Posted on 08/10/2010 5:42:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Friday was the anniversary of the U.S. Bombing of Hiroshima during World War II. Monday is the anniversary of its bombing of Nagasaki.
The explosion of the Fat Man atomic device over Nagasaki is pictured. It rose eleven miles into the sky over Ground Zero.
The important thing, though, is that it—together with the Little Boy device that was deployed over Hiroshima—killed approximately 200,000 human beings. And it ended the war with Japan.
It is understandable that many Americans at the time were relieved that the long burden of the bloodiest war in human history could finally be laid down. Many then, as now, saw the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a necessary step to preventing even more casualties.
However, some of the blogging being done to commemorate the attack is most unfortunate.
Consider Michael Graham, who wishes his readers a “Happy Peace Through Victory Day.”
Today marks the anniversary of the single greatest act in the cause of peace ever taken by the United States:
Dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. That one decision, that one device, saved more lives, did more to end war, and created more justice in the world in a single stroke than any other. It was done by America, for Americans. It saved the lives of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of American soldiers and sailors.
So, obviously, President Obama’s not too happy about it. . . .
Euroweenie peaceniks and an annoying number of American liberals see the bombing of Hiroshima as a shameful act. What is it America should be ashamed for—defeating an enemy that declared war on us? Bringing about the end of a fascist empire that killed millions of people, mostly Asians? Preventing the slaughter of the good guys—Americans—by killing the bad guys—the Japanese?
I am not a Euroweenie or a peacenik or a political liberal or even someone opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in principle. I can imagine scenarios in which their use would be justified. I can even deal with the cheeky “Happy Peace Through Victory Day” headline.
But Mr. Graham’s analysis of the situation on a moral level is faulty.
It is true that, by instilling terror in the Japanese government, the use of atomic weapons prevented further and, in all probability, greater casualties on both sides.
Preventing further and greater casualties is a good thing, but as the Catechism reminds us:
The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties [CCC 2312].
It isn’t just a question of the goal of an action. The goal may be a good one, but the means used to achieve it may be evil. The Catechism states:
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes [CCC 2314].
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war directed to the destruction of whole cities or—at least—vast areas with their inhabitants. The only quibbling could be about whether this was “indiscriminate” destruction. Someone might argue (stretching the word “indiscriminate” rather severely and taking it in a sense probably not meant by the Catechism) that they were not indiscriminate attacks in that they were aimed at vital Japanese war resources (munitions factories, troops, etc.) and the only practical way to take out these resources was to use atomic weapons.
Mounting such a case would face a number of problems. One would have to show that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such resources (not that difficult to show) and that these resources themselves were proportionate in value to the massive collateral damage that would be inflicted (a much more difficult task) and that there was no other practical way—like a more targeted bombing—to take them out (again a difficult task).
But for purposes of argument, let’s grant all this. Let’s suppose that there were such resources, and that they were proportionate in value to the massive loss of civilian lives and that there was no other way to get rid of them.
Does that absolve the U.S. of guilt in these two bombings?
No.
You can see why in the logic that Mr. Graham used. It stresses the fact that the use of these weapons saved net lives. This was undoubtedly uppermost in the U.S. military planners’ thinking as they faced the possibility of an extremely bloody invasion of Japan in which huge numbers on both sides would die.
But notice what is not being said—either by Mr. Graham or anybody else: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such important war widgets that without those widgets Japan would be unable to prosecute the war. Thus by taking out those military resources we could deprive Japan of its ability to make war.”
Neither is anybody saying something like this: “We needed to scare Japan into surrender by showing them that we could destroy all of their military resources. We needed to make them terrified of losing all their military resources so that, out of a desperate desire to preserve their military resources, they would surrender.”
These are the dogs that didn’t bark, and they are why this line of argument is a dog that won’t hunt.
The reason nobody says these things is that they were not the thinking behind the U.S.‘s actions. The idea was not to end the war through the direct destruction of military resources in these two cities, nor was it to end the war by scaring Japan into thinking we might destroy all of its military resources. It was scaring Japan into surrendering by threatening (explicitly) to do this over and over again and inflict massive damage on the Japanese population. In other words, to make them scared that we would engage in “the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.”
