A Chilling Letter

[PeterPaul]

I think we can rationalize to death why we should use a bomb, but can we justify it to Christ?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think we can rationalize to death why we should use a bomb, but can we justify it to Christ?

Exactly my point of starting this thread, thanks PeterPaul

 

[Roald]

The Japanese had been taught that surrender was worse than death, this was not some unrealistic ideal the government expected of their people, it was taken to heart.

But, they did surrender, and after "only" 150K deaths. So maybe that is a slight exaggeration.

 

[Veritas]

I think we can rationalize to death why we should use a bomb, but can we justify it to Christ?

We don't have to. We didn't drop it. Those involved have arrived at their eternal resting place. As scripture tells us: "to everything there is a season....a time for war and a time for peace". The method of destruction is immaterial as is whether the victims are Catholic or not. Suppose it was a Buddist temple that was the target....it that ok? (I'm just trying to get you folks to think about other angles)

 

[BroIgnatius]

I still think it was justified. I mean, so many U.S. soldiers woudl have died. That articel amde me rethink my viewpoint, but overall, my view remains the same.

One of the primary tenets of a civilized society and certainly of Catholicism is that the ends to NOT justify the means.

There is NO excuse and NO justification to deliberately targeting civilians.

The one million American soldiers figure in the invasion of Japan was and is a falsehood devised to avoid guilt over the murder of more than 150,000 civilians.

Besides, even it it did cost one million men, then so be it. We cannot jump in bed with Satan to save ourselves. I would have volunteered to invade Japan than to allow the murder of over 100,000 civilians deliberately targeted.

I say this not from an arm-chair, but as a Vietnam Vet.

 

[geocajun]

One of the primary tenets of a civilized society and certainly of Catholicism is that the ends to NOT justify the means.

There is NO excuse and NO justification to deliberately targeting civilians.

The one million American soldiers figure in the invasion of Japan was and is a falsehood devised to avoid guilt over the murder of more than 150,000 civilians.

Besides, even it it did cost one million men, then so be it. We cannot jump in bed with Satan to save ourselves. I would have volunteered to invade Japan than to allow the murder of over 100,000 civilians deliberately targeted.

I say this not from an arm-chair, but as a Vietnam Vet.

I always enjoy your posts BroIgnatius... good job

 

[KennySe]

I say this not from an arm-chair, but as a Vietnam Vet.

Thank you for serving your country.

 

[Wolseley]

One of the primary tenets of a civilized society and certainly of Catholicism is that the ends to NOT justify the means.

There is NO excuse and NO justification to deliberately targeting civilians.

But we didn't deliberately target civilians. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army (which was destroyed in the blast), and Kokura, the primary target of the bomb that was re-routed to Nagasaki, was a site of one of Japan's largest armaments factories. Civilians were in both Hiroshima and Kokura, of course, but they weren't the primary targets; the military and weapons facilities were.

Now, if you want to talk about deliberately targeting civilians in places that had no military value, let's talk about Guernica, or Nanking, or Coventry, not one of which was bombed by us.

The one million American soldiers figure in the invasion of Japan was and is a falsehood devised to avoid guilt over the murder of more than 150,000 civilians.

The primary source documents are less dismissive. Gen. George C. Marshall predicted that the invasion would cost, at a minimum, 1/4 of a million American lives, and possibly as much as a million or more.

The Pacific Command gave figures of 20,000 American dead and 75,000 wounded; the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the casualty figures would surpass all existing casualty lists for both Europe and the Pacific combined.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur expected to take 50,000 casualites just in establishing a beachhead, and warned that the Japanese might simply disband, take to the mountains, and carry on a guerilla war of attrition, the aim being to kill as many Americans as possible, a la' Peleliu and Okinawa. If this came to pass, he predicted a protracted ten-year war with no ceiling on American losses.

Any predicted body count for Japanese forces would surpass American losses by a ratio of ten-to-one. Ergo, ironically the atomic bomb took fewer lives than would have been lost if we hadn't used it.

Besides, even it it did cost one million men, then so be it. We cannot jump in bed with Satan to save ourselves.

Then why bother to have any armed forces at all? Let whoever wants to attack us come in and do whatever they want, and we'll just stand there and let them do it.

I would have volunteered to invade Japan than to allow the murder of over 100,000 civilians deliberately targeted.

