When the Sun Turned Black

Insight Scoop ^ | December 5, 2009 | Paul Glynn, S.M.

[JoeMac]

Oh trust me, I know what the Imperial Japanese Army did in WW2 and in China. Always have. When I was a kid in school other kids were in the play ground and I was in the library devouring everything I could about the Second World War. I was fascinated by this cataclysmic, world-altering event.

[American Constitutionalist]

They talk about how dropping 2 a-Bombs was not morally the " Christian " thing to do, but, yet, they forget, the Bible tells us, LET GOD NOT BE MOCKED, WHAT SO SHALL A MAN SOW, SO SHALL HE REAP...
The Japanese reaped what they sowed, and there is no way to get around one of GOD's basic laws of sowing and reaping... either in nature, or in the course of human events.....

[American Constitutionalist]

Killing of innocent babies in a mother womb is also murder, but, yet, the leftist make it their sacrament.

[American Constitutionalist]

What about Abortion ? it’s the WORST of all war crimes.....

[American Constitutionalist]

What about ABORTION ? it’s the WORST of all war crimes....

[B-Chan]

You’re absolutely right about that.

[Basilides]

“The peace-wing in the government, along with the general population, would have overridden whatever hawks were left in the military in pretty short-order, once blockade-induced privations really kicked in”

Another lie...the militarists would have prevailed as they did on Saipan and Okinawa...your ignorance of Japanese society at that time is laughable...and regardless of the civilian sentiment the armed forces would never have surrendered short of the additional Imperial Rescript specifically addressed to them by Hirohito

“The evidence is overwhelming that our own military leaders never bought-into that figure of a million casualties...”

Another lie...name your evidence...documents, memoirs etc...there are none...the last Magic reports before August had Marshall so concerned about the build-up of 500,000 Japanese troops on Kuyshu so much so he began to work tactical nukes into Operation Olympic...

You sir are a gutless lying coward...

[magisterium]

You run a risk that they might be so pigheaded as to hang on till they all starve to death. But most people will not let things get to that extreme before taking matters into their own hands. Certainly, there wasn't much left of the army's capability that it could squash a rebellion. If we were really that worried about desperate fighting leading to massive Allied casualties, we were under no obligation to go in. We could just wait them out, until they themselves had had enough. It would have the component of being their own choice if they didn't put a stop to the militarists themselves.

As far as sieges in general go, it is harder to get a small (city-sized) population to get its leadership to "see some sense," since the military garrison in such a besieged town is likely to be a significant portion of the whole population. I do not advocate such sieges. Doing the same thing to 80 or 90 million folks of an island nation with a shattered military capability has much better chance for success before the whole population starves. Plus, we would be under no obligation to invade if we really thought we'd take extremely high casualties. Neither would we be under an obligation to just go home and let the Japanese regroup to fight again. A blockade is a much better option than firebombing and nuking them.

But, actually, how does this all this blockade talk relate to the undoubted moral vacuum in firebombing and nuking whole cities known to be populated by nearly entirely civilian populations? Enough deflection. The Religion Forum is our venue. We're dealing with the moral dimension. How can the deliberate and direct targeting of children who have done absolutely nothing be considered a moral act?

[Trailerpark Badass]

if it came down to it, we could have simply blockaded them and deprived them of all outside resources if we were so worried about really losing up to a million men. The peace-wing in the government, along with the general population, would have overridden whatever hawks were left in the military in pretty short-order, once blockade-induced privations really kicked in.

Japan, at least its civilian population, had been suffering "privations" for years at the hand of the military leadership, as strategic materials were allocated to the war effort. This accelerated as they prepared for ketsu go.

A blockade would have led to mass starvation and disease, from which it would have been those same elderly, women, and children who suffered most.

When all rhetoric called for total material sacrifice to defend the homeland, I think it's pretty naive to assume the blockade would have had some instant enlightening effect.

Is it more moral to starve elderly, women, and children to death?

[B-Chan]

I don’t think magisterium is a coward. I also don’t think magisterium is right about the willingness of Japan to surrender in August of 1945.

