
"Hiroshima in 1945 was the headquarters of an Army division (Fifth)" And until recently Boston was the headquarters of the 26th (Yankee) Infantry Division. But that fact would not have morally enabled the Soviets during the Cold War to target Boston with nuclear weapons. In WW II by 1945 every, largish, Western style city in the world was the headquarters for some type of military unit and the city itself was to one degree or another a strategic asset. The deliberate mass murder of noncombatants by any means has always been a violation of the 5th Commandment.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
"Hiroshima in 1945 was the headquarters of an Army division (Fifth)" And until recently Boston was the headquarters of the 26th (Yankee) Infantry Division. But that fact would not have morally enabled the Soviets during the Cold War to target Boston with nuclear weapons. In WW II by 1945 every, largish, Western style city in the world was the headquarters for some type of military unit and the city itself was to one degree or another a strategic asset. The deliberate mass murder of noncombatants by any means has always been a violation of the 5th Commandment.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.25.2011 | 3:11pm
Richard W Comerford says:
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal"
Interestingly enough General LeMay opposed the use of the atomic bombs.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Interestingly enough General LeMay opposed the use of the atomic bombs.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.25.2011 | 3:27pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Joe, many of the Christians who condemned what was happening were killed. Bonhoffer of course is a good example but countless others were smashed under the iron boot. Another example, 20% of the polish clergy were killed under the Nazis. The others were surely intimidated to say the least.
I offer no other exact proof except to say that the terror the Nazis inspired was easily seen in the writings of Anne Frank.
It is to easy to judge the people of the past from the safety of 2011. This includes Truman's decision.
I offer no other exact proof except to say that the terror the Nazis inspired was easily seen in the writings of Anne Frank.
It is to easy to judge the people of the past from the safety of 2011. This includes Truman's decision.
8.25.2011 | 3:37pm
Jon W says:
Now carry on with the end-abortion thing, please.
Well, this is highly ironic.
Have any of you people defending the bombings ever argued with someone who was pro-abortion? They make the exact. same. arguments that you are making. It all comes down to a weighing and measuring of the respective anticipated suffering, with the conclusion that it is a terrible, terrible choice to have to make, but a necessary one.
Well, this is highly ironic.
Have any of you people defending the bombings ever argued with someone who was pro-abortion? They make the exact. same. arguments that you are making. It all comes down to a weighing and measuring of the respective anticipated suffering, with the conclusion that it is a terrible, terrible choice to have to make, but a necessary one.
8.25.2011 | 3:45pm
Brian English says:
"Were there? What did the Vatican say about it during the war? What did German religious leaders say?"
I refer you to Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes; The Pius Wars, edited by Dalin and Bottum; The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Dalin, among others.
I am surprised you would make that kind of statement; I thought you knew better.
I refer you to Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes; The Pius Wars, edited by Dalin and Bottum; The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Dalin, among others.
I am surprised you would make that kind of statement; I thought you knew better.
8.25.2011 | 4:33pm
Benighted Savage says:
I wrote:
***Your evidence doesn't specifically refer to Hiroshima. ***
Joe Carter writes:
Here's the transcript: http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html. You can see that Hirsohima is directly mentioned right after the section I quoted.
***********
I used the same transcript in my original response.
I'm sorry, what I should have written is that although the document you refer to does discuss the targeting of Hiroshima, that discussion does not support – or provide evidence that supports – your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population." I stated my reasons why I believe this to be the case in my earlier post; I won't repeat them here. The committee document may support a claim that Kyoto was “targeted in part because it had a large civilian population,” but even that is unclear and would require further proof on your part.
&
I wrote:
***Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size.***
Joe Carter writes:
Let's look at it again: "they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter"
It not just a large geographic area, but a large *urban* area.
***********
You're being captious. When I wrote that “targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, I was writing about urban areas. “Urban area” and “geographic area of a city” are synonymous. Do you have any substantive response to my argument?
&
I wrote:
***Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”***
Joe Carter writes:
True, but so what?
************
"So what"?
Cf. the qualification #1 for targeted cities that you quoted: “they [must] be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter.” My point is that there is no direct correlation between city size and city population in the commitee report: a targeted city could meet the “three miles in diameter” rule and yet vary quite a bit as to population size.
I pointed this out because you appear to be arguing there is a direct equivalence between “size of city area” and “size of urban population” so that you can claim, in the absence of any real evidence, that the targeting of a large urban area is the same thing as the targeting of a large civilian population. Once you've pulled off this rhetorical maneuver, it's a simple matter for you to ignore the targeting criteria which are explicitly mentioned in historical documents and make the unsupported claim that the men in charge of the atomic bombings were fiendish Machiavels who were targeting “men, women, and children.”
That, along with your strategic use of the ambiguity inherent in the word “target” – I think Brian English makes a good case for that – creates an overall argument with a lot of rhetorical and emotional force but little factual, moral or intellectual weight.
&
I wrote:
***Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.***
Joe Carter writes:
According to ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer: ""...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
There is no evidence that population size was considered a negative criterion.
***
I know the story about Stimson. However, as far as I can tell, he and is wife did not honeymoon in Yokohama.
You're right – there is no real evidence that population size was considered to be a negative criterion by the targeting committee. That's why I heavily qualified my statement: “it's almost as if...” However, I'm still waiting to see some substantial evidence from you that the committee, or any other participants of significance, successfully used population size as a positive criterion for the atomic bombings (your assertion).
***Your evidence doesn't specifically refer to Hiroshima. ***
Joe Carter writes:
Here's the transcript: http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html. You can see that Hirsohima is directly mentioned right after the section I quoted.
***********
I used the same transcript in my original response.
I'm sorry, what I should have written is that although the document you refer to does discuss the targeting of Hiroshima, that discussion does not support – or provide evidence that supports – your claim that "Hiroshima was targeted in part because it had a large civilian population." I stated my reasons why I believe this to be the case in my earlier post; I won't repeat them here. The committee document may support a claim that Kyoto was “targeted in part because it had a large civilian population,” but even that is unclear and would require further proof on your part.
&
I wrote:
***Criterion #1 is evidence that targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, not that they must have a certain population size.***
Joe Carter writes:
Let's look at it again: "they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter"
It not just a large geographic area, but a large *urban* area.
***********
You're being captious. When I wrote that “targeted cities must be cities with a particular (large) geographic area, I was writing about urban areas. “Urban area” and “geographic area of a city” are synonymous. Do you have any substantive response to my argument?
&
I wrote:
***Big variance in population size, and yet they are all “large urban areas.”***
Joe Carter writes:
True, but so what?
************
"So what"?
Cf. the qualification #1 for targeted cities that you quoted: “they [must] be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter.” My point is that there is no direct correlation between city size and city population in the commitee report: a targeted city could meet the “three miles in diameter” rule and yet vary quite a bit as to population size.
I pointed this out because you appear to be arguing there is a direct equivalence between “size of city area” and “size of urban population” so that you can claim, in the absence of any real evidence, that the targeting of a large urban area is the same thing as the targeting of a large civilian population. Once you've pulled off this rhetorical maneuver, it's a simple matter for you to ignore the targeting criteria which are explicitly mentioned in historical documents and make the unsupported claim that the men in charge of the atomic bombings were fiendish Machiavels who were targeting “men, women, and children.”
That, along with your strategic use of the ambiguity inherent in the word “target” – I think Brian English makes a good case for that – creates an overall argument with a lot of rhetorical and emotional force but little factual, moral or intellectual weight.
&
I wrote:
***Yokohama and Kyoto, by far the largest cities by population, are no longer targeted; it's almost as if population size, if considered at all, became a negative criterion for nuclear bombing.***
Joe Carter writes:
According to ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer: ""...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
There is no evidence that population size was considered a negative criterion.
***
I know the story about Stimson. However, as far as I can tell, he and is wife did not honeymoon in Yokohama.
You're right – there is no real evidence that population size was considered to be a negative criterion by the targeting committee. That's why I heavily qualified my statement: “it's almost as if...” However, I'm still waiting to see some substantial evidence from you that the committee, or any other participants of significance, successfully used population size as a positive criterion for the atomic bombings (your assertion).
8.25.2011 | 4:43pm
Brian English says:
"Have any of you people defending the bombings ever argued with someone who was pro-abortion? They make the exact. same. arguments that you are making. It all comes down to a weighing and measuring of the respective anticipated suffering, with the conclusion that it is a terrible, terrible choice to have to make, but a necessary one."
Good grief. How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?
Good grief. How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?
8.25.2011 | 4:45pm
ed says:
Ipse dixit platitudes like "[a]n unjust act of war is essentially a violation of the Ten Commandments" is exceedingly unhelpful. It says nothing about whether war, or even acts of war, are just. It is a personal determination to condemn certain forms of war (and maybe all war itself). Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but the unsupported conclusory assertion that such opinion is Catholic teaching is spurious.
According to the Roman Church, "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 2309. Obviously, the Church was concerned with such things as atomic, biological and chemical weapons. Id. at 2314. Significantly, the Church does not condemn any specific act of war. Such a checklist approach would render superfluous much Church doctrine regarding just war. Thus, the Church expressly mandates a "rigorous consideration" of appropriate (and justified) "military force". Id. at 2309. I could be convinced that the bombings in Japan were not justified, but not without the necessary "rigorous consideration", which is lacking.
According to the Roman Church, "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 2309. Obviously, the Church was concerned with such things as atomic, biological and chemical weapons. Id. at 2314. Significantly, the Church does not condemn any specific act of war. Such a checklist approach would render superfluous much Church doctrine regarding just war. Thus, the Church expressly mandates a "rigorous consideration" of appropriate (and justified) "military force". Id. at 2309. I could be convinced that the bombings in Japan were not justified, but not without the necessary "rigorous consideration", which is lacking.
8.25.2011 | 5:19pm
R Hampton says:
Brian English,
From the U.S. Navy:
"on 6 August, the Hiroshima atomic bombing demonstrated that the "prompt and utter distruction" promised by the Potsdam Declaration was now at hand. That message was reinforced by the Nagasaki bomb three days later. A fast-moving Soviet invasion of Manchuria on the same day shattered any expectation that Japan's large army could hold back her enemies' conventional forces. This triple shock prompted, after several difficult meetings of his chief officials, the Japanese Emperor's decision to end the War by accepting the Allies' terms, a decision announced on 14 August."
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/japansur.htm
At the very least, you must admit that the Russian entry into the war was one of three deciding factors.
Now Russia was key, not because of the threat of invasion, but because Japan was counting on the Soviets to help negotiate favorable surrender terms. This is from the U.S. Army:
"Meanwhile, as the rapid convergence of Allied armies on Berlin heralded the imminent end of hostilities in Europe, the Army High Command became more alarmed over the possibility that Soviet Russia might forsake neutrality toward Japan and join the Allies as a belligerent in the Far East. Since such action by Russia would seriously prejudice hopes of successfully defending the homeland against invasion, Lt. Gen. Torashiro Kawabe, Deputy-Chief of the Army General Staff, when he made a courtesy call on the new Foreign Minister in the latter part of April, expressed his views and urged Togo to launch diplomatic efforts designed to keep the Soviet Union out of the Far Eastern war. Togo, in fact, had already instructed the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow to seek assurances regarding Soviet neutrality. To this dé marché the Soviet Government, on 27 April, replied evasively that its attitude remained unchanged ...
Togo believed that if the Soviet Government finally agreed to Japan's mediation request, it would be possible at least to negotiate through Russia to assure that the Potsdam terms would be interpreted in the most favorable way for Japan. It was therefore essential, first, not to reject the Allied declaration, which would at once close the door to further peace negotiations, and second, to await Russia's final answer on the Konoye mission ...
The Kremlin's declaration of war had shattered the last remaining hope of the Japanese to end the war through Soviet good offices. Premier Suzuki, upon hearing the news, remarked that the "inevitable has finally occurred."
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P2/ch20.htm
From the U.S. Navy:
"on 6 August, the Hiroshima atomic bombing demonstrated that the "prompt and utter distruction" promised by the Potsdam Declaration was now at hand. That message was reinforced by the Nagasaki bomb three days later. A fast-moving Soviet invasion of Manchuria on the same day shattered any expectation that Japan's large army could hold back her enemies' conventional forces. This triple shock prompted, after several difficult meetings of his chief officials, the Japanese Emperor's decision to end the War by accepting the Allies' terms, a decision announced on 14 August."
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/japansur.htm
At the very least, you must admit that the Russian entry into the war was one of three deciding factors.