My father, who was in the Pacific at the time, was one of those awaiting orders for the invasion of mainland Japan. He thanked God for the atomic bomb every day of his life.

As for the civilians "deliberately targeted", we've covered that.

I say this not from an arm-chair, but as a Vietnam Vet.

And I as both an Air Force veteran who spent time in the Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, and Alaskan Air Command and dealt with the confrontation of the Soviet counterforce on a day-to-day basis, and as someone with two college history degrees and a Phi Alpha Theta who has researched and written several lengthy papers on this very subject.

 

[BroIgnatius]

But we didn't deliberately target civilians. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army (which was destroyed in the blast), and Kokura, the primary target of the bomb that was re-routed to Nagasaki, was a site of one of Japan's largest armaments factories. Civilians were in both Hiroshima and Kokura, of course, but they weren't the primary targets; the military and weapons facilities were.

Dear Wolseley:

You can have 300 advanced degrees and that and a ten dollar bill will get you one dollar. The basic tenet of any moral society, even in war, is that the "ends do not justify the means."

It does not matter if 100 million Americans would be killed in the invasion of Japan, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

You know, there is a military target about 80 miles from me here in South Dakota. So let's drop a bomb that will destroy the ENTIRE state and call it just targeting the military target!

The Nuclear Bomb was a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION which by definition will kill in a widespread manner well beyond any military target. If this is not recognized then we are hypocrites for invading Iraq on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction. What difference does it make if Iraq has WMDs as long as they use them on military targets? The military target, afterall, is more likely to be destroyed using a WMD!

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

God, speaking through the Church says (in the Catechism):


2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." (my emphasis) A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

Every government, every governmental leader, every society and culture, and ever person is bound to follow the moral principles God, and each will be held accountable for crimes against God and man. If this is not so, then there better not be even one squeak of criticism against Kerry, or Clinton. If this is not so, then how dare we demand other countries to follow principles of human rights (which is a moral good). If this is not so, then why did we demand that Iraq give up its WMDs? Are not WMD's an okay weapon as long as a military target is the goal? and the stakes are perceived to be high?


THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

"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."

Even if it means losing a war, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

 

[PeterPaul]

I see the more weapons become bigger and with a larger destructive radius, the more I am saddened. I thought "shock and awe" certainly was just that. I thought it terrible that the media was watching and waiting as if we were going to see something spectacular. This wasn't fireworks at all. In fact, when I heard the government talking about "Mother of all bombs" (MOAB), I quickly reflected on THE MOAB. How anyone would delight in anything even remotely called a MOAB is beyond me.

 

[Veritas]

Dear Wolseley:

You can have 300 advanced degrees and that and a ten dollar bill will get you one dollar. The basic tenet of any moral society, even in war, is that the "ends do not justify the means."

It does not matter if 100 million Americans would be killed in the invasion of Japan, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

You know, there is a military target about 80 miles from me here in South Dakota. So let's drop a bomb that will destroy the ENTIRE state and call it just targeting the military target!

The Nuclear Bomb was a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION which by definition will kill in a widespread manner well beyond any military target. If this is not recognized then we are hypocrites for invading Iraq on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction. What difference does it make if Iraq has WMDs as long as they use them on military targets? The military target, afterall, is more likely to be destroyed using a WMD!

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

God, speaking through the Church says (in the Catechism):


2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." (my emphasis) A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

Every government, every governmental leader, every society and culture, and ever person is bound to follow the moral principles God, and each will be held accountable for crimes against God and man. If this is not so, then there better not be even one squeak of criticism against Kerry, or Clinton. If this is not so, then how dare we demand other countries to follow principles of human rights (which is a moral good). If this is not so, then why did we demand that Iraq give up its WMDs? Are not WMD's an okay weapon as long as a military target is the goal? and the stakes are perceived to be high?


THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

"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."

Even if it means losing a war, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

In case you have forgotten, the USA and the Catholic Church are TWO separate entities and the twain shall never meet (thank God). To demand that a secular government run it's war operations according to Catholic teaching would create a theocracy; something we dare not allow. The various forms of Protestants already try their best to do such things. In the end, we who live here and enjoy the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be greatful that there were past generations who would willingly give up their lives to secure victory, without which there is no peace.....case in point-Israel.

