It seems that every year ’round this time, the Catholic commentariate drops bombs on one another discussing whether dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do.
In coverage of this annual discussion, James Todd, who runs the valuable Catholic news aggregator Pewsitter.com linked to a site defending Truman’s decision. For this crime, my colleague Mark Shea to branded James Todd a Republican shill.
How, exactly, linking to an article supporting a 68 year old decision by a Democrat President makes you a Republican shill I have no idea unless you adhere to the absurd notion that Republicans are generally in favor of dropping atomic bombs on people for the greater good. And for sure, Republicans have not cornered the market on the error of consequentialism. I suppose Mark thinks it is ok to drop such rhetorical bombs if greater good can come of it?
For the record, Pewsitter.com also links to Mark’s criticism as well as this video from Fr. Miscamble of Notre Dame also defending the decision. In the video, Fr. Miscamble states that dropping the bombs:
Assuming that all these things are true, does that in and of itself justify the bombing? I don’t see how.
Analogies by definition are faulty but sometimes they can help make clear certain principles at work here.
Say for instance I am a General engaged in war against another General. We have battled town by town and the results have bloody and horrific. I have now been ordered to take the town that he now occupies and he has been ordered to defend the town at all costs even to the last man. History and reason tell me that taking the town will cost many lives on my side and probably most on his side and many lives of townfolk too. These townfolk, supply food and support to the army there, some voluntarily and some not.
Now I know that the attack on the town will be very costly, but I have an idea. Rather than engage in yet another direct and costly attack, I come up with another plan. I discover the names and addresses of the key command officers up to and including the general. I send my agents to capture their wives and children and bring them to the battlefield. I then send a message to to the opposing general and his staff that I will systematically execute their families unless they surrender.
Even though they have been warned, the general does not surrender. So I systematically begin to carry out my threat by executing the wife and four children of one of the general’s lieutenants. Still they do not surrender. So I then execute the family of his top aide including his wife and three children including his infant daughter.
This shocking tactic finally causes the general to surrender, avoiding the costly battle. My actions”
- Shortened the battle.
- Averted the need to invade the town.
- Saved countless lives on both sides
- And ended the brutalization of non-compliant townsolk.
Would I be justified in using the tactic of targeting and killing non-combatants as a way to compel the enemy to surrender? Or is my brutality sinful in and of itself, regardless of any perceived or real positive outcome?
I have a hard time imagining that many Catholic thinkers would hold me justified.
Again, analogies are imperfect by definition and perhaps my analogy is more defective than most, but I think some of the principles are the same.
August 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm
I'm a little sick and tried of this annual "Bawl For The Twins Cities" nonsense. There are sooooo many bleeding hearts whining every year about this, I'm surprised we haven't drowned in a sea of blood by now.
The Japs were waging a brutal, sadistic, war to conquer Asia. They made the horrible mistake of picking on the wrong country,(USA) and payed the price for it. The Japanese government refused to surrender, they turned all civilians into combatants, and made the a-bomb drop the only way we could end the war, without the even more horrific casualties a land invasion would have brought to both sides.
August 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Bill Whittle makes a very good case for it.
http://www.pjtv.com/v/1808
August 10, 2013 at 12:58 am
What confuses me about these discussions is the almost knee jerk reflex of casting the actions of the USA in a racist light. Our Pacific allies included the Phillipines, the Chinese, the Koreans, just to name a few. The allies of the Japanese in the Pacific were……?
August 10, 2013 at 1:22 am
The argument that it ended the war and saved lives is contemptible utilitarianism.
Also? The Japanese were not unacquainted with that thinking. That's why they did what they did in Nanking. Did you think that was an accident? Did you think they did that for fun? Those men were ordered to do what they did. Some of them refused, and were slaughtered along with the townspeople.
The thinking was, see, that cowing the Chinese would break their will to fight, and ultimately shorten the war and save lives.
Now who does that sound like?
August 10, 2013 at 1:38 am
As for whether or not the Japanese deserved it, yeah, they probably did. But whether or no a person deserves an evil is a different question from whether you have the right to inflict it on them.
Guess what? You know the stuff the Serbs did to the Bosnians? Yeah well the Bosnians helped the Turks do the same stuff to the Serbs, and the Croats, for four or five centuries before that. Well, actually, I don't recall the Serbs ever stuffing Bosnian corpses and using them for decoration, the Turks sometimes went in for that. That doesn't affect the question of whether the Serbs had the right to do it.
August 11, 2013 at 7:20 am
This moronic debate — and its counterpart surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq — is a major reason (among many) why I lost respect for Catholicism. It combines the worst of both Monday-morning quarterbacking and esoteric, academic, tut-tutting self-righteousness. I say that because those who oppose the bombing never offer an alternative for getting the Japanese to surrender and ending one of the worst bloodlettings in human history!
Why is it that these opponents, such as Mark Shea, never hold the Japanese government nor Emperor Hirohito accountable for its refusal to surrender after Hiroshima?
Furthermore, since the Roman Catholic Church is not the state religion of the United States — and since President Truman was not Catholic — neither he nor any other non-Catholic President was or is under any moral obligation to make decisions based on Catholic social teaching. Assuming so is the height of intellectual and ecclesistical arrogance.