Now Russia was key, not because of the threat of invasion, but because Japan was counting on the Soviets to help negotiate favorable surrender terms. This is from the U.S. Army:
"Meanwhile, as the rapid convergence of Allied armies on Berlin heralded the imminent end of hostilities in Europe, the Army High Command became more alarmed over the possibility that Soviet Russia might forsake neutrality toward Japan and join the Allies as a belligerent in the Far East. Since such action by Russia would seriously prejudice hopes of successfully defending the homeland against invasion, Lt. Gen. Torashiro Kawabe, Deputy-Chief of the Army General Staff, when he made a courtesy call on the new Foreign Minister in the latter part of April, expressed his views and urged Togo to launch diplomatic efforts designed to keep the Soviet Union out of the Far Eastern war. Togo, in fact, had already instructed the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow to seek assurances regarding Soviet neutrality. To this dé marché the Soviet Government, on 27 April, replied evasively that its attitude remained unchanged ...
Togo believed that if the Soviet Government finally agreed to Japan's mediation request, it would be possible at least to negotiate through Russia to assure that the Potsdam terms would be interpreted in the most favorable way for Japan. It was therefore essential, first, not to reject the Allied declaration, which would at once close the door to further peace negotiations, and second, to await Russia's final answer on the Konoye mission ...
The Kremlin's declaration of war had shattered the last remaining hope of the Japanese to end the war through Soviet good offices. Premier Suzuki, upon hearing the news, remarked that the "inevitable has finally occurred."
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P2/ch20.htm
8.25.2011 | 5:20pm
Jon W says:
"Good grief. How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school? "
First of all, that you can think of no other scenario than interrupted grad school indicates that you have not, in fact, seriously engaged with someone who feels that they have a _moral duty_ not to interfere with the decision of a desperately poor, abused, or raped woman facing the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy with no help from anyone in her community or family (even if she has a family whose members do not fill their jobless days with alcohol, pot, and fornication). The first thing someone will do in this scenario is tell you to get off your moral high-horse. Sound familiar?
Secondly, the case of abortion is exactly parallel: we have a terrible choice; both actions we can foresee will result in serious suffering for all concerned; and in both we are tempted to sacrifice an innocent to ward off the greater amount of suffering.
The argument is not over which scenario ends up with greater suffering. We can't know that and _it doesn't matter_. The argument is over whether we can do evil that good may come. And the answer is always no. You cannot do evil that good may come, even if the good you foresee is a very great good compared to the evil you intend.
As mere subjects and not legislators of God's law, we do not get to weigh consequences except when both choices are good. But Mr. Carter's point is that both choices are not good. Therefore, consequences do not matter. It would be better for a million American soldiers to die in honorable battle with the enemy than deliberately to slay one Japanese baby.
First of all, that you can think of no other scenario than interrupted grad school indicates that you have not, in fact, seriously engaged with someone who feels that they have a _moral duty_ not to interfere with the decision of a desperately poor, abused, or raped woman facing the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy with no help from anyone in her community or family (even if she has a family whose members do not fill their jobless days with alcohol, pot, and fornication). The first thing someone will do in this scenario is tell you to get off your moral high-horse. Sound familiar?
Secondly, the case of abortion is exactly parallel: we have a terrible choice; both actions we can foresee will result in serious suffering for all concerned; and in both we are tempted to sacrifice an innocent to ward off the greater amount of suffering.
The argument is not over which scenario ends up with greater suffering. We can't know that and _it doesn't matter_. The argument is over whether we can do evil that good may come. And the answer is always no. You cannot do evil that good may come, even if the good you foresee is a very great good compared to the evil you intend.
As mere subjects and not legislators of God's law, we do not get to weigh consequences except when both choices are good. But Mr. Carter's point is that both choices are not good. Therefore, consequences do not matter. It would be better for a million American soldiers to die in honorable battle with the enemy than deliberately to slay one Japanese baby.
8.25.2011 | 5:42pm
Jon W says:
Mr. Carter, excellent article and followup defense. I cannot, however, help criticizing something you stated in one of your comments:
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable. "
Did God spare his Son from the cross? We _cannot_ know what God will do. I don't think I would feed, even in so innocent a manner, this apparently irresistible temptation that the consequentialists feel to weigh the future consequences of evil choices we are contemplating.
It all reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
"I can't say that I know what would have happened had we not dropped the A-bombs. But I suspect that God would have spared the great catastrophe that we assume was inevitable. "
Did God spare his Son from the cross? We _cannot_ know what God will do. I don't think I would feed, even in so innocent a manner, this apparently irresistible temptation that the consequentialists feel to weigh the future consequences of evil choices we are contemplating.
It all reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
8.25.2011 | 6:06pm
Brian English says:
"At the very least, you must admit that the Russian entry into the war was one of three deciding factors."
But of minimal importance. Do you really think the Japanese would have refused to surrender after Nagasaki in the absence of Soviet entry into the war?
On the other hand, do you really think the Japanese would have surrendered if we hadn't dropped the bombs and the only significant event was the Soviet entry into the war?
"Premier Suzuki, upon hearing the news, remarked that the "inevitable has finally occurred."
But that just means the Soviets were not going to bail them out. It doesn't mean that they now had no choice but to surrender.
But of minimal importance. Do you really think the Japanese would have refused to surrender after Nagasaki in the absence of Soviet entry into the war?
On the other hand, do you really think the Japanese would have surrendered if we hadn't dropped the bombs and the only significant event was the Soviet entry into the war?
"Premier Suzuki, upon hearing the news, remarked that the "inevitable has finally occurred."
But that just means the Soviets were not going to bail them out. It doesn't mean that they now had no choice but to surrender.
8.25.2011 | 6:29pm
Joe McFaul says:
Joe Carter,
Thanks for sailing against the winds of public opinion here.
Thanks for sailing against the winds of public opinion here.
8.25.2011 | 6:35pm
Dan says:
Nice article.
In terms of contemporaneous religious leaders who found the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as deplorable, Commonweal decried the atomic bomb use, and L'Osservatore Romano (as reported by the NYTimes) seemed condemnatory about the nuclear weapons. Pius XII would later be clear in his condemnation of nuclear weapons, personally.
And of course the NY Catholic Worker was condemnatory.
In terms of contemporaneous religious leaders who found the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as deplorable, Commonweal decried the atomic bomb use, and L'Osservatore Romano (as reported by the NYTimes) seemed condemnatory about the nuclear weapons. Pius XII would later be clear in his condemnation of nuclear weapons, personally.
And of course the NY Catholic Worker was condemnatory.
8.25.2011 | 6:44pm
Dan says:
August 8, 1945 NYTimes headlines: Vatican Deplores Use of Nuclear Weapons. The article then goes on to quote verbatim 8 paragraphs of the Losservatore Romano article. The Vatican press office is terse and indicates extreme disfavor of the use of nuclear weapons.
Statements made within months of the blasts made it clear that the Church was opposed to the nuclear weapon use. Thoughtful religious leaders had an opinion immediately and they were horrified.
One could even begin to probe the thoughts of Pedro Arrupe, SJ who would describe the events of this blast he lived through (and would later be Superior General of the Jesuits).
Statements made within months of the blasts made it clear that the Church was opposed to the nuclear weapon use. Thoughtful religious leaders had an opinion immediately and they were horrified.
One could even begin to probe the thoughts of Pedro Arrupe, SJ who would describe the events of this blast he lived through (and would later be Superior General of the Jesuits).
8.25.2011 | 7:02pm
Rick says:
Such a feverish and fascinating discussion! After declaring my global philisophical opinion that all war is, by its very nature, morally tainted from the viewpoint of Jesus' teachings, I'll now comment on whether or not the US deliberately targeted large Japanese population centers in order to kill civilians.
Of course we did. I'm amazed that there is even an argument about it! To prepare for the mass incendiary raids on Japanese cities, the military even built a mock Japanese residential neighborhood out in the Southwest desert and tested incendiary bombs on it. They didn't build factories or barracks or power plants. They built masses of little wood and paper houses just like the ones Japanese families lived in, and they devised the most efficient way to set them on fire "en masse". The bombs they finally developed were quite small, so the B-29s could carry huge numbers of them, and they were dropped by parachute so they would come to rest on the roofs of houses and then ignite.
The commander of the first mass incendiary raid against Tokyo was General Thomas Power, LeMay's right-hand man. After the raid, which killed around 100,000 civilians, he gloated, "It was the greatest single disaster incurred by any enemy in military history....There were more casualties than in any other military action in the history of the world." He later developed a reputation among Air Force personnel in his command as a sadist who enjoyed humiliating his subordinates. Even LeMay once commented, when asked about his protoge's questionable character, that Power was "a sadistic ba*t*rd, but he gets the job done." I'll give him kudos for having a clever sense of humor, though. While Power was commander of the Strategic Air Command (I served under him), he responded to hand-wringing about possible long-rang genetic effects from fallout by commenting, "No-one has ever convinced me that two heads aren't better than one!"
Of course we did. I'm amazed that there is even an argument about it! To prepare for the mass incendiary raids on Japanese cities, the military even built a mock Japanese residential neighborhood out in the Southwest desert and tested incendiary bombs on it. They didn't build factories or barracks or power plants. They built masses of little wood and paper houses just like the ones Japanese families lived in, and they devised the most efficient way to set them on fire "en masse". The bombs they finally developed were quite small, so the B-29s could carry huge numbers of them, and they were dropped by parachute so they would come to rest on the roofs of houses and then ignite.
The commander of the first mass incendiary raid against Tokyo was General Thomas Power, LeMay's right-hand man. After the raid, which killed around 100,000 civilians, he gloated, "It was the greatest single disaster incurred by any enemy in military history....There were more casualties than in any other military action in the history of the world." He later developed a reputation among Air Force personnel in his command as a sadist who enjoyed humiliating his subordinates. Even LeMay once commented, when asked about his protoge's questionable character, that Power was "a sadistic ba*t*rd, but he gets the job done." I'll give him kudos for having a clever sense of humor, though. While Power was commander of the Strategic Air Command (I served under him), he responded to hand-wringing about possible long-rang genetic effects from fallout by commenting, "No-one has ever convinced me that two heads aren't better than one!"
8.25.2011 | 7:33pm
ed says:
Dan, would you please provide a link to the August 8, 1945, headline to which you refer. I cannot find any headline "Vatican Deplores Use of Nuclear Weapons". That would be a remarkable headline for the time.
Thanks.
Thanks.
8.25.2011 | 7:42pm
Jon W says:
Contemporaneous opinion matters much less than our ability to reason about the situation when emotions and commitments are no longer so entangled as they are in the middle of a war. Contemporaneous opinion is only morally significant when the contemporaries are in the position to know something we cannot about the situation. But while they are in the position to tell us how they felt about Japan or the prospect of invading it, they cannot tell us anything that will make the children we targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki suddenly guilty of something such that it would be an act of justice to kill them intentionally. Which is what we did.
All you need to know in order to come to a proper judgment about the justice of this kind of an act is, "Did it intentionally target non-combatants?" If it did, then its unjust, no matter how atrociously those non-combatants' national military had acted or was capable of acting.
All you need to know in order to come to a proper judgment about the justice of this kind of an act is, "Did it intentionally target non-combatants?" If it did, then its unjust, no matter how atrociously those non-combatants' national military had acted or was capable of acting.
8.25.2011 | 8:48pm
Jon W says:
Let's try this again.
"How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?"
It's exactly parallel. In both cases a situation is presented in which we can foresee that the path we're on will involve horrible suffering for all concerned. We are then tempted to resolve the dilemma by sacrificing an innocent. People who argue for the legality of abortion can come up with more serious and affecting scenarios than an interrupted post-graduate education.
"How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?"
It's exactly parallel. In both cases a situation is presented in which we can foresee that the path we're on will involve horrible suffering for all concerned. We are then tempted to resolve the dilemma by sacrificing an innocent. People who argue for the legality of abortion can come up with more serious and affecting scenarios than an interrupted post-graduate education.
8.25.2011 | 9:32pm
Zac says:
Greetings Brian English, it's been a while!
"What would you do when the 1,000 kamikazee planes (most of them converted training aircraft) had ready started raining down on your blockading fleet?"
The same issue applies to invasion, doesn't it? If we can invade, we can blockade.
"So what exactly would cause the Japanese to surrender? Your "blockade that lets food through" would probably be the first of its kind in human history. How long would you keep your "food allowed" blockade in place? Five years? Ten years?"