 

[PeterPaul]

In case you have forgotten, the USA and the Catholic Church are TWO separate entities and the twain shall never meet (thank God). To demand that a secular government run it's war operations according to Catholic teaching would create a theocracy; something we dare not allow. The various forms of Protestants already try their best to do such things. In the end, we who live here and enjoy the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be greatful that there were past generations who would willingly give up their lives to secure victory, without which there is no peace.....case in point-Israel.

hmmm..but, my friend Veritas, as Catholics we are a people set apart. I doubt its true, but are you advocating that since church/state are separate, we should not try to secure that the government act in accord with Christian teachings (abortion, euthanasia, etc)?

Can we truly be critical when it comes to those things, but war is to be handled whichever way a government sees fit because it isn't a theocracy (democracy isn't working too well either)?

 

[PeterPaul]

In the end, we who live here and enjoy the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be greatful that there were past generations who would willingly give up their lives to secure victory, without which there is no peace.....case in point-Israel.

I'm sure you mean to secure truth and righteousness and not victory. As every side attempts to secure victory, but victory must be not at the cost of morality. Peace is important, but not at the cost of truth, human dignity, and virtue.

Every war has losses, but how we war is just as important as the ends of war. For example, we don't execute for the sake of winning a war, use biological and chemical agents to win war (against the Geneva convention), nor do we burn a village to save it.

Unfortunately, war is never clear cut. There are not G.I. Joe's out there, infallible and perfect. However, we must not lose sight to accept all methods of war because it justifies the end result.

 

[Veritas]

hmmm..but, my friend Veritas, as Catholics we are a people set apart. I doubt its true, but are you advocating that since church/state are separate, we should not try to secure that the government act in accord with Christian teachings (abortion, euthanasia, etc)?

Can we truly be critical when it comes to those things, but war is to be handled whichever way a government sees fit because it isn't a theocracy (democracy isn't working too well either)?

That's not what I said PP But...we should not try to mold our government into an arm of the Church. The separation clause was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. If we demand that the US gov. conduct its wars in accord with Church teaching, we are in effect trying to establish a state religion. The reason I have a problem with that is because there are many Evangelicals that are attempting to do just that. They believe the country should be run strictly by biblical (read, their interpretation) standards. Although the founders of this great country were Christian's and based many of the country's founding documents on their faith, they were careful to not impose their beliefs on the populace.

 

[Wolseley]

Dear Wolseley:

You can have 300 advanced degrees and that and a ten dollar bill will get you one dollar. The basic tenet of any moral society, even in war, is that the "ends do not justify the means."

We disagree. While I do not espouse any kind of Nazi-esque behavior, I nevertheless recognize that in any given military operation, the terrain will dictate the tactics.

It does not matter if 100 million Americans would be killed in the invasion of Japan, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

My father would undoubtably have been one of those men killed; my mother would have been a widow, and I would not be here. Thank you for that.

You know, there is a military target about 80 miles from me here in South Dakota. So let's drop a bomb that will destroy the ENTIRE state and call it just targeting the military target!

Nobody did, though, mainly because they knew if they did, massive chunks of Russia would meet the same fate. That's the real wonder of nuclear arsenals---they don't have to be used to be a deterrent. The knowledge of Mutually Assured Destruction is enough to make any itchy trigger finger reconsider.

The Nuclear Bomb was a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION which by definition will kill in a widespread manner well beyond any military target.

Yes---now. But not then. We're talking 1945 here, when there was no such thing as weapons of mass destruction, outside of three very low-yield atomic weapons in the kiloton range. That's quite a stockpile: three. One of which we exploded on our own territory because nobody knew what it would do. There were no hydrogen bombs, no ICBM's, no intercontinental bombers, no Cold War.

But it's easy to pass judgement after the fact, and to take the knowledge of better than 50 years and use it to condemn decisions made by men who had no way of knowing what we know now, isn't it?

If this is not recognized then we are hypocrites for invading Iraq on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction. What difference does it make if Iraq has WMDs as long as they use them on military targets? The military target, afterall, is more likely to be destroyed using a WMD!

Once again, we're talking apples and oranges. The United States using an atomic weapon on Japan within the context of the geopolitical situation in 1945 has nothing to do with Iraq using a weapon of mass destruction on anybody else within the geopolitical context of 2003.

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

God, speaking through the Church says (in the Catechism):


2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." (my emphasis) A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

And who is more likely to use such weapons, somebody like George Bush, or somebody like Saddam Hussein?

Would you feel more secure if we turned our entire nuclear arsenal over to Kim Jong Il?