Most importantly, President Truman, as commander-in-chief, had the moral imperative not to put American soldiers in any greater danger than necessary. In that context, using nuclear weapons accomplished the task.
As far as Mark Shea goes, he is a raving fanatic who routinely gives aid and comfort to the enemies of decency, let alone this nation, and uses his "Catholic" identity as a shield to do so.
Don't believe me? Then read the following:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-hippolito/a-catholic-writers-propaganda-for-iran/
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-hippolito/the-propagandist-strikes-back%E2%80%A6and-strikes-out/
August 11, 2013 at 7:25 am
Fr. Peckerman, if the United States was such a bloodthirsty nation, then how do you account for the humane occupation of Japan under Gen. MacArthur, whom the Japanese revered as a hero when he left once the occupation ended?
August 11, 2013 at 7:47 am
Finally, Patrick, I applaud you for this:
How, exactly, linking to an article supporting a 68 year old decision by a Democrat President makes you a Republican shill I have no idea unless you adhere to the absurd notion that Republicans are generally in favor of dropping atomic bombs on people for the greater good. And for sure, Republicans have not cornered the market on the error of consequentialism. I suppose Mark thinks it is ok to drop such rhetorical bombs if greater good can come of it?
Now I offer you this challenge:
Convince your "colleague" either to get professional counseling or spiritual direction. Convince EWTN that until he does so, this "colleague" has no business representing the organization in his current capacity, regardless of whether he is an independent contractor.
August 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Joe the Amazon Queen just thought you needed to be reminded that he objects that the Catholic Church is not a Patriotic Christian Association, and doesn't automatically make every act of the Dear Leader grounds for sainthood.
He also thought you needed to know he's unacquainted with the axiom "You may not do evil that good may come of it." Then again, "fitting spiritual concepts to the needs of the state", which is basically his entire argument against Catholicism, was the stance of those who poisoned the guy who came up with that axiom.
August 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm
I would recommend people read Takashi Nagai's "The Bells of Nagasaki" and Paul Glynn's "A Song for Nagasaki" for some eminently Catholic understanding of how a revered Catholic figure like Nagai both survived and understood the dropping of the bomb.
As it is, we armchair quarterbacks must remember: 1) like the "just war" decision, this decision is one that can only be made by the leaders of state responsible for the common good, exercising their prudential judgment (CCC 2309); 2) this was but one example from WWII involving mass civilian casualties as a result of bombing, meaning that the moral question actually goes beyond the "nuclear" circumstances; 3) these were industrial targets due to the admixture of industry and urban activity, something intentionally done by Japan to safeguard the war industry; 4) The US sought to target not "civilian" targets but industrial targets with the nukes and elsewhere, and leafleted Nagasaki, for example, as warning for the civilians to evacuate the area before the bombing; 5) The Japanese government apparently did not permit the evacuation of the area because of the civilian population's involvement in the industry of war, although they did permit young children to leave the area. 6) apparently some Japanese survivors actually sought to sue *their* government as a result of these restrictions on the civilian population.
The bottom line–this is *way* more complicated than most folks like to consider. As such, there is a clear possibility that a leader of state *might* in good conscience make a choice to use a nuclear weapon in the manner done by the US in WWII. We have to leave that moral calculus to God, while acknowledging the horrific consequences that accompanied the great blessing of an end to war.
August 11, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Sophia's Favorite just thought you needed to be reminded that he has no intellectual ammunition other than snark, sarcasm and personal attacks. He cannot craft a coherent argument to save his soul. He's still bitter that "Sophia" dropped him as her "favorite," and it really shows. 😉
thebodyguardtob, you've said the most intelligent thing on this thread. Thank you so much.
August 13, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Joseph,
Whether or not the president is Catholic has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is obligated to do what is right. His not being Catholic might go to his culpability (just as the actions of the Japanese government, the seriousness of the situation, the dearth of alternatives, the risk of doing nothing impact his culpability. Something is either right or wrong. It is either immoral to pursue evil means to achieve your good ends or it is not.
And as Consequentialism is such a pernicious and pervasive heresy these days, it is important to discuss these things. The greater the good people seek through their evil means, the more steadfastly we must remind them that their good ends do not justify their evil means. You may have left Catholicism or lost respect for it, but unless you have left Christianity entirely (or are one of those who think Paul shouldn't be in the Bible) then there are simply no grounds to justify evil with good in the Christian tradition.
You can deride Mark Shea all you want – although I find it interesting how much attention he has gotten in the comments despite never being mentioned in the post – and disagree with his polemic and tone all you want, but you can't refute the essential point – that is not just his, but Catholicism's and Paul's – that you cannot justify evil means with good ends.
Until Christians give up this heresy, we will have to talk about it.
Seamus,
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. You are quite correct. The differences between the atomic bomb and the firebombing are mostly nuances, not difference in kind. However, silence about one evil does not obligate us to be silent about another. We can decry the atomic bombing of Japan without decrying the firebombing of Dresden in the same breath.
August 14, 2013 at 9:29 am
So, Wine in the Water, what would you have done if you were President Truman?
August 14, 2013 at 9:32 am
Besides, Wine in the Water, how would you define "consequentialism"?