I'm currently reading 'Nagasaki' by Craig Collie, a newly published history. Do you know why Japanese planes didn't target the atomic bombing mission? They didn't have enough fuel to waste on anything less than a major bombing run. Such were their shortages. So presumably, they would surrender for the same reasons they were already *considering* surrender and were inquiring via the Soviets.
Look, I'm sure we won't agree because short of establishing a forum where only established historical data may be cited, neither of us will trust the other's historical interpretation, since you have an interest in viewing H&N as the best possible outcome, and I have an interest in showing that alternatives were feasible. The back-and-forth of comment threads isn't a viable way of establishing the historical truth.
But I think moral Joe's observation stands: that the bombings don't square with Just War theory, and that the majority of those defending the bombings don't try to reconcile it with Just War. (Though there are always a few who try to stretch double-effect to cover the bombings).
"What would you do when the 1,000 kamikazee planes (most of them converted training aircraft) had ready started raining down on your blockading fleet?"
The same issue applies to invasion, doesn't it? If we can invade, we can blockade.
"So what exactly would cause the Japanese to surrender? Your "blockade that lets food through" would probably be the first of its kind in human history. How long would you keep your "food allowed" blockade in place? Five years? Ten years?"
I'm currently reading 'Nagasaki' by Craig Collie, a newly published history. Do you know why Japanese planes didn't target the atomic bombing mission? They didn't have enough fuel to waste on anything less than a major bombing run. Such were their shortages. So presumably, they would surrender for the same reasons they were already *considering* surrender and were inquiring via the Soviets.
Look, I'm sure we won't agree because short of establishing a forum where only established historical data may be cited, neither of us will trust the other's historical interpretation, since you have an interest in viewing H&N as the best possible outcome, and I have an interest in showing that alternatives were feasible. The back-and-forth of comment threads isn't a viable way of establishing the historical truth.
But I think moral Joe's observation stands: that the bombings don't square with Just War theory, and that the majority of those defending the bombings don't try to reconcile it with Just War. (Though there are always a few who try to stretch double-effect to cover the bombings).
8.25.2011 | 10:06pm
Zac says:
Brian, with regard to Abortion and Euthanasia, it's not about moral equivalence but the underlying moral logic. I have no doubt that you can be opposed to Abortion and Euthanasia while still endorse the bombings; but it is - a professional hazard - evident that the logic of 'necessary evils' is applied in all three cases. I find this strikingly relevant since 70% of Australians believe that legal access to abortion should be allowed as a 'necessary evil', and while I don't have figures on Aus. attitudes to the bombings, I do know that as of 2009 it was more than 60% of Americans that endorsed the bombings (presumably according to the most popular form of argument, that it was 'necessary').
Traditional ethics of the Christian variety completely denies the possibility of 'necessary evils' ie. you cannot do evil that good may come. That is why I see the bombings of H&N as culturally significant for the Allied nations, because we can pinpoint a moment at which ~ 80% of the population endorsed a 'necessary evil' argument.
That's why I'm so intrigued by Sheen's comment (for which I posted a video earlier) and as you know, there's also a contemporaneous comment from Sheen on page 12 of this document: http://books.google.com/books?id=RwwAAAAAMBAJ&
source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=1
I just did a quick search for religious leaders condemning the bombings, and found the following:
A telegram from the Federal Council of Churches to Truman, with his interesting response: http://www.ncccusa.org/centennial/augustmoment.html
A mention of 22 prominent Protestant philosophers, ministers and commentators including Niebuhr from 1946: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fqhzrXn1RE0C&lpg=PA284&ots=ZjgFAmGzI0&dq=condemnations%20of%20the%20atomic%20bombings%20by%20religious%20leaders&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q&f=false
Perhaps there's more? Perhaps not.
Traditional ethics of the Christian variety completely denies the possibility of 'necessary evils' ie. you cannot do evil that good may come. That is why I see the bombings of H&N as culturally significant for the Allied nations, because we can pinpoint a moment at which ~ 80% of the population endorsed a 'necessary evil' argument.
That's why I'm so intrigued by Sheen's comment (for which I posted a video earlier) and as you know, there's also a contemporaneous comment from Sheen on page 12 of this document: http://books.google.com/books?id=RwwAAAAAMBAJ&
source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=1
I just did a quick search for religious leaders condemning the bombings, and found the following:
A telegram from the Federal Council of Churches to Truman, with his interesting response: http://www.ncccusa.org/centennial/augustmoment.html
A mention of 22 prominent Protestant philosophers, ministers and commentators including Niebuhr from 1946: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fqhzrXn1RE0C&lpg=PA284&ots=ZjgFAmGzI0&dq=condemnations%20of%20the%20atomic%20bombings%20by%20religious%20leaders&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q&f=false
Perhaps there's more? Perhaps not.
8.26.2011 | 2:49am
Don Roberto says:
Joe, I too would think there would be more balance in the comments, despite the unequivocal evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, an inherent desire to defend long-held views, and otherwise laudable patriotism. I myself have long argued that total war is not morally defensible, though my 18-year-old father was saved from being part of the invasion when the WWII ended in August 1945. To intentionally fry thousands of women and children (with nukes or otherwise)? My God!
Our "greatest generation" failed the test that Faramir passed in "The Lord of the Rings." (FDR was Denethor.) It can be argued that we sold our souls to save our lives. (The pact with the Bolsheviks and, later, MAD were more of the same.) I can kill you to defend my innocent child but I cannot kill your innocent child to defend my village.
May God have mercy on Truman, Churchill, LeMay, Eisenhower, et al. They took the easy way out. (Jesus called Peter "Satan" for suggesting He do likewise.)
†
Our "greatest generation" failed the test that Faramir passed in "The Lord of the Rings." (FDR was Denethor.) It can be argued that we sold our souls to save our lives. (The pact with the Bolsheviks and, later, MAD were more of the same.) I can kill you to defend my innocent child but I cannot kill your innocent child to defend my village.
May God have mercy on Truman, Churchill, LeMay, Eisenhower, et al. They took the easy way out. (Jesus called Peter "Satan" for suggesting He do likewise.)
†
8.26.2011 | 5:03am
Richard says:
I've just read The Light of a Thousand Suns, the book on this subject by Leonard Cheshire VC. Cheshire is very well known in the UK. A highly decorated bomber pilot, therefore directly responsible for countless deaths, mainly civilian, he was invited to observe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war he converted to Catholicism, and devoted the rest of his life to helping disabled ex-servicemen. A man therefore who knows whereof he speaks.
8.26.2011 | 8:38am
Brian English says:
"It's exactly parallel. In both cases a situation is presented in which we can foresee that the path we're on will involve horrible suffering for all concerned. We are then tempted to resolve the dilemma by sacrificing an innocent."
It is not in any way parallel. The point you and your friends keep missing is that your approach would have led to the deaths of far more innocents.
You can keep conjuring up fantasies like Zac, where the Japanese just lay down their arms without anyone starving to death, or being killed by additional conventional bombings, but in reality his approach would have caused the death of millions of innocent civilians. Look at the Siege of Leningrad -- at least 640,000 civilians dead, with estimates going as high as 1,000,000, and that was in one city. Look at the British blockade of Greece in 1941-1942 where 100,000 innocent civilians starved to death.
It is not in any way parallel. The point you and your friends keep missing is that your approach would have led to the deaths of far more innocents.
You can keep conjuring up fantasies like Zac, where the Japanese just lay down their arms without anyone starving to death, or being killed by additional conventional bombings, but in reality his approach would have caused the death of millions of innocent civilians. Look at the Siege of Leningrad -- at least 640,000 civilians dead, with estimates going as high as 1,000,000, and that was in one city. Look at the British blockade of Greece in 1941-1942 where 100,000 innocent civilians starved to death.
8.26.2011 | 9:11am
Brian English says:
"Dan, would you please provide a link to the August 8, 1945, headline to which you refer. I cannot find any headline "Vatican Deplores Use of Nuclear Weapons". That would be a remarkable headline for the time."
I also could not find such a headline, and the alleged use of "nuclear" is suspicious.
"Pius XII would later be clear in his condemnation of nuclear weapons, personally."
Nonsense. Pius XII has been criticized for a speech he gave in 1954 in which he allowed that nuclear weapons could be used for defensive purposes.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-gaudium-et-spes-with.html
I also could not find such a headline, and the alleged use of "nuclear" is suspicious.
"Pius XII would later be clear in his condemnation of nuclear weapons, personally."
Nonsense. Pius XII has been criticized for a speech he gave in 1954 in which he allowed that nuclear weapons could be used for defensive purposes.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-gaudium-et-spes-with.html
8.26.2011 | 9:31am
Brian English says:
"The same issue applies to invasion, doesn't it? If we can invade, we can blockade."
No, because the purpose of an invasion is to get land forces ashore. A blockade relies on ships, which would be the primary targets of the kamikazees. Certainly there would be attacks during a landing, but they couldn't defeat an invasion. They could break a blockade.
"I'm currently reading 'Nagasaki' by Craig Collie, a newly published history. Do you know why Japanese planes didn't target the atomic bombing mission? They didn't have enough fuel to waste on anything less than a major bombing run. Such were their shortages. So presumably, they would surrender for the same reasons they were already *considering* surrender and were inquiring via the Soviets."
Let's clear up one of the myths around this issue. Initiatives by Japanese diplomats meant nothing in this context. Track down a picture of the Japanese Imperial Council -- it consisted of eight guys in military uniforms and the Emperor.
One of the big prolems I have with your position is that it completely disregards the American experience fighting the Japanese. Put down Nagasaki and read some of the books on warfare in the Pacific and the Japanese military's approach to warfare.
"But I think moral Joe's observation stands: that the bombings don't square with Just War theory, and that the majority of those defending the bombings don't try to reconcile it with Just War. (Though there are always a few who try to stretch double-effect to cover the bombings). "
They absolutely square with Just War theory. Seeking to use the minimum force necessary, while causing as few deaths as possible, is part of that doctrine. The anti-bomb crowd really just has a simplistic application of consequentialism to support their position.
No, because the purpose of an invasion is to get land forces ashore. A blockade relies on ships, which would be the primary targets of the kamikazees. Certainly there would be attacks during a landing, but they couldn't defeat an invasion. They could break a blockade.
"I'm currently reading 'Nagasaki' by Craig Collie, a newly published history. Do you know why Japanese planes didn't target the atomic bombing mission? They didn't have enough fuel to waste on anything less than a major bombing run. Such were their shortages. So presumably, they would surrender for the same reasons they were already *considering* surrender and were inquiring via the Soviets."
Let's clear up one of the myths around this issue. Initiatives by Japanese diplomats meant nothing in this context. Track down a picture of the Japanese Imperial Council -- it consisted of eight guys in military uniforms and the Emperor.
One of the big prolems I have with your position is that it completely disregards the American experience fighting the Japanese. Put down Nagasaki and read some of the books on warfare in the Pacific and the Japanese military's approach to warfare.
"But I think moral Joe's observation stands: that the bombings don't square with Just War theory, and that the majority of those defending the bombings don't try to reconcile it with Just War. (Though there are always a few who try to stretch double-effect to cover the bombings). "
They absolutely square with Just War theory. Seeking to use the minimum force necessary, while causing as few deaths as possible, is part of that doctrine. The anti-bomb crowd really just has a simplistic application of consequentialism to support their position.
8.26.2011 | 10:14am
Mike Melendez says:
I recommend to all commenting here a viewing of the Japanese anime, "Graveyard of the Fireflies". What is interesting is that the author does not focus on the firebombing itself but rather its aftermath. His effort is to present the Japanese people with their reaction to it. (It may be animated, but it is not for children.)
As to war crimes, at Nuremberg we condemned the leaders of the German Navy for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare while doing the same more effectively against the Japanese. We humans are not known for our consistency.
As to war crimes, at Nuremberg we condemned the leaders of the German Navy for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare while doing the same more effectively against the Japanese. We humans are not known for our consistency.
8.26.2011 | 11:18am
Joseph Quixote says:
Zac, one small comment that I already mentioned earlier. The Japanese had 10,000 airplanes horded for the final invasion not 1000.
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
In october of that year they would have had 12,000.
They had enough fuel to fly those planes to the landing grounds.
Even with the massive allied fleet and its 43 aircraft carriers those planes would have been devastating.
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
In october of that year they would have had 12,000.
They had enough fuel to fly those planes to the landing grounds.
Even with the massive allied fleet and its 43 aircraft carriers those planes would have been devastating.
8.26.2011 | 11:41am
JDD says:
(Brian) "...That is why I keep asking for contemporaneous condemnations by religious leaders of the bombings. The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something.
(JDD) Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?"