That means that, even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had contained military resources that of themselves would have justified the use of atomic weapons (which is very hard to argue), our intention still was not pure. We were still using Japanese civilians as hostages to the war effort, still threatening to kill civilians if Japan did not surrender. That was the message we wanted the Japanese leadership to get—not, “We will take out your military resources if you keep this up,” but, “We will take out big chunks of your population if you keep this up.”
That meant that the U.S. leadership was formally participating in evil. It does not matter if the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could (through some stretch of the imagination) be justified in themselves. The fact is that they were used to send a message telling the Japanese government that we would kill massive numbers of the military and civilian population, without discrimination. That message is evil, and to knowingly and deliberately send that message is to formally participate in evil.
That made these attacks war crimes.
Now, make no mistake. I’m an American. I’m a fan of the U.S. But love of the United States should not preclude one from being able to look honestly at the mistakes it has committed in the past. Indeed, it is only by looking at and frankly acknowledging the mistakes of the past that we can learn from them. Love of one’s country should impel one to help it not commit such evils.
Racial discrimination? Bad thing. Allowing abortions? Bad thing. Dropping nukes to deliberately kill civilians? Bad thing. Let’s try not to have things like these mar America’s future.
“On a personal note, my father was spared deployment to the invasion of Japan. I endorse the bombing without reservation.”
I agree 100%. My father was scheduled to be in the invasion as well.
After WWII the top German physicists were imprisoned in a house in England that was bugged. No evidence was found that they were close to a bomb. Certainly Germany did not have anything like the Manhattan Project, a vast industrial and scientific enterprise with unlimited resources that was required to build our atomic bomb.
Yes, unfortunately.
Deliberate targeting of civilians, especially with the overriding goal of terrorizing the survivors, is contrary to the principles of a just war.
It saved many lives on both sides.
Repeating from another thread:
Regarding activities of WW2: WWI was waged exclusively against enemy troops. Germany was back for a re-match within 20 years. WW2 brought the war to the ENTIRE populace: the wealthy, the poor, the women, the children. We convinced the entire population that going to war against us was a terrible idea, and we haven’t heard a peep out of Germany OR Japan in several generations.
The best way to pacify a country is to have it be the case that when a man speaks approvingly of war, his women scream at him in rage and terror.
They started it....we finished it....end of story.
Who is truly the innocent? The 17 year old conscript wearing a uniform, or the politician who made the decision to go to war? How about the industrialists who profited from the war and advocated its continuation?
The best enemy target is the spirit of the people who decide to continue the war.
No, I think you're wrong. If the US lost a million (or more) of her finest young men reducing Japan, the entire Japanese race would have been exterminated, no matter where they were.
They wouldn't need a bomber. Load it into a sub and try to make it into San Francisco Bay or the port of Los Angeles on a day when the prevailing winds are blowing east to maximize fallout on the city.
The issue isn't that these things happened, or that they were wrong, but that some of the people sitting on the panels knew their own countries did the same. One of the charges against Goring was the bombing of civilians in London. He is reported to have said he would face that charge if Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay were up there with him. By trying to make war under the rule of law, you make yourself guilty. Did we target non combatants in WWII? Yes, that was part of the strategy. The British were quite open about (night raids and statements by Churchill), while the US did attempt more targeted raids, but the demoralization and death of the civilian populations was viewed as part of the plan. The thinking was it would end the war sooner.
Under the terms of international law now a days, that would be a war crime. Granted, we have learned that mass bombings do not work that well (and air power as a strategic conventional arm is not that effective period). And we have the means to drop ordinance in a much more precise manner (great for tactical bombing) so the prospect of the US sending out mass flights of B52's to level a city is very remote. But in WWII, it was considered a just application of war.
Imho, it may still be a viable option.
The idea of Just War is not quite what is often presented. The point was to limit the death and destruction to a minimum. The atomic bombs, for all their horror, did that.
“No, I think you’re wrong. If the US lost a million (or more) of her finest young men reducing Japan, the entire Japanese race would have been exterminated, no matter where they were.”