Dropping the atomic bomb was an evil act. So was firebombing Tokyo with ordinary incendiary bombs. So was Operation Starvation, LeMay’s deliberate campaign of sinking all Japanese merchant shipping to prevent food from reaching Japan from overseas. However, allowing the war to continue and the planned invasions to occur would have been evil as well. Left with the choice between the evil of murdering some Japanese civilians with firebombs and nukes, and the evil of murdering even more Japanese in an invasion, LeMay and Truman chose the evil that ended the war the fastest. I would have done the same thing, and accepted the moral consequences as they did.

[American Constitutionalist]

You forget how many times in the OLD TESTIMENT GOD commanded Israel ( even after the law was given ) to go and defeat it's enemies, and sometimes God commanded Israel to kill every man, woman and child.... so ? would you call God a murder ?
Tell us so ? how those people ( Israel's enemies ) are innocent or not innocent ?

Go do a Bible study sometime, we will learn somethings, and not propaganda heard by some leftist...

[agromination]

“We’re dealing with the moral dimension. How can the deliberate and direct targeting of children who have done absolutely nothing be considered a moral act?”

War isn’t cheap.

[magisterium]

I'll ignore the "making it personal" bit at the end of your charming post, and give you this tidbit:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hdoEpslpoi8C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=%22million+casualties%22+%22invasion+of+japan%22&source=bl&ots=YIbi3RYNH9&sig=ra9yrPHOeibc6EGSSlJFZi5RTaw&hl=en&ei=6VcbS5SkONC3lAfouLHvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22million%20casualties%22%20%22invasion%20of%20japan%22&f=false

You deserve nothing else from me. Call me a gutless coward, I'll call you a baby killer-wannabee. You're doubtless too much of an Armchair General to even be in a position to actually do it, so you're just a wannabee as far as I'm concerned. Have a nice life. Don't post to me again, or I go straight to the mod.

[B-Chan]

Since God is the Creator of all life, God can take life as he pleases, or command life to be taken.

Human beings do not have the ability to create human life, and therefore are forbidden from taking human life. Only a human being can commit murder.

[American Constitutionalist]

" We could have simply blockaded them and deprived them of all outside resources if we were so worried about really losing up to a million men. "

There you go again, making the case, that it's more moral to slowly starve a whole nation to death than it is then to drop 2 a-bombs in just 2 cities, yeah, slowly starving people to death including children is somehow more the " Christian " thing to do then dropping a-bombs.

[B-Chan]

For the record, here is the Church's position on war:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

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."

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

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." 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.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

As a Catholic, these are my positions as well.

[magisterium]

It is "more moral," at least in the sense that you're giving 80 million people a fighting chance to end this thing themselves against a militarily depleted government, when they've decided they've had enough. It is not optimal from a moral standpoint, but it is a "lesser of two evils" choice that might be all you're left with when all sides in the conflict have long-since painted themselves into a morally bankrupt corner anyway. The US and its allies were under no constraint to prosecute the war on the Japanese home islands if they really thought casualties would be on the order of a million men. So, yes, I believe a blockade is at least "less immoral" when it can empower the besieged to take matters into their own hands, when compared with the alternative: to firebomb and nuke whole cities that cannot defend themselves, and which are populated by non-combatant women and children.

[American Constitutionalist]

" But, actually, how does this all this blockade talk relate to the undoubted moral vacuum in firebombing and nuking whole cities known to be populated by nearly entirely civilian populations? Enough deflection "

No Sir, I strongly disagree, this is NOT deflection and you still do not see the point, either it's dropping bombs, or military blockade, or sieges, the results are still the same, some innocent people will die from slow starvation...... death is death no matter what way it is.... if you have a military blockade or siege, innocent children and people will die, and just because you put a different word or words on it, it's still lethal.
To allow people to slowly die of starvation is more in humane in war than dropping bombs to end the war quickly....
NO ONE WANTS WAR ! but, sometimes war is thrust upon us, either we are going to fight it and win and preserve freedom, or we are going to surrender and give into our enemies... it's plain as that...

[Basilides]

Please do go to the mod you gutless wonder...

As for your quote, Skates has since peeled back his stance due to analyses such as these:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~casualties/

CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

by D. M. Giangreco in the Journal of Military History, 61 (July 1997): 521-82

[American Constitutionalist]

" How can the deliberate and direct targeting of children who have done absolutely nothing be considered a moral act? "

You mean as in ABORTION ?????????????