(Brian) "Absolutely. I have no problem with the statements issued in 1965 and 2004. What I have a problem with is those statements being used to vilify people for their actions in 1945, after six years of the most brutal war in human history."
My point is that, to some extent, you're guilty of armchair quarterbacking long after the fact, too - by insisting that, "The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something." You're making the argument that if there weren't immediate contemporary criticisms, then the Church must not have seen anything wrong, and therefore the military and governmental leaders can be concluded to be beyond reproach from a Christian perspective. That just doesn't follow.
(Brian) No doubt at all that such bombings at the beginning, middle and end of wars are condemned.
I am trying hard to understand your main objection in this conversation thread: Are you saying that you believe the nuclear bombings did violate just war theory, that they did not violate just war theory, or that just war theory hadn't been developed enough in this arena at the time of the decision such that we can hold those decision makers morally culpable?
Because I am suspecting it's point #3 that's driving you, and if so I'm not sure that's precisely the point of Mr. Carter's essay. (Ah, how quickly we drift on these pages from the original essays.) Joe can correct me if I'm wrong. If I read him right, "The Machiavellian pragmatism" he's criticizing is the creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory - not a blanket condemnation of the military leaders of 1945 - perhaps I'm wrong there. And a further concern that in doing so we are undermining our case against abortion.
(JDD) Are you willing to allow that perhaps it took some time as well for the Church to reflect on her own doctrine, digest what had happened and expand her teaching to encompass it?"
(Brian) "Absolutely. I have no problem with the statements issued in 1965 and 2004. What I have a problem with is those statements being used to vilify people for their actions in 1945, after six years of the most brutal war in human history."
My point is that, to some extent, you're guilty of armchair quarterbacking long after the fact, too - by insisting that, "The fact that they are virtually non-existent should tell you something." You're making the argument that if there weren't immediate contemporary criticisms, then the Church must not have seen anything wrong, and therefore the military and governmental leaders can be concluded to be beyond reproach from a Christian perspective. That just doesn't follow.
(Brian) No doubt at all that such bombings at the beginning, middle and end of wars are condemned.
I am trying hard to understand your main objection in this conversation thread: Are you saying that you believe the nuclear bombings did violate just war theory, that they did not violate just war theory, or that just war theory hadn't been developed enough in this arena at the time of the decision such that we can hold those decision makers morally culpable?
Because I am suspecting it's point #3 that's driving you, and if so I'm not sure that's precisely the point of Mr. Carter's essay. (Ah, how quickly we drift on these pages from the original essays.) Joe can correct me if I'm wrong. If I read him right, "The Machiavellian pragmatism" he's criticizing is the creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory - not a blanket condemnation of the military leaders of 1945 - perhaps I'm wrong there. And a further concern that in doing so we are undermining our case against abortion.
8.26.2011 | 11:49am
JDD says:
(Jon W) "Have any of you people defending the bombings ever argued with someone who was pro-abortion? They make the exact. same. arguments that you are making. It all comes down to a weighing and measuring of the respective anticipated suffering, with the conclusion that it is a terrible, terrible choice to have to make, but a necessary one."
(Brian English) Good grief. How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?
Because our society has drifted to the point where it equates any type of suffering as unacceptable, and applies the same 'remedial' philosophy to both cases mentioned above. Of course the nouns are different, but the verbs are the same. Ridiculing it isn't a very convincing response.
Jon W.'s point is completely valid, and gets back to an original warning siren sounded by this essay.
Young Mother, already barely supporting two children, in order to alleviate obvious future suffering for herself and her children, decides that it's for the best to abort her third (innocent) child before things get worse. 'The child will suffer either way', she reasons. And it might even push us into poverty - and then we'll be worse off. Best to shorten the suffering.
A government, in order to alleviate obvious future suffering for many people, decides it's for the best to cause suffering - death - to a smaller (innocent) amount of people before things get worse. 'The population will suffer either way', the decision makers reason. And it might even push us into a larger conflict - and then the suffering will be worse. Best to shorten the suffering.
(Brian English) Good grief. How is arguing that far more Japanese civilians would have died if we had not dropped the bombs anything like arguing that an unborn child has to be killed so that someone can finish grad school?
Because our society has drifted to the point where it equates any type of suffering as unacceptable, and applies the same 'remedial' philosophy to both cases mentioned above. Of course the nouns are different, but the verbs are the same. Ridiculing it isn't a very convincing response.
Jon W.'s point is completely valid, and gets back to an original warning siren sounded by this essay.
Young Mother, already barely supporting two children, in order to alleviate obvious future suffering for herself and her children, decides that it's for the best to abort her third (innocent) child before things get worse. 'The child will suffer either way', she reasons. And it might even push us into poverty - and then we'll be worse off. Best to shorten the suffering.
A government, in order to alleviate obvious future suffering for many people, decides it's for the best to cause suffering - death - to a smaller (innocent) amount of people before things get worse. 'The population will suffer either way', the decision makers reason. And it might even push us into a larger conflict - and then the suffering will be worse. Best to shorten the suffering.
8.26.2011 | 12:20pm
Brian English says:
"Brian, with regard to Abortion and Euthanasia, it's not about moral equivalence but the underlying moral logic. I have no doubt that you can be opposed to Abortion and Euthanasia while still endorse the bombings; but it is - a professional hazard - evident that the logic of 'necessary evils' is applied in all three cases."
You are starting with the premise that the bombings were evil. When the only realistic alternatives would have caused the deaths of millions through invasion or blockade, your basic premise doesn't hold up.
" That is why I see the bombings of H&N as culturally significant for the Allied nations, because we can pinpoint a moment at which ~ 80% of the population endorsed a 'necessary evil' argument."
The cultural forces that have led to the Culture of Death were in full swing well before August 1945.
"and as you know, there's also a contemporaneous comment from Sheen on page 12 of this document:"
I have read this before. I love Archbishop Sheen, but his thinking here is deeply flawed.
"A telegram from the Federal Council of Churches to Truman, with his interesting response:"
Being "deeply disturbed" is not even close to being the equivalent of condemnation. Where are charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other accusations that have been used so freely on this comment thread?
I am deeply disturbed that the bombs had to be used, but that doesn't mean using them was not the right thing to do.
You are starting with the premise that the bombings were evil. When the only realistic alternatives would have caused the deaths of millions through invasion or blockade, your basic premise doesn't hold up.
" That is why I see the bombings of H&N as culturally significant for the Allied nations, because we can pinpoint a moment at which ~ 80% of the population endorsed a 'necessary evil' argument."
The cultural forces that have led to the Culture of Death were in full swing well before August 1945.
"and as you know, there's also a contemporaneous comment from Sheen on page 12 of this document:"
I have read this before. I love Archbishop Sheen, but his thinking here is deeply flawed.
"A telegram from the Federal Council of Churches to Truman, with his interesting response:"
Being "deeply disturbed" is not even close to being the equivalent of condemnation. Where are charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other accusations that have been used so freely on this comment thread?
I am deeply disturbed that the bombs had to be used, but that doesn't mean using them was not the right thing to do.
8.26.2011 | 12:21pm
Scott Wolfe says:
Two days ago, I posted a question in this string: "Is it possible that our intent was to destroy military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (e.g., bomb factories located near residential areas, etc.), and that the civilian casualties were incidental to that objective?" Based on the multiple posts made since then, it seems that there likely were military targets in both cities, but it's also unmistakable that a significant part of our intent was to kill innocent civilians. I'm saddened to learn that.
The war was a terrible thing. I'm sure that the people who made these decisions were under tremendous pressure to end it as soon as possible. I have no intent to condemn them for the decisions they made. In fact, I may have supported those decisions had I been alive at the time.
The best we can do is to learn from the past and use that learning to make better decisions in our own times. As "Jon W" succinctly said above (or below, depending on how you organize these posts), "The argument is over whether we can do evil [so] that good may come. And the answer is always no. You cannot do evil that good may come, even if the good you foresee is a very great good compared to the evil you intend." This is a fundamental, standard, ancient Christian teaching. If we are well informed about how we have lived up to that teaching in the past, and how we have failed to do so, then we will be better able to live up to it when our next opportunity presents itself.
Best regards to Mr. Carter and all those who have, in good faith, posted comments here. Your input and passion have made this an interesting read.
The war was a terrible thing. I'm sure that the people who made these decisions were under tremendous pressure to end it as soon as possible. I have no intent to condemn them for the decisions they made. In fact, I may have supported those decisions had I been alive at the time.
The best we can do is to learn from the past and use that learning to make better decisions in our own times. As "Jon W" succinctly said above (or below, depending on how you organize these posts), "The argument is over whether we can do evil [so] that good may come. And the answer is always no. You cannot do evil that good may come, even if the good you foresee is a very great good compared to the evil you intend." This is a fundamental, standard, ancient Christian teaching. If we are well informed about how we have lived up to that teaching in the past, and how we have failed to do so, then we will be better able to live up to it when our next opportunity presents itself.
Best regards to Mr. Carter and all those who have, in good faith, posted comments here. Your input and passion have made this an interesting read.
8.26.2011 | 12:27pm
Brian English says:
"I can kill you to defend my innocent child but I cannot kill your innocent child to defend my village."
But you are fine with allowing 1,00,000 innocent children to be killed to protect your sense of righteousness?
"Our "greatest generation" failed the test that Faramir passed in "The Lord of the Rings." (FDR was Denethor.)"
Oh brother. Well at least you are not claiming he was Sauron or Saruman. Speaking of which:
"As to war crimes, at Nuremberg we condemned the leaders of the German Navy for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare while doing the same more effectively against the Japanese. We humans are not known for our consistency."
There it is! The moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis. I knew we would get a direct statement of it eventually.
But you are fine with allowing 1,00,000 innocent children to be killed to protect your sense of righteousness?
"Our "greatest generation" failed the test that Faramir passed in "The Lord of the Rings." (FDR was Denethor.)"
Oh brother. Well at least you are not claiming he was Sauron or Saruman. Speaking of which:
"As to war crimes, at Nuremberg we condemned the leaders of the German Navy for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare while doing the same more effectively against the Japanese. We humans are not known for our consistency."
There it is! The moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis. I knew we would get a direct statement of it eventually.
8.26.2011 | 12:29pm
Richard W Comerford says:
Re: Bomb, Blockade or Invade
"It is not in any way parallel. The point you and your friends keep missing is that your approach would have led to the deaths of far more innocents."
In August 1945 Imperial Japan was no longer a threat to the USA. There was no longer any moral justification or the USA to either bomb, blockade or invade.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
"It is not in any way parallel. The point you and your friends keep missing is that your approach would have led to the deaths of far more innocents."
In August 1945 Imperial Japan was no longer a threat to the USA. There was no longer any moral justification or the USA to either bomb, blockade or invade.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.26.2011 | 2:11pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Richard,
We did not know the extent of Japanese development of the Nuclear weapons.
As Dennis M said earlier:
"We knew that Germany was trying to develop an atomic bomb. We didn't know, until only some months prior to the end of the war, that Japan had been working on it for years. Even then we didn't know how much progress they had made. For all we knew then, any delay could have allowed Japan to get their own bomb operational. That exact question was put to Japan's scientists before the surrender occurred -- could they do it?"
We did not know what cards they still could have played. To many in this discussion are using the benefit of hindsite in regards to the decisions of the war. What the U.S. did know based on the battlegrounds of the pacific is that the Japanese were relentless warriors who gave no quarter and expected none.
This was certainly a heavy factor in the allied decisions regarding the bomb.
The "fog of war" is an element that is being forgotten in this discussion. Nothing was crystal clear to the allies or the Japanese.
For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie.
This speaks to the leaderships willingness to continue the fight despite
1. The atomic weapons
2. The firebombing of over 20 other cities including Tokyo where 130,000 died in one night, worse than either A-bomb.
3. The Russian declaration of war
4. The unrestricted submarine warfare putting the entire population on a bare caloric diet
5. The surrender of Nazi Germany freeing the entire war effort of the allies.
The bombs were the final breaking point. They saved the lives of millions of innocents. The weight in blood was far less than that of the two bombs.
This is about lives, not convenience which abortion is about despite any protests to the first.
We did not know the extent of Japanese development of the Nuclear weapons.
As Dennis M said earlier:
"We knew that Germany was trying to develop an atomic bomb. We didn't know, until only some months prior to the end of the war, that Japan had been working on it for years. Even then we didn't know how much progress they had made. For all we knew then, any delay could have allowed Japan to get their own bomb operational. That exact question was put to Japan's scientists before the surrender occurred -- could they do it?"
