Posted on 12/05/2009 6:00:32 PM PST by NYer
I don’t think anybody here is defending the Japanese or other enemies of WWII..
What I think we are saying was that the use of the bomb was immoral and many of us believe it was a war crime, evil, or something similar.
Really? How does the killing of an innocent child ever become moral?
If targeting an *entire* city for destruction - knowing full well it’s a civilian target - isn’t a war crime than I don’t know what is...
Hastening an end to the war does not justify the massive killing of civilians.
Remember, the charge of “war crimes” belongs to the victor - as stated elsewhere in this thread, you didn’t see any of our guys on trial because we happened to have won.
If targeting an *entire* city for destruction - knowing full well it’s a civilian target - isn’t a war crime than I don’t know what is...
Hastening an end to the war does not justify the massive killing of civilians.
Remember, the charge of “war crimes” belongs to the victor - as stated elsewhere in this thread, you didn’t see any of our guys on trial because we happened to have won.
.
Fat Man exploding over Nagasaki, Japan during its use.
>>The bomb was the humane way to bring the war in Japan to a rapid close.
Humane? The bomb was an example of man’s inhumanity to may - these people crawling around “croaking” wouldn’t agree that this was a humane way to die, nor was it humane that they were not soldiers and could not defend theirselves or shoot back.
“Unit 731’’ Harbin, China. Damn right. Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Bataan Death March.....
“Our soldiers, attacking in defense of our country, which was the victim of an un-provoked attack in WWII, were innocent.”
Even when they raped or murdered innocent civilians?
>>Our soldiers, attacking in defense of our country, which was the victim of an un-provoked attack in WWII, were innocent.
What I meant is that they were going to attack, not that they were evil, immoral, etc. In other words, the fact that they were part of an invasion force puts them in a far different category than the priest giving confession who died in the blast.
Ask the Japanese of the WW2 generation that question. They started the damn war.
(Value of Life of 1 American Soldier) > (Value of Lives of 1,000 Enemy Civilians)
The whole thing with the Japanese sounds to me like the kid that murdered both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
The Nation of Japan attacked us without warning while we were at peace and for the most part, the people cheered.
They slaughtered Chinese in every method imaginal for 10 years prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. Again, the people for the most part, approved. Admiral Yamoto advised against attacking America. For this assination plots were hatched against him.
And last but not least, every Japanese male , female, and child was ordered and indoctrinated to fight to the death when the Island was invaded. They were planning on inflicting at least 1 million casualites just on the beaches.
How many of those "innocent children" had practiced their gutting skills on the living bodies of US Service members?
Japan was putting weapons into the hands of those "innocent children" and telling them to kill for the Emperor.
Maybe this is a question you should be asking the parents of the cute little tots.
Killing innocent civilians in war is murder. It is a war crime. It is a means to an end that cannot be justified. Whether innocent civilians are killed by bullets, firebombs, conventional bombs, atomic weapons, or simply starved to death is irrelevant.
In our age, unfortunately, the structures of our various global civilizations are so complex and entwined that war cannot be fought without killing innocent civilians. It is therefore impossible to wage a just war in the modern age. It would therefore seem that the only moral way to respond to an attack in the modern age would be to surrender immediately, and accept slavery or extermination at the hands of the aggressor.
However, any such surrender is itself a moral failure. Allowing one’s children to be enslaved or exterminated when one has the means to resist is likewise to commit murder.
Therefore, when an aggressor nation attacks, there is no moral solution. All options are immoral. To resist an aggressor leads to murder. To acquiesce to an aggressor likewise amounts to murder.
God provides a moral solution to the problem of war in the modern age. His solution is to not make war. We are to love our enemies, which means never committing any act of aggression against them. If this law were followed by all nations, war would not exist.
But since the aggression of nation against nation does exist, we are left with no moral option when attacked. To resist aggression means to become murderers of innocent civilians. To surrender in the face of aggression also means to become murderers of innocent civilians. War therefore makes murderers of both sides. This is the great tragedy of war.
Therefore, since we will end up committing murder whether we resist aggression or acquiesce to it, the only choice remaining to us is to minimize the number of murders we commit in the cause of national defense. Since we must murder innocent civilians in order to survive, the best course of action is to keep the number of murders we commit to the minimum possible. This is done by fighting the war as brutally as possible, in order that war be ended as quickly as possible, and the amount of blood on our hands be kept as small as possible.
And afterwards, when the war is over and the aggressor has been vanquished, it remains to us to fall on our faces before the Just Judge and beg His mercy, receiving in humility His just recompense for the innocent blood that we have shed. We can only trust that God will forgive us of murder; we can only pay the temporal penalty for shedding innocent blood.
***
When an embryonic human being becomes implanted into the Fallopian tube of his or her mother, no chance of a live birth exists. The baby is certain to die if left to develop. The mother will also certainly die if the pregnancy continues. The parents or other responsible parties in such cases are therefore left with two options: murder the embryonic human being by removing it from the mother’s body, or murder both baby and mother by allowing the pregnancy to continue. Since murder is committed in both cases, no moral option exists. In such cases — as in war — all we can do is murder as few people as possible in order to save what life we can, and to accept the punishment for our actions without self-pity and without complaint.
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.