I’ll concede that possibility, although for different reasons. The Russians were arrayed against the Japanese along the Manchurian border, and if the war had persisted into 1946 they certainly would have decimated the Japanese Army in China. The Ivans were no more merciful than the Germans.... I just can’t see us massacring the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps- they had sons fighting in our army (442nd Regimental Combat Team- go look ‘em up) and we were to some extent a more moral country than we are now.
Japan claiming that getting nuked twice is a war crime is like Hitler complaining that Jews don't like him much.
The author is an idiot. The sole intention of any of our actions in World War II, Pacific theater, was to obtain the unconditional surrender of Japan. That goal was clearly and repeatedly stated. It took two special bombs to achieve that end. Nuff said.
You want atrocities and war crimes committed for no purpose, try the rape of Nanking.
And I read this article yesterday morning from his blog but immediately decided not to post it. The reason why is because I think that prior to writing this, he must have had dinner with Mark Shea. Because it sounds very Shea-influenced.
There is a lot of validity in the arguments that he attempts to put forward, but I feel that the argument is fundamentally flawed from the onset of the piece.
First of all, let us look at the title of the article:
Commemorating a Major U.S. War Crime
I have looked through a large number of papal encyclicals and through a few books on moral theology. I think I can state fairly conclusively that "war crime" is not a theological term. "Moral liceity" is a theological term.
So what?
One can use moral theology to determine if an act is morally licit or not. One should use moral theology in building the international conventions that comprise the body of agreements that collectively are known as the "law of armed conflict." However, "war crime" is a legal term that refers to a violation of the law of armed conflict. A violation of the LOAC can only be based upon the LOAC that was in existence at the time the act was committed.
Mr. Akin did not attempt to advance his assertion that the bombing of Nagasaki was a "war crime" in a legitimate fashion: he attempted to use theological means to prove a legal assertion. That is fundamentally flawed.
So we have to answer the question about if this was a war crime using the legal constructs that were available at that time. Hague IV (Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907) covers this:
CHAPTER I
Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardmentsArt. 22.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Art. 24.
Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.
Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
It would be perfectly legitimate to discuss whether all of the above conditions were met. Mr. Akin did not even attempt to do so (nor do I know if he is even qualified to do so)
Now the argument that I think he was attempting to make was if the act was morally licit or not.
In his argument, Akin uses two references from the Catechism of the Catholic Church...paragraphs 2312 and 2314. One thing that we all need to understand is that the Catechism is a compilation of authoritative documents. It, in of itself, does not make any authoritative pronouncements. In other words, to understand fully what the theology is, we need to look back at what the original documents said.
The first citation was CCC 2312:
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
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."109 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.
Footnotes 108 and 109 reference a Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, published in 1965 (paragraph 79.4 and 80.4) (bolded text was the verbiage actually cited in the CCC...the rest provided for necessary context):
79.4: Certainly, war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. But it is one thing to undertake military action for the just defense of the people, and something else again to seek the subjugation of other nations. Nor, by the same token, does the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean that all is fair between the warring parties.
80. The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread devastation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.
All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(1) The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.
With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.
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.
The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race.
You will, of course, note the bolded text in paragraph 80: Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population
Note the word, "indiscriminately."
Also, the phrase the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes refers to pronouncements of Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI...all made well after WWII. Needless to say that Gaudium et Spes was not promulgated until 1965 itself.
Because none of these pronouncements were made at the time (and, as far as I know, the Church had not made any of these types of pronouncements until after the scope of the horrors of WWII came out), one couldn't be held accountable for something that hadn't yet been stated.
But we still have the basics.
As St Paul stated (Rom 12:19) Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
And when war is licitly conducted, St Augustine warns us about immoral conduct in that war: The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way. (Contra Faust, XXII.74)
And the other fundamental that it is not morally licit to do evil in order to achieve a perceived "good" end. (which is the fundamental argument against pro-abortion types, by the way)
So, in order to determine whether the act was morally licit, we have to ask the questions:
I am personally not concerned sufficiently with navel-gazing to look at this in order to condemn men who are now dead. God already has judged their actions and they are reaping the consequences (good or bad) of those actions as we speak.
The point is that Mr. Akin did not adequately advance even an argument to moral liciety of the act, as he did not examine the intents of those who undertook those acts.
Thank you for this truly excellent post.
Outstanding summary!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.