We did not know what cards they still could have played. To many in this discussion are using the benefit of hindsite in regards to the decisions of the war. What the U.S. did know based on the battlegrounds of the pacific is that the Japanese were relentless warriors who gave no quarter and expected none.
This was certainly a heavy factor in the allied decisions regarding the bomb.
The "fog of war" is an element that is being forgotten in this discussion. Nothing was crystal clear to the allies or the Japanese.
For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie.
This speaks to the leaderships willingness to continue the fight despite
1. The atomic weapons
2. The firebombing of over 20 other cities including Tokyo where 130,000 died in one night, worse than either A-bomb.
3. The Russian declaration of war
4. The unrestricted submarine warfare putting the entire population on a bare caloric diet
5. The surrender of Nazi Germany freeing the entire war effort of the allies.
The bombs were the final breaking point. They saved the lives of millions of innocents. The weight in blood was far less than that of the two bombs.
This is about lives, not convenience which abortion is about despite any protests to the first.
8.26.2011 | 2:15pm
Brian English says:
"Because I am suspecting it's point #3 that's driving you,"
Actually, it is #2. A Just War analysis has to take into account the strategic situation, the types of weapons available, and the harm caused by the various options available. The death, destruction, horror and trauma that would have been unleashed by an invasion of Japan are almost unimaginable. Perhaps that is why so many have a hard time imagining it. The results of a blockade would probably have been less horrendous, but then the victims would have been almost completely civilians, with the very young and the very old likely suffering the most.
""The Machiavellian pragmatism" he's criticizing is the creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory - not a blanket condemnation of the military leaders of 1945 - perhaps I'm wrong there."
I hope you are wrong, because such an assertion would be completely off-base. The "creeping comtemporary distortion of Just War theory" has actually been towards pacifism. The James Turner Johnson article Joe links to above makes that very point.
"And a further concern that in doing so we are undermining our case against abortion."
I have never heard a pro-abortion type claim that pro-lifers have no basis to object to abortion because some pro-lifers do not condemn the bombings. That argument appears to be completely a creation of certain pro-lifers who ocassionally feel a need to demonstrate how much holier they are than the rest of the pro-lifers.
Actually, it is #2. A Just War analysis has to take into account the strategic situation, the types of weapons available, and the harm caused by the various options available. The death, destruction, horror and trauma that would have been unleashed by an invasion of Japan are almost unimaginable. Perhaps that is why so many have a hard time imagining it. The results of a blockade would probably have been less horrendous, but then the victims would have been almost completely civilians, with the very young and the very old likely suffering the most.
""The Machiavellian pragmatism" he's criticizing is the creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory - not a blanket condemnation of the military leaders of 1945 - perhaps I'm wrong there."
I hope you are wrong, because such an assertion would be completely off-base. The "creeping comtemporary distortion of Just War theory" has actually been towards pacifism. The James Turner Johnson article Joe links to above makes that very point.
"And a further concern that in doing so we are undermining our case against abortion."
I have never heard a pro-abortion type claim that pro-lifers have no basis to object to abortion because some pro-lifers do not condemn the bombings. That argument appears to be completely a creation of certain pro-lifers who ocassionally feel a need to demonstrate how much holier they are than the rest of the pro-lifers.
8.26.2011 | 2:23pm
Brian English says:
"In August 1945 Imperial Japan was no longer a threat to the USA. There was no longer any moral justification or the USA to either bomb, blockade or invade."
So the Japanese military leadership gets to stay in charge of the country, suffer no consequences for their war of aggression and their atrocities, and they get to keep the areas they still occupied on the mainland? Truman could send them a telegram: "We hope you learned your lesson. Please behave in the future. Best Wishes, Harry." I wonder why Truman didn't think of that?
So the Japanese military leadership gets to stay in charge of the country, suffer no consequences for their war of aggression and their atrocities, and they get to keep the areas they still occupied on the mainland? Truman could send them a telegram: "We hope you learned your lesson. Please behave in the future. Best Wishes, Harry." I wonder why Truman didn't think of that?
8.26.2011 | 3:30pm
JDD says:
(JDD) ""The Machiavellian pragmatism" he's criticizing is the creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory - not a blanket condemnation of the military leaders of 1945 - perhaps I'm wrong there."
(Brian English) "I hope you are wrong, because such an assertion would be completely off-base. The "creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory" has actually been towards pacifism."
No, 'perhaps I am wrong' referred to my understanding of Mr. Carter's intent. The creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory has two poles; one of which is pacifism, and one of which is your position.
(Brian English) "I have never heard a pro-abortion type claim that pro-lifers have no basis to object to abortion because some pro-lifers do not condemn the bombings. That argument appears to be completely a creation of certain pro-lifers who occasionally feel a need to demonstrate how much holier they are than the rest of the pro-lifers."
I haven't heard a lot of things explicitly voiced a certain way. No one's going around saying, "Wow - have you heard the latest talk - people are justifying abortion based on Christian 'just war' theory..." But I have seen evidence of a flawed underlying reasoning in a person's arguments. The point is to show parallels between the reasoning in these two cases.
I composed a comparison in my last post. I'd be interested in knowing where you think the example concerning abortion *doesn't* accurately reflect at least one way that justification for having an abortion is currently voiced.
(Brian English) "I hope you are wrong, because such an assertion would be completely off-base. The "creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory" has actually been towards pacifism."
No, 'perhaps I am wrong' referred to my understanding of Mr. Carter's intent. The creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory has two poles; one of which is pacifism, and one of which is your position.
(Brian English) "I have never heard a pro-abortion type claim that pro-lifers have no basis to object to abortion because some pro-lifers do not condemn the bombings. That argument appears to be completely a creation of certain pro-lifers who occasionally feel a need to demonstrate how much holier they are than the rest of the pro-lifers."
I haven't heard a lot of things explicitly voiced a certain way. No one's going around saying, "Wow - have you heard the latest talk - people are justifying abortion based on Christian 'just war' theory..." But I have seen evidence of a flawed underlying reasoning in a person's arguments. The point is to show parallels between the reasoning in these two cases.
I composed a comparison in my last post. I'd be interested in knowing where you think the example concerning abortion *doesn't* accurately reflect at least one way that justification for having an abortion is currently voiced.
8.26.2011 | 4:01pm
Steve M says:
Thanks Joe! You've done it again. This article and exchange has changed my mind. Scott Wolfe summarizes how I come down on this.
"I am deeply disturbed that the bombs had to be used, but that doesn't mean using them was not the right thing to do." (from above) does not square with my thinking any longer. I am sure I would have cheered the bombs had I been a WWII soldier and supported them till now with a good heart on patriotic and utilitarian moral (?) grounds. I now believe my judgement was wrong by not valueing the truly relentlous, viscious, give no quarter, "Other" as myself. I mean how could they be innocent?? The infidels!
"I am deeply disturbed that the bombs had to be used, but that doesn't mean using them was not the right thing to do." (from above) does not square with my thinking any longer. I am sure I would have cheered the bombs had I been a WWII soldier and supported them till now with a good heart on patriotic and utilitarian moral (?) grounds. I now believe my judgement was wrong by not valueing the truly relentlous, viscious, give no quarter, "Other" as myself. I mean how could they be innocent?? The infidels!
8.26.2011 | 4:53pm
Brian English says:
"The creeping contemporary distortion of Just War theory has two poles; one of which is pacifism, and one of which is your position."
How could my position on an event that took place 66 years ago, that involves weapons systems that are now obsolete, represent a contemporary distortion of Just War theory?
"I composed a comparison in my last post. I'd be interested in knowing where you think the example concerning abortion *doesn't* accurately reflect at least one way that justification for having an abortion is currently voiced."
I'll say it again -- arguing that it was more moral for Truman to take a course of action that resulted in far less people being killed is not the same thing as arguing that a mother should be allowed to kill her unborn child because the icreased cost of having another child will prevent the family from being able to afford the deluxe cable package.
I find it very troubling that so many otherwise reasonable people believe that millions should have lost their lives in 1945-1946 so that it would supposedly be easier for us to respond to absurd arguments by the pro-abortion crowd in 2011.
How could my position on an event that took place 66 years ago, that involves weapons systems that are now obsolete, represent a contemporary distortion of Just War theory?
"I composed a comparison in my last post. I'd be interested in knowing where you think the example concerning abortion *doesn't* accurately reflect at least one way that justification for having an abortion is currently voiced."
I'll say it again -- arguing that it was more moral for Truman to take a course of action that resulted in far less people being killed is not the same thing as arguing that a mother should be allowed to kill her unborn child because the icreased cost of having another child will prevent the family from being able to afford the deluxe cable package.
I find it very troubling that so many otherwise reasonable people believe that millions should have lost their lives in 1945-1946 so that it would supposedly be easier for us to respond to absurd arguments by the pro-abortion crowd in 2011.
8.26.2011 | 5:34pm
Don Roberto says:
If I defeat you by holding your child ransom and sending you his fingers in the mail, the sin is mine and any "victory" is in vain, whether or not I save two children in the bargain. But if my enemy allows his innocent child to starve because he, under the malign influence, refuses to surrender when it is clear he has lost, that is *his* sin, not mine. (And "total war" is what Saruman and Denethor in the "Lord of the Rings" were willing to fight.)
By firebombing civilian populations, throwing Poland and Eastern Europe on the mercy of Stalin, and pardoning war criminals with useful expertise, we became (to a degree) of a kind with that which we detested in our enemies. To complain that one's rhetorical opponent is asserting "moral equivalence" is not persuasive if there really is moral equivalence. Now, this may not be readily apparent—we may not reek of schnapps or vodka. But how many abortions have taken place in the U.S. since WWII? More or less the number that died in WWII, no? I'd rather live in neo-pagan America than in Imperial Greater Japan or the 1000-Year Reich, but that fact does not make the decisions of our WWII leaders laudable.
If in order to defend my child I become a monster so horrific that my child cowers when he sees me, and eventually grows into a monster himself, I sell my soul for nothing, lose the true battle, and put a smile on the devil's face.
†
By firebombing civilian populations, throwing Poland and Eastern Europe on the mercy of Stalin, and pardoning war criminals with useful expertise, we became (to a degree) of a kind with that which we detested in our enemies. To complain that one's rhetorical opponent is asserting "moral equivalence" is not persuasive if there really is moral equivalence. Now, this may not be readily apparent—we may not reek of schnapps or vodka. But how many abortions have taken place in the U.S. since WWII? More or less the number that died in WWII, no? I'd rather live in neo-pagan America than in Imperial Greater Japan or the 1000-Year Reich, but that fact does not make the decisions of our WWII leaders laudable.
If in order to defend my child I become a monster so horrific that my child cowers when he sees me, and eventually grows into a monster himself, I sell my soul for nothing, lose the true battle, and put a smile on the devil's face.
†
8.26.2011 | 5:38pm
Joseph Quixote says:
Bravo Brian English!
Many have "changed their minds" over this argument to see Joe C's position.
Brian has confirmed my position and solidified it.
God bless!
Many have "changed their minds" over this argument to see Joe C's position.
Brian has confirmed my position and solidified it.
God bless!
8.26.2011 | 6:59pm
Brian English says:
" But if my enemy allows his innocent child to starve because he, under the malign influence, refuses to surrender when it is clear he has lost, that is *his* sin, not mine."
So you are fine with every civilian in Japan starving to death (and you know the military would have hoarded the available food), as long as you could blame it on the Japanese warlords? That is really a more moral outcome than the two bombs?
"To complain that one's rhetorical opponent is asserting "moral equivalence" is not persuasive if there really is moral equivalence."
If you believe the Allies were the moral equivalents of the Axis powers, you really need to study that time period more closely. Demonic is not too strong a word to describe many of the actions by the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
"But how many abortions have taken place in the U.S. since WWII? More or less the number that died in WWII, no?"
This continuing attempt to link WWII and abortion baffles me. The Culture of Death was in full swing long before the War.
"If in order to defend my child I become a monster so horrific that my child cowers when he sees me, and eventually grows into a monster himself, I sell my soul for nothing, lose the true battle, and put a smile on the devil's face."
Since the modern US miltary is the most restrained in history with regard to avoiding civilian casualties, you can let go of your concern about a generation of monsters being produced by a decision that saved millions of lives.
So you are fine with every civilian in Japan starving to death (and you know the military would have hoarded the available food), as long as you could blame it on the Japanese warlords? That is really a more moral outcome than the two bombs?