Every government, every governmental leader, every society and culture, and ever person is bound to follow the moral principles God, and each will be held accountable for crimes against God and man.

God will judge them, not I. Further, what happens in this world is not really all that important; it's what happens in the next that matters.

If this is not so, then there better not be even one squeak of criticism against Kerry, or Clinton.

I dislike Kerry and Clinton not because of their politics, but because they are morally offensive.

If this is not so, then how dare we demand other countries to follow principles of human rights (which is a moral good). If this is not so, then why did we demand that Iraq give up its WMDs?

My dear fellow, we haven't employed a nuclear weapon in combat in 59 years. We know what they do, and as a result, we don't use them. People like Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin-Laden, on the other hand, would not hesitate in the slightest degree to employ them.

Some governments can police themselves in these matters; others must be persuaded.

Are not WMD's an okay weapon as long as a military target is the goal? and the stakes are perceived to be high?

Again, you are comparing 1945 to 2003. In 1945, there were no weapons of mass destruction; at least not in the modern sense. You cannot take our present mileu and backwards-project it into past history to make the United States as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden.

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

I'm getting a vague impression that this is the point you want to get across. It's still foggy, though---you might want to repeat it a couple more times.

"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."

Even if it means losing a war, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

And if we had lost the war we're talking about (World War II), you wouldn't have the Catechism you're quoting from. The Nazis and the Samurais would have seen to that. The Church would be underground, suffering intense persecution, and the world would be immeasurably worse off now than it has been because we won that war.

I doubt, however, that I will convince you of such, and if that's what you believe, you're entitled to your opinion. I can assure you that you will not likewise convince me, however, because I am not relativistic enough to say that all nations, all governments, and all leaders are exactly the same, and that the United States is no better than Nazi Germany because both of them invaded a country.

Context, as they say is everything. Why did Germany invade countries in the 1940's? Did they plan on helping those countries? Did they plan on keeping them forever? On the other hand, why did we invade places like Iraq and Grenada? Did we plan on helping those countries? Do we or did we plan on staying in those places forever?

It's a good thing to reflect on.

 

[BroIgnatius]

In case you have forgotten, the USA and the Catholic Church are TWO separate entities and the twain shall never meet (thank God).

In case you have forgotten every human being on the planet is held accountible to God's law.

And I might add, the "ends do not justify the means" is NOT merely a Catholic concept. It is also the fundamental position of American democracy.

The Church teaches that our faith is to influence our politics. The FALSE notion of separation of Church and State is NOT in the U.S. Constitution and and became a rally cry mostly upon its promotion by Fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, Truth is Truth for everyone.

It is appropriate to speak of these things as violations of moral imperitives of God even though the government is not bound to Catholic teaching. Though since Church teaching is the teaching of God and ALL CREATION is bound by moral and divine law whether they like it or not, in a sense the government is bound by Church teaching.

In any event, if it is not proper to evaluate government actions from the point-of-view of divine and moral laws of God, then we better never again mention the moral failure of our governmemt on issues of abortion.

Moral Truth is Moral Truth that has NOTHING to do with separation of Church and state.

 

[PeterPaul]

I am going to say something which may be the most absurd thing anyone has ever heard. I miss the days of knights and armour. Technology has truly become something more barbaric than barbarism itself.

 

[PeterPaul]

That's not what I said PP But...we should not try to mold our government into an arm of the Church. The separation clause was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. If we demand that the US gov. conduct its wars in accord with Church teaching, we are in effect trying to establish a state religion. The reason I have a problem with that is because there are many Evangelicals that are attempting to do just that. They believe the country should be run strictly by biblical (read, their interpretation) standards. Although the founders of this great country were Christian's and based many of the country's founding documents on their faith, they were careful to not impose their beliefs on the populace.

The first problem I have with this, my friend, is that I disagree that the Church should not try to influence politics. This is what I am left to infer from this post. We are not establishing a state religion by demanding that the state adher to God's law. We have a right to lobby for change or enforcement of the law just like any group does. After all, is it fine for the secular government to impose it's concept of morality on the religious? I ask this because it has already been doing this for decades. The concept that the government is impartial and religion is biased is completely false.

On your second post, the founders were not the Apostles. No offence. I agree that perhaps the best thing for this nation is to maintain a tolerance, however, even theocracies have come to understand free will, and take great care to maintain their religious sovereignty, while tolerating that of others.