"To complain that one's rhetorical opponent is asserting "moral equivalence" is not persuasive if there really is moral equivalence."
If you believe the Allies were the moral equivalents of the Axis powers, you really need to study that time period more closely. Demonic is not too strong a word to describe many of the actions by the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
"But how many abortions have taken place in the U.S. since WWII? More or less the number that died in WWII, no?"
This continuing attempt to link WWII and abortion baffles me. The Culture of Death was in full swing long before the War.
"If in order to defend my child I become a monster so horrific that my child cowers when he sees me, and eventually grows into a monster himself, I sell my soul for nothing, lose the true battle, and put a smile on the devil's face."
Since the modern US miltary is the most restrained in history with regard to avoiding civilian casualties, you can let go of your concern about a generation of monsters being produced by a decision that saved millions of lives.
8.26.2011 | 7:38pm
Zac says:
Brian,
"They absolutely square with Just War theory. Seeking to use the minimum force necessary, while causing as few deaths as possible, is part of that doctrine."
That isn't Just War theory.
The three main principles of jus in bello (right conduct in warfare) are distinction between combatant and non-combatant, proportionality, and military necessity.
Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas - whether non-combatant deaths are 'intended' or not - is a breach of the principle of distinction between combatant and non-combatant.
Many people try to twist 'military necessity' to justify the bombings. But there's a difference between 'blowing up that bridge is necessary to stop the enemy advance' and 'blowing up that city is necessary to force an enemy surrender'.
The difference is that a) the latter depends upon ignoring the principle of distinction, b) the relationship between bombing the city and the enemy surrender is indirect. ie. surrender is not the effect of dropping the bomb, it's the enemies response.
Your interpretation of Just War amounts to 'always pick the lesser of two evils'.
"They absolutely square with Just War theory. Seeking to use the minimum force necessary, while causing as few deaths as possible, is part of that doctrine."
That isn't Just War theory.
The three main principles of jus in bello (right conduct in warfare) are distinction between combatant and non-combatant, proportionality, and military necessity.
Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas - whether non-combatant deaths are 'intended' or not - is a breach of the principle of distinction between combatant and non-combatant.
Many people try to twist 'military necessity' to justify the bombings. But there's a difference between 'blowing up that bridge is necessary to stop the enemy advance' and 'blowing up that city is necessary to force an enemy surrender'.
The difference is that a) the latter depends upon ignoring the principle of distinction, b) the relationship between bombing the city and the enemy surrender is indirect. ie. surrender is not the effect of dropping the bomb, it's the enemies response.
Your interpretation of Just War amounts to 'always pick the lesser of two evils'.
8.26.2011 | 8:35pm
Don Roberto says:
I agree with Brian (though he comes across as something of a "master of deconstruction") that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were under the sway of demonic forces, and we can be proud of our soldiers; but it's somewhat hyperbolic to say the U.S. military is the "most restrained in history." And we do live surrounded by monsters.
C.S. Lewis' rightly said we should look at each other as beings who will be here when the stars burn out, either in glorious perfection or in a form more horrible that we'd see in our worst nightmares. A fair percentage of our fellows are on the road to the latter end (pray that we be not among them), worshipping the gods of pleasure and aborting thousands of children a day. The devil is sly and knows how to tempt us. Before WWII many soldiers were unwilling to pull the trigger when the enemy was in their sights. Afterwards we proudly strode the rubble as victors. Proudly.
†
C.S. Lewis' rightly said we should look at each other as beings who will be here when the stars burn out, either in glorious perfection or in a form more horrible that we'd see in our worst nightmares. A fair percentage of our fellows are on the road to the latter end (pray that we be not among them), worshipping the gods of pleasure and aborting thousands of children a day. The devil is sly and knows how to tempt us. Before WWII many soldiers were unwilling to pull the trigger when the enemy was in their sights. Afterwards we proudly strode the rubble as victors. Proudly.
†
8.26.2011 | 8:39pm
Steve M says:
@ Joseph, Your arguments are strong and their is no case for moral equivalence. We were the good guys as best as can be established in war. C'mon, I just read Unbroken. Nonetheless, we killed many innocents to speculatively save Our Boys. I think it would have been good to delay the A-bombs a while. Imperial Japan was on the ropes despite our knowledge of their brainwashed perseverence. Our God is a God of the 11th hour. Then again, like you said, maybe it's possible we were Providentially meant to destroy them in such a fashion and it was a mercy from God for all mankind. A communist Japan -- like China would probably have been horrible. I don't fault Truman or any of the leaders: For all we know, they could have received private revelation from above. Some day things will be clear. In the meantime it is all counterfactual history and it is apparent we don't yet have 20/20 hindsight. Do no evil that good May come.
8.26.2011 | 9:56pm
Richard W Comerford says:
"So the Japanese military leadership gets to stay in charge of the country, suffer no consequences for their war of aggression and their atrocities, and they get to keep the areas they still occupied on the mainland?"
If revenge was the justification for nuking the Japs then it was a most immoral one. The USA had no moral right to continue yo wage bloodya war merely to extract revenge on political leaders for misdeeds both real and imagined.
The USA was unjustified in continuing to wage an offensive war against an already beaten opponent in August 1945.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
If revenge was the justification for nuking the Japs then it was a most immoral one. The USA had no moral right to continue yo wage bloodya war merely to extract revenge on political leaders for misdeeds both real and imagined.
The USA was unjustified in continuing to wage an offensive war against an already beaten opponent in August 1945.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.26.2011 | 9:57pm
R Hampton says:
Brian English,
The Atomic bombs, though horrible, did nothing to prevent Japan from negotiating surrender terms through Russia auspices. So the Soviet entry made the key difference because it removed last viable alternative the Japanese had. The Potsdam Conference signaled that Russia would support the U.S. and its terms for surrender. So once Russia ended the Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (1941), the Emperor saw that there was no escaping a full surrender on unfavorable terms.
Had Russia stayed on the sidelines and continued to broker a Japanese surrender, there was sufficient will on the part of the Generals to continue the fighting.
You can think of it as the difference between check and checkmate.
The Atomic bombs, though horrible, did nothing to prevent Japan from negotiating surrender terms through Russia auspices. So the Soviet entry made the key difference because it removed last viable alternative the Japanese had. The Potsdam Conference signaled that Russia would support the U.S. and its terms for surrender. So once Russia ended the Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (1941), the Emperor saw that there was no escaping a full surrender on unfavorable terms.
Had Russia stayed on the sidelines and continued to broker a Japanese surrender, there was sufficient will on the part of the Generals to continue the fighting.
You can think of it as the difference between check and checkmate.
8.26.2011 | 10:20pm
Richard W Comerford says:
"We did not know the extent of Japanese development of the Nuclear weapons."
So? That is no justification for murdering Jap civilians. The Church prohibits preventative war based on what "might happen".
"To many in this discussion are using the benefit of hindsite in regards to the decisions of the war."
In August 1945 every major, US combatant commander though the Japs were beat.
"This was certainly a heavy factor in the allied decisions regarding the bomb."
What "allied decision". They were not involved. Neither were our military bosses. Not a single US General or Admiral made a decision to nuke the Japs. The decision makers were one politician and and a cadre of faceless civilian bureaucrats.
"This speaks to the leaderships willingness to continue the fight despite"
If the Jap leadership allegedly wanted to fight to the death then let sit on their islands undisturbed with their fleet on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, their Regular Army cut of in Manchuria facing the Russians and their factories silent for want of raw materials.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
So? That is no justification for murdering Jap civilians. The Church prohibits preventative war based on what "might happen".
"To many in this discussion are using the benefit of hindsite in regards to the decisions of the war."
In August 1945 every major, US combatant commander though the Japs were beat.
"This was certainly a heavy factor in the allied decisions regarding the bomb."
What "allied decision". They were not involved. Neither were our military bosses. Not a single US General or Admiral made a decision to nuke the Japs. The decision makers were one politician and and a cadre of faceless civilian bureaucrats.
"This speaks to the leaderships willingness to continue the fight despite"
If the Jap leadership allegedly wanted to fight to the death then let sit on their islands undisturbed with their fleet on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, their Regular Army cut of in Manchuria facing the Russians and their factories silent for want of raw materials.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.26.2011 | 11:22pm
Dan says:
Ed,
Look a little harder. I went to the NY Times archive for the date I mentioned and searched on Vatican and it was the article I quoted. I have the article.
It is direct and as I described.
Look a little harder. I went to the NY Times archive for the date I mentioned and searched on Vatican and it was the article I quoted. I have the article.
It is direct and as I described.
8.26.2011 | 11:49pm
Joseph Quixote says:
R. Hampton and many others.
I find it interesting that not one of the people who condemn the bombing has responded to my point.
"For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie."
This is after the bombs, after the Russians after all of it.
This inconvenient fact fly in the face of your argument? Re-read my post from above. The facts speak for themselves.
I find it interesting that not one of the people who condemn the bombing has responded to my point.
"For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie."
This is after the bombs, after the Russians after all of it.
This inconvenient fact fly in the face of your argument? Re-read my post from above. The facts speak for themselves.
8.26.2011 | 11:54pm
Don Roberto says:
Again, we can't control what others may or may not do, only what we do. Japan needed to be thoroughly defeated (as did Iraq, which repeatedly violated UN sanctions and would eventually have obtained/used WMDs), but there must be limits, even if that makes the job harder and opens up possibilities for further depravity by the wicked. In the case at hand, it seems to me that some of us believe the line was crossed, while others don't.
Godspeed,
†
Godspeed,
†
8.27.2011 | 12:01am
Joseph Quixote says:
R. Hampton,
You really think that it was Russia and not the bombs that tipped the Emperor?
From Emperor Hirohito's speech August 15th 1945.
"I can not endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer" if the war did not end "the whole nation would be reduced to ashes"
I wonder what he was talking about.
You really think that it was Russia and not the bombs that tipped the Emperor?
From Emperor Hirohito's speech August 15th 1945.
"I can not endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer" if the war did not end "the whole nation would be reduced to ashes"
I wonder what he was talking about.
8.27.2011 | 7:48am
ed says:
Dan, I still cannot find it. Can you please attach the link? Also, is it possible the article used the word "atomic" and not "nuclear"?
Thanks.
Ed
Thanks.
Ed
8.27.2011 | 9:31am
Brian English says:
"Had Russia stayed on the sidelines and continued to broker a Japanese surrender, there was sufficient will on the part of the Generals to continue the fighting."
You keep forgetting that the Russians entered the war BEFORE Nagasaki.
You really believe that the US could have kept dropping atomic bombs and the Japanese would have held out as long as the Russians didn't declare war? It is amazing the mental contortions people will go through on issues like this.
You keep forgetting that the Russians entered the war BEFORE Nagasaki.
You really believe that the US could have kept dropping atomic bombs and the Japanese would have held out as long as the Russians didn't declare war? It is amazing the mental contortions people will go through on issues like this.
8.27.2011 | 9:56am
Brian English says:
"That isn't Just War theory."
What do you think proportionality is?
"Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas - whether non-combatant deaths are 'intended' or not - is a breach of the principle of distinction between combatant and non-combatant."
But what does that mean when you are attacking a city? Are you not allowed to use artillery? Do you have to limit the caliber of your firearms so that bullets can't pass through things?
"Many people try to twist 'military necessity' to justify the bombings. But there's a difference between 'blowing up that bridge is necessary to stop the enemy advance' and 'blowing up that city is necessary to force an enemy surrender'."
Do you really think the Japanese military leaders did not know about what had gone on a places like Stalingrad and Leningrad? They fully believed they could break the American will by turning every Japanese city into a smaller version of those sieges.
The atomic bombs destroyed all that. We demonstrated that we could do with one plane, and one bomb, what it would take a conventional army months to achieve, with the Japanese being unable to touch us.
"Your interpretation of Just War amounts to 'always pick the lesser of two evils'. "
Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation?
What do you think proportionality is?
"Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas - whether non-combatant deaths are 'intended' or not - is a breach of the principle of distinction between combatant and non-combatant."
But what does that mean when you are attacking a city? Are you not allowed to use artillery? Do you have to limit the caliber of your firearms so that bullets can't pass through things?
"Many people try to twist 'military necessity' to justify the bombings. But there's a difference between 'blowing up that bridge is necessary to stop the enemy advance' and 'blowing up that city is necessary to force an enemy surrender'."
Do you really think the Japanese military leaders did not know about what had gone on a places like Stalingrad and Leningrad? They fully believed they could break the American will by turning every Japanese city into a smaller version of those sieges.