In conclusion, whether or not people agree that the bomb was crucial or whether they believe it was immoral, I believe we certainly can judge past or current events, as we should, with compassion but also with moral exactitude.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Yes---now. But not then. We're talking 1945 here, when there was no such thing as weapons of mass destruction

LOL, dear, a nuclear bomb of ANY size is a weapon of mass destruction. And the small bomb massively destroyed two cities. The Mass Destruction at Dresden using thousands of bombs is equally morally wrong.

But it's easy to pass judgement after the fact, and to take the knowledge of better than 50 years and use it to condemn decisions made by men who had no way of knowing what we know now, isn't it?

There were men AT THE TIME who spoke out about the moral problems of using the bomb. This is not a hind-sight 50 years later notion.

The United States using an atomic weapon on Japan within the context of the geopolitical situation in 1945 has nothing to do with Iraq using a weapon of mass destruction on anybody else within the geopolitical context of 2003.

Moral Truth is not dependent upon geopolitical situations. That is called "situational ethics" which is condemned by the Church and by all men of reason.

God will judge them, not I. Further, what happens in this world is not really all that important; it's what happens in the next that matters.

My friend you are making judgments all over the place.

My dear fellow, we haven't employed a nuclear weapon in combat in 59 years. We know what they do, and as a result, we don't use them. People like Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin-Laden, on the other hand, would not hesitate in the slightest degree to employ them.

This has nothing to do with anything. The moral law applies regardless whether we use the bomb once or a thousand times, whether used by the United States or a terrorist.

I'm getting a vague impression that this is the point you want to get across. It's still foggy, though---you might want to repeat it a couple more times.

Ah, nice piece of flippant obfuscation. In a book I have been working on this this bit of flippancy and dismissal or a moral truth is called Liberal Tactic of Obfuscation #398

And if we had lost the war we're talking about (World War II), you wouldn't have the Catechism you're quoting from. The Nazis and the Samurais would have seen to that. The Church would be underground, suffering intense persecution, and the world would be immeasurably worse off now than it has been because we won that war.

No, dear, we would be better off in the Church. The Church always flourishes in times of persecution.

I can assure you that you will not likewise convince me

Wow, what unmitigated arrogance. "I've made up my mind and no one will change it". None of us can make such a claim. Our minds must always be opened to the Truth no matter how heartfelt our opinion may be to us. Our minds need changed into conformance to the mind of Christ as interpreted by the Church -- at least if we are to claim to be Christian.

All the factors you cite are meaningless. It does comes down to ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. That is a moral truth that applies to ALL situations no matter what they are. Ghandi believed that and thus used a MEANS that was morally acceptable even though others around him said that violence was the only way to rid themselves of the British. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that and used a MEANS that was morally acceptable even though many others said that freedom from racism could only come with violence.


THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS is a moral imperative from God. For anyone to flippantly dismiss that is a person not caring what the God and the Church has to say, but rather is an attitude of "I have my understanding and opinion on things and by gosh I am going to hold on to them regardless of the facts and regardless of moral law".

I will prefer to not stand before God to explain why I was flippant to God's moral law because times got rough. Rather, I will stand with the Church who speaks for God who says:

"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."

That is the definitive teaching of God and His Church. Those who would deny it, or dismiss it, or flippantly cast it aside may do so and will have to stand before God to account for it.

"Roma locuta, causa finita est" - St. Augustine

"If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it's not the gospel you believe, but yourself." -St. Augustine of Hippo.


We all have to stand before God to be held accountable. I pray and hope that my opinions will ALWAYS be under unqualified obedience and submission to the Church no matter how hard the issue may be. The test of our faith is not on the easy issues, but on obedience on the tough issues.

"Their own opinion has misled many, And false reasoning, unbalanced their judgement."
-Sirach 4:23

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."
- G.K. Chesterton

"A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death." - Pope John Paul II

Amen Holy Father, I pray that all men will come to a knowledge of this truth and abandoned their worldly thinking.

 

[Wolseley]

You are entitled to your opinion, Brother Ignatius, as I am entitled to mine.

You have made up your mind, as have I. I think we'll leave it at that. I am not adverse to debate, but I am also intelligent enough to recognize an exercise in futility when I see one.

And by the way, I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, your "dear". Do not use such language concerning me at any time again. Is that clear?

Good evening to you, sir.