The atomic bombs destroyed all that. We demonstrated that we could do with one plane, and one bomb, what it would take a conventional army months to achieve, with the Japanese being unable to touch us.
"Your interpretation of Just War amounts to 'always pick the lesser of two evils'. "
Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation?
8.27.2011 | 10:23am
Richard W Comerford says:
"For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie."
Who cares?. This is playground morality 101. All of the voting in all of the councils in the world does not justify the mass murder of innocents.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Who cares?. This is playground morality 101. All of the voting in all of the councils in the world does not justify the mass murder of innocents.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
8.27.2011 | 5:04pm
Rick says:
@Joseph Quixote:
"I find it interesting that not one of the people who condemn the bombing has responded to my point.
For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie."
Excellent point, Joseph. After the bombs, the fallout, the Black Rain, the radiation sickness, etc., the generals still could not be brought to an agreement to surrender. Therefore, as far as their effect on the Japanese military is concerned, the bombs failed.
"You really think that it was Russia and not the bombs that tipped the Emperor?
From Emperor Hirohito's speech August 15th 1945.
'I can not endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer' if the war did not end 'the whole nation would be reduced to ashes.'"
Correct. But that was his surrender justification addressed to the Japanese civilian population. In his surrender message to the Japanese military, however, he made no mention of the bombing of cities, but blamed his decision on the Soviet declaration of war. He left it to us to wonder which was really more important in his mind.
@Brian English:
"We demonstrated that we could do with one plane, and one bomb, what it would take a conventional army months to achieve..."
Good point. It took the Japanese six weeks to massacre about 200,000 civilians in Nanking, and we accomplished the same thing, at least as far as the civilian death toll is concerned, the high-tech way in a single flash. Isn't modern technology wonderful? By the way, do you therefore consider that it would be the legitimate job of a conventional army to methodically massacre every man, woman, child, and baby in a city? Who was the director of your infantry training school? Genghis Khan?
Of course, this is all irrelevant to a serious discussion of the morality of the deliberate mass killing of noncombatants, as informed by a Christian conscience. You can't justify the morality of an action by the personal benefits you stand to reap from it.
To paraphrase Joseph Quixote, I find it interesting that not one of the people who defend the bombing has responded to my point that the leader of the most destructive bombings of Japanese cities (in terms of numbers of people killed), General Tommy Power, showed every sign of being a cold-blooded sadist who enjoyed and boasted about the civilian death toll he inflicted. Even his boss, General LeMay admitted that he was sadistic. Again, I had the misfortune of serving under him in SAC.
The real point here is that the morality of an act is centrally determined by the motive in the mind of the actor, not the pragmatic consequences. If the mass killing of noncombatants is carried out by a person who glories in the killing and brags about it afterwards, I find it incredible that anyone could defend the act from a Christian perspective.
By the way, does anyone else in this conversation have actual experience in heavy strategic bombing, or am I the only one?
"I find it interesting that not one of the people who condemn the bombing has responded to my point.
For all those out in this discussion, what do you say to the fact that in the meeting of the Japanese Imperial council on August 9, 1945 the council was deadlocked 3-3 and it took the emperor to break the tie."
Excellent point, Joseph. After the bombs, the fallout, the Black Rain, the radiation sickness, etc., the generals still could not be brought to an agreement to surrender. Therefore, as far as their effect on the Japanese military is concerned, the bombs failed.
"You really think that it was Russia and not the bombs that tipped the Emperor?
From Emperor Hirohito's speech August 15th 1945.
'I can not endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer' if the war did not end 'the whole nation would be reduced to ashes.'"
Correct. But that was his surrender justification addressed to the Japanese civilian population. In his surrender message to the Japanese military, however, he made no mention of the bombing of cities, but blamed his decision on the Soviet declaration of war. He left it to us to wonder which was really more important in his mind.
@Brian English:
"We demonstrated that we could do with one plane, and one bomb, what it would take a conventional army months to achieve..."
Good point. It took the Japanese six weeks to massacre about 200,000 civilians in Nanking, and we accomplished the same thing, at least as far as the civilian death toll is concerned, the high-tech way in a single flash. Isn't modern technology wonderful? By the way, do you therefore consider that it would be the legitimate job of a conventional army to methodically massacre every man, woman, child, and baby in a city? Who was the director of your infantry training school? Genghis Khan?
Of course, this is all irrelevant to a serious discussion of the morality of the deliberate mass killing of noncombatants, as informed by a Christian conscience. You can't justify the morality of an action by the personal benefits you stand to reap from it.
To paraphrase Joseph Quixote, I find it interesting that not one of the people who defend the bombing has responded to my point that the leader of the most destructive bombings of Japanese cities (in terms of numbers of people killed), General Tommy Power, showed every sign of being a cold-blooded sadist who enjoyed and boasted about the civilian death toll he inflicted. Even his boss, General LeMay admitted that he was sadistic. Again, I had the misfortune of serving under him in SAC.
The real point here is that the morality of an act is centrally determined by the motive in the mind of the actor, not the pragmatic consequences. If the mass killing of noncombatants is carried out by a person who glories in the killing and brags about it afterwards, I find it incredible that anyone could defend the act from a Christian perspective.
By the way, does anyone else in this conversation have actual experience in heavy strategic bombing, or am I the only one?
8.27.2011 | 5:45pm
Rick says:
Another point I forgot to mention about General Power: While he was CINCSAC (Commander in Chief of the Strategic Air Command), he was a staunch proponent of the nuclear targetting of Soviet population centers. When alternative targetting policies were proposed by strategic think tanks, such as the "counterforce" strategy that would try to knock out Soviet strategic nuclear forces before they could be used (therefore minimizing the destruction to America), Power strongly opposed it. He rationalized his decision this way:
"Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
"Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
8.27.2011 | 10:19pm
Zac says:
Brian,
"What do you think proportionality is?"
Proportionality means that our use of force must be in proportion to the threat/military objective. For example, if we need to destroy a factory that is in the proximity of civilian buildings, we should try to use only as much force as is necessary to destroy the factory, and not damage the surrounding area.
In light of the requirement to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, we should also take pains to destroy the factory when it is less likely to be full of workers - assuming that the destruction of this factory serves a valid military purpose.
"But what does that mean when you are attacking a city? Are you not allowed to use artillery? Do you have to limit the caliber of your firearms so that bullets can't pass through things?"
It comes down to intent, Brian. Firstly, why are you attacking a city (or rather, some military target within a city)? Is it a military necessity? If so, you have to do your best to use proportional force, and distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Israel does this in its defensive battles against Hamas and Hezbollah. When civilians are killled, it is (typically) the fault of Hamas and Hezbollah, which have chosen to fight from civilian areas.
Whether you can use artillery, or other means will depend on the nature of the specific target, the circumstances at the time, but it should be guided by these principles.
"Do you really think the Japanese military leaders did not know about what had gone on a places like Stalingrad and Leningrad? They fully believed they could break the American will by turning every Japanese city into a smaller version of those sieges."
I believe this; there is (apparently) additional evidence that they thought a single major battle in their favour would allow them to negotiate a more favourable end to the war as they had in the Russo-Japanese war.
That is why, from a Just War perspective, I consider invasion to be a disproportionate use of force, relative to the goal of obtaining unconditional surrender. ie. the prospect of such significant casualties on the Allied side, and the Japanese side, was not worth the goal of unconditional defeat/surrender.
So, as distasteful as it may be, I think invasion should have been indefinitely postponed. You have raised the point that a hostile Japanese regime contained to the main islands is an undesirable outcome, and I have to agree. You've also raised the point that millions may have starved, which is debatable. However, if millions did starve, it would be a direct effect of the Japanese refusal to surrender, not of the Allies containment of Japan. In other words, like the Israeli example, we are not responsible for those deaths.
"Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation? "
It's a mistake to not distinguish between those people we intentionally kill, and those who die as a result of the enemy's actions. Let's say that if not for the bombings, a million Japanese civilians would have starved to death under an Allied blockade. The stark difference is that we would not have intended nor wanted, nor been morally responsible for those deaths. At *any* point, the Japanese government could have ended hostilities for the sake of their people's future. If their people starve, it is a consequence of their government's actions, not ours.
But your interpretation would have us intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of people, call it 'necessary' and by implication just, in order to second-guess our enemy's future decisions.
Someone said to me on another forum that I might be correct, but that the Allies would never have considered 'blockade' an acceptable option. That may be the historical reality. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it as the moral truth.
Otherwise, wouldn't we have to conclude that the present situation in North Korea is the allies fault? Shouldn't they have nuked Pyongyang rather than agree to a ceasefire? Was it only fear of an escalating conflict with the USSR that stopped the US resorting to the nuclear option to show their determination in Korea and Vietnam? I hate to think so, but surely the same moral dynamic applies? Better to kill a couple of hundred thousand than to let Korea and Vietnam fall into the hands of hostile Communist regimes.
"What do you think proportionality is?"
Proportionality means that our use of force must be in proportion to the threat/military objective. For example, if we need to destroy a factory that is in the proximity of civilian buildings, we should try to use only as much force as is necessary to destroy the factory, and not damage the surrounding area.
In light of the requirement to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, we should also take pains to destroy the factory when it is less likely to be full of workers - assuming that the destruction of this factory serves a valid military purpose.
"But what does that mean when you are attacking a city? Are you not allowed to use artillery? Do you have to limit the caliber of your firearms so that bullets can't pass through things?"
It comes down to intent, Brian. Firstly, why are you attacking a city (or rather, some military target within a city)? Is it a military necessity? If so, you have to do your best to use proportional force, and distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Israel does this in its defensive battles against Hamas and Hezbollah. When civilians are killled, it is (typically) the fault of Hamas and Hezbollah, which have chosen to fight from civilian areas.
Whether you can use artillery, or other means will depend on the nature of the specific target, the circumstances at the time, but it should be guided by these principles.
"Do you really think the Japanese military leaders did not know about what had gone on a places like Stalingrad and Leningrad? They fully believed they could break the American will by turning every Japanese city into a smaller version of those sieges."
I believe this; there is (apparently) additional evidence that they thought a single major battle in their favour would allow them to negotiate a more favourable end to the war as they had in the Russo-Japanese war.
That is why, from a Just War perspective, I consider invasion to be a disproportionate use of force, relative to the goal of obtaining unconditional surrender. ie. the prospect of such significant casualties on the Allied side, and the Japanese side, was not worth the goal of unconditional defeat/surrender.
So, as distasteful as it may be, I think invasion should have been indefinitely postponed. You have raised the point that a hostile Japanese regime contained to the main islands is an undesirable outcome, and I have to agree. You've also raised the point that millions may have starved, which is debatable. However, if millions did starve, it would be a direct effect of the Japanese refusal to surrender, not of the Allies containment of Japan. In other words, like the Israeli example, we are not responsible for those deaths.
"Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation? "
It's a mistake to not distinguish between those people we intentionally kill, and those who die as a result of the enemy's actions. Let's say that if not for the bombings, a million Japanese civilians would have starved to death under an Allied blockade. The stark difference is that we would not have intended nor wanted, nor been morally responsible for those deaths. At *any* point, the Japanese government could have ended hostilities for the sake of their people's future. If their people starve, it is a consequence of their government's actions, not ours.
But your interpretation would have us intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of people, call it 'necessary' and by implication just, in order to second-guess our enemy's future decisions.
Someone said to me on another forum that I might be correct, but that the Allies would never have considered 'blockade' an acceptable option. That may be the historical reality. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it as the moral truth.
Otherwise, wouldn't we have to conclude that the present situation in North Korea is the allies fault? Shouldn't they have nuked Pyongyang rather than agree to a ceasefire? Was it only fear of an escalating conflict with the USSR that stopped the US resorting to the nuclear option to show their determination in Korea and Vietnam? I hate to think so, but surely the same moral dynamic applies? Better to kill a couple of hundred thousand than to let Korea and Vietnam fall into the hands of hostile Communist regimes.
8.28.2011 | 3:31am
Benighted Savage says:
Brian English writes:
Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation?
************
Apparently some of the participants in this discussion, Joe Carter included, believe that an unyielding adherence to their specific version of Just War Theory (JWT) is of greater value than the lives of the millions of Japanese (and others) who would likely have died had we gone through with either Operation Downfall (the planned invasion) or what was called "encirclement" (not just a blockade but a blockade combined with aerial and naval bombardment). If this isn't intellectual idolatry, what is?
My major difficulty with *their* particular articulation and application of JWT is that, despite all the special pleading we've seen here, it cannot distinguish between atomic bombing and the other two "war-ending" options that were on the table in August 1945. For an amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands would just as readily cause the deaths of non-combatant "men, women, and children" as the atomic bombing of urban areas. The case of "encirclement" or a "pure blockade" would be no different, for once again the deaths of non-combants would inevitably ensue. This being the case, *their* particular version of JWT would be incapable of providing any moral guidance to the person choosing how to end the war with Japan: ALL options would be equally impermissable. And if that's the case, what good is it?
I also don't see how applying Joe Carter's "you must not target" rule would help to distinguish between the 3 options. An invasion of islands by armies is just as much a "targeting," in his special sense, as an atomic bombing of urban areas by B-29s. The same goes with the "encirclement" or blockade options: they would obviously "target" Japanese since they "target" the islands of Japan. Thus, once again, ALL historically relevant options would therefore be morally unacceptable -- this "targeting" rule does not help the decision maker, either.
***********
BTW, Mr English -- thanks for being a constant advocate of good Christian common sense and reason during this discussion despite all the ad hominem attacks.
Your interpretation of Just War theory would have ended up in these circumstances killing many times more of the people you claim you want to protect. Don't you think that is pretty strong evidence there is a problem with your interpretation?
************
Apparently some of the participants in this discussion, Joe Carter included, believe that an unyielding adherence to their specific version of Just War Theory (JWT) is of greater value than the lives of the millions of Japanese (and others) who would likely have died had we gone through with either Operation Downfall (the planned invasion) or what was called "encirclement" (not just a blockade but a blockade combined with aerial and naval bombardment). If this isn't intellectual idolatry, what is?
My major difficulty with *their* particular articulation and application of JWT is that, despite all the special pleading we've seen here, it cannot distinguish between atomic bombing and the other two "war-ending" options that were on the table in August 1945. For an amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands would just as readily cause the deaths of non-combatant "men, women, and children" as the atomic bombing of urban areas. The case of "encirclement" or a "pure blockade" would be no different, for once again the deaths of non-combants would inevitably ensue. This being the case, *their* particular version of JWT would be incapable of providing any moral guidance to the person choosing how to end the war with Japan: ALL options would be equally impermissable. And if that's the case, what good is it?
I also don't see how applying Joe Carter's "you must not target" rule would help to distinguish between the 3 options. An invasion of islands by armies is just as much a "targeting," in his special sense, as an atomic bombing of urban areas by B-29s. The same goes with the "encirclement" or blockade options: they would obviously "target" Japanese since they "target" the islands of Japan. Thus, once again, ALL historically relevant options would therefore be morally unacceptable -- this "targeting" rule does not help the decision maker, either.
***********
BTW, Mr English -- thanks for being a constant advocate of good Christian common sense and reason during this discussion despite all the ad hominem attacks.
8.29.2011 | 1:20pm
JDD says:
Dean from Ohio,
Thanks for the Scripture. We need more of that inserted into these conversations.
I've been thinking about what Scripture might be useful here to instruct the Christian on how to proceed where all options seem to be immoral - where both acting and not acting seem to lead to unjust loss of innocent life. I'm thinking about examples where Israel decided to proceed ahead because it seemed like Yahweh just wasn't going to show up... possibly the events of 1 Samual 4 ?
"Indeed, the American efforts to spare such an enumerated loss of life through repeated warnings to the military government of Japan of a truly coming disaster seems a reflection of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic than would have been displayed by either invasion or starvation. It seems to me that the pacifists and no-atomic-bombers would have been the ones sitting on the sidelines, albeit with a different attitude than Jonah, waiting for the destruction of the whole country and people of Japan."
I'm glad you made the distinction between pacifists and no-atomic-bombers. But I think the whole point of Jonah is that sitting on the sidelines is unacceptable as well. Further, Jonah was reluctant because he thought he personally was going to be killed - not because he thought violence was wrong. Isn't Jonah at its core an indictment against quietism - not pacifism?
Thanks for the Scripture. We need more of that inserted into these conversations.
I've been thinking about what Scripture might be useful here to instruct the Christian on how to proceed where all options seem to be immoral - where both acting and not acting seem to lead to unjust loss of innocent life. I'm thinking about examples where Israel decided to proceed ahead because it seemed like Yahweh just wasn't going to show up... possibly the events of 1 Samual 4 ?
"Indeed, the American efforts to spare such an enumerated loss of life through repeated warnings to the military government of Japan of a truly coming disaster seems a reflection of the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic than would have been displayed by either invasion or starvation. It seems to me that the pacifists and no-atomic-bombers would have been the ones sitting on the sidelines, albeit with a different attitude than Jonah, waiting for the destruction of the whole country and people of Japan."
I'm glad you made the distinction between pacifists and no-atomic-bombers. But I think the whole point of Jonah is that sitting on the sidelines is unacceptable as well. Further, Jonah was reluctant because he thought he personally was going to be killed - not because he thought violence was wrong. Isn't Jonah at its core an indictment against quietism - not pacifism?
8.29.2011 | 2:05pm
JDD says:
Benighted Savage,
My major difficulty with your position is that, (as this is a Christian discussion board,) I have not yet seen it articulate how belief in God's ongoing activity and indeed sovereignty *does* fit into the event and the decision making. An accusation of intellectual idolatry against your detractors will ring a little hollow until that void is filled.
(Benighted) "BTW, Mr English -- thanks for being a constant advocate of good Christian common sense and reason during this discussion despite all the ad hominem attacks."
On the contrary, You've missed a couple in this very thread. His post at 11:15 on 8/26 for example. But Mr. English's preferred ad hominem is of the "you're such an idiot" variety.
And you begin your post with: "Apparently some of the participants in this discussion ...believe that an unyielding adherence to their specific version of Just War Theory (JWT) is of greater value than the lives of the millions of Japanese (and others) who would likely have died had we gone through with ..."
Oh yes, you've nailed it. That is our motivation. All of us who hold positions contrary to yours are just trying to protect the theory, and care not at all for the human souls. With that single statement, I think you've significantly diminished the weight of your own moral voice.
Rather, I hope in Psalm 46:9, that even the idea of war will cease.
My major difficulty with your position is that, (as this is a Christian discussion board,) I have not yet seen it articulate how belief in God's ongoing activity and indeed sovereignty *does* fit into the event and the decision making. An accusation of intellectual idolatry against your detractors will ring a little hollow until that void is filled.
(Benighted) "BTW, Mr English -- thanks for being a constant advocate of good Christian common sense and reason during this discussion despite all the ad hominem attacks."
On the contrary, You've missed a couple in this very thread. His post at 11:15 on 8/26 for example. But Mr. English's preferred ad hominem is of the "you're such an idiot" variety.
And you begin your post with: "Apparently some of the participants in this discussion ...believe that an unyielding adherence to their specific version of Just War Theory (JWT) is of greater value than the lives of the millions of Japanese (and others) who would likely have died had we gone through with ..."
Oh yes, you've nailed it. That is our motivation. All of us who hold positions contrary to yours are just trying to protect the theory, and care not at all for the human souls. With that single statement, I think you've significantly diminished the weight of your own moral voice.
Rather, I hope in Psalm 46:9, that even the idea of war will cease.
8.29.2011 | 2:21pm
JDD says:
(JDD) "I composed a comparison in my last post. I'd be interested in knowing where you think the example concerning abortion *doesn't* accurately reflect at least one way that justification for having an abortion is currently voiced."
(Brian) I'll say it again -- arguing that it was more moral for Truman to take a course of action that resulted in far less people being killed is not the same thing as arguing that a mother should be allowed to kill her unborn child because the increased cost of having another child will prevent the family from being able to afford the deluxe cable package.
Yes, I know you disagree with me. Don't just tell me it *is* different because the nouns are different. I gave you two paragraphs in my 8/26 post to highlight the parallels. If you want to convince me, then without resorting to caricatures tell me why the underlying philosophy that I described differs between the two cases.
(Brian) I'll say it again -- arguing that it was more moral for Truman to take a course of action that resulted in far less people being killed is not the same thing as arguing that a mother should be allowed to kill her unborn child because the increased cost of having another child will prevent the family from being able to afford the deluxe cable package.
Yes, I know you disagree with me. Don't just tell me it *is* different because the nouns are different. I gave you two paragraphs in my 8/26 post to highlight the parallels. If you want to convince me, then without resorting to caricatures tell me why the underlying philosophy that I described differs between the two cases.
8.29.2011 | 7:14pm
James Kabala says:
Of course our job is to find the truth and not simply sign up for Team Right or Team Left, but someone should note (so I will) that most of those who criticized the droppings of the bombs at the time or in the immediate aftermath were (more or less) conservative - Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Fulton Sheen, Richard Weaver, Elizabeth Anscombe, and J.R.R. Tolkien, among others. The idea that opposition to the bombs is a form of "Western self-loathing" is a product of 1960s ideological alignments. In the 1940s conservatives were very reluctant to support total war.
8.30.2011 | 7:35pm
Benighted Savage says:
Mr Kabala, although it's true that the conservatives you mentioned were “early” critics of the atomic bombing of Japan, many Leftist persons and organizations also took an early critical position against what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
American pacifist groups like FOR USA, the War Resisters League, and the WILPF – not conservative by any stretch of the imagination – condemned the bombings from the start. So did the liberal journalist Norman Cousins (e.g., his 6 August 1945 editorial “Modern Man is Obsolete” and his “the Literacy of Survival” from the 14 September 1946 issue of _The Saturday Review_).
Liberal and leftist religious publications such as _The Christian Century_ (cf. the August 1945 editorial “America's Atomic Atrocity”) and the _Catholic Worker_ (cf. Dorothy Day's “We go on the Record: the CW Response to Hiroshima" from September 1945) also spoke out against the bombings.
Marxists got on the anti-atomic-bombing bandwagon early on, too. For example, American Trotskyite James P. Cannnon's speech "The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" that was delivered on 22 August 1945. A few years later, British pro-Soviet Marxist PMS Blackett's book _Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy_ also attacked Truman's decision to "drop the Bomb."
The list goes on. If you can provide a head count of Leftist and Rightist responses to Hiroshima that proves your contention that " *** most *** of those who criticized the droppings of the bombs at the time or in the immediate aftermath were (more or less) conservative," I'd like to see it.
American pacifist groups like FOR USA, the War Resisters League, and the WILPF – not conservative by any stretch of the imagination – condemned the bombings from the start. So did the liberal journalist Norman Cousins (e.g., his 6 August 1945 editorial “Modern Man is Obsolete” and his “the Literacy of Survival” from the 14 September 1946 issue of _The Saturday Review_).
Liberal and leftist religious publications such as _The Christian Century_ (cf. the August 1945 editorial “America's Atomic Atrocity”) and the _Catholic Worker_ (cf. Dorothy Day's “We go on the Record: the CW Response to Hiroshima" from September 1945) also spoke out against the bombings.
Marxists got on the anti-atomic-bombing bandwagon early on, too. For example, American Trotskyite James P. Cannnon's speech "The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" that was delivered on 22 August 1945. A few years later, British pro-Soviet Marxist PMS Blackett's book _Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy_ also attacked Truman's decision to "drop the Bomb."
The list goes on. If you can provide a head count of Leftist and Rightist responses to Hiroshima that proves your contention that " *** most *** of those who criticized the droppings of the bombs at the time or in the immediate aftermath were (more or less) conservative," I'd like to see it.
9.3.2011 | 9:23pm
James Kabala says:
I don't know if anything can be proved statistically, but an interesting article is "Hiroshima and the American Left" by Paul F. Boller Jr.
9.11.2011 | 3:38am
Deeanna Danials says:
If the Jap leadership allegedly wanted to fight to the death then let sit on their islands undisturbed with their fleet on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, their Regular Army cut of in Manchuria facing the Russians and their factories silent for want of raw materials. Joe, you are correct in ascribing the inability to see the sin in the targeting of civilians as consequentialism. This mindset will further not see the value in choosing martyrdom over the sprinkling of incense to a pagan god. Catholic morality teaches that it's better to suffer horribly and lose one's life rather than commit a sin against God. Consequentialism laughs at that type of moral uprightness.
you might have accidently stumbled upon the reason why Catholicism is dying off in the USA and Europe. Soo, why did "male military Catholics" go to Communion before a battle knowing they were going to "legally murder" Christ/God created Life?
In the end, they were unable to forgive themselves from their Catholic formed conscience, and walked away from the guilt that comes from being Catholic. It was quite common for Catholic daddies to send their kids to Catholic school, and drop them off for Mass, while not going to Mass. They didn't want to be hypocrites, if you get what I mean.