When the Sun Turned Black

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

[narses]

“That was what was coming. That was what was stopped.”

Nonsense.

But then the inverse seems fair. Would you allow your children and family to be nuked to prevent Global Warming?

[narses]

“There is NO justification for such acts.”

Good. Then why justify them?

[narses]

“Actually a lot of them had. So sorry. “

Nope, none of the innocent ones, say under a year old?

[magisterium]

To a large extent, I agree with you. The current means of worldwide destruction at the hands of the major world powers is something so disproportionate that I don't think full-scale modern war can ever be justified morally. And current military practices short of nuclear options often quickly devolve into what used to be called "atrocities," too. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in our day, to fight a defensive war totally consistent with the Just War Theories that are usually cited.

Having said that, though, I do believe that, as a principle, countries unjustly attacked are within their rights to defend themselves in proper proportion and against combatant forces. Certainly, World War Two could have been prosecuted by the Allies in that sort of fashion, had the desire been truly present. From a religious POV, that would have doubtless shortened, rather than lengthened, the war, as God would have been clearly "on our side."

However, there was no desire to conduct our affairs that way. The temptation to sheer vengeance and "giving 'em back ten-fold" was politically overwhelming, even if our governments weren't otherwise inclined to lie to our citizens about "necessities" of what boil-down to atrocities.

It is hard to see how a serious Christian can really view a military career as inherently honorable in the sight of God, these days. No major power has conducted a war since WW1 without major atrocities, and pretty much all of the banana republics that have had it out with each other, or within a civil war context, since WW2 wind-up gorging themselves in insane bloodbaths. All wars that I can think of over the last 100 years have either quickly submerged "self-defense" considerations in favor of animalistic blood-lust, or they never really had legitimate "self-defense" considerations in the first place. Our world, on that score alone, is doubtless in "serious trouble" with the one Judge who matters. His letting us have our own way in these matters is a fitting punishment.

[narses]

Really? How so? Targeting military assets with bombs that had a limited range fit the definition of a Just War. Choosing to bomb civilians does not.

[Basilides]

Borrowing from the cosmological anthropic principal of why the universe is the way it is — because if it were any different we wouldn’t be here to observe it,

I justify it simply on the grounds that I am here to do so.

[the invisib1e hand]

too graphic, thanks.

but that's one thing about our age -- there is no sensitivity, no sublety. graphic language (or images) are about the only thing that can hold a modern person's attention for any length of time.

[10mm]

I consider enemy civilian population centers as legitimate targets in war. This would include what you call "innocent children". If a potential enemy does not want their civilians massacred, they should think twice before starting a war.

It is also no coincidence that the last war won by the United States was one in which civilians were actively targeted.

[narses]

So if your kidneys are failing murder for parts is OK?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Not nonsense. Truth. Check out what was going on in China. Go read a bit about Unit 731.

But then the inverse seems fair. Would you allow your children and family to be nuked to prevent Global Warming?

That is a stupid question as global warming is not harmful where the black death is. So the answer is no.

So let me know when you are ready to pick up the challenge.

[narses]

Stupid question beget stupid questions. Had the science of WWII been as close to TEOTWAWKI then we can be sure others would have picked up the slack since then. Your odd red herring is exactly on par with mine. And you have YET to answer my simple and civil question.

How does the killing of an innocent child ever become moral?

[Basilides]

False analogy...stick to the historical context and dispense with the sophomoric logic...

We are dealing more with a Sophie’s Choice here...somebody is going to die regardless beacuse of a situation not of your making...

[ConorMacNessa]

Two major industrial cities that were vital to the Japanese war effort were taken out without the loss of an American life. Sounds like a favorable result to me.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

So sad that their parents chose that way.

Let me know how your infection goes. Maybe you should appoint a next of kin to let me know when to send dandelions to your funeral.

[narses]

Nope. Two MINOR cities. Major industrial targets had already been obliterated.

How does the killing of an innocent child ever become moral?

[narses]

How does the killing of an innocent child ever become moral?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Like I said go read what they were up to. They actually tried it. And they have. No one has been stupid enough to release it but a host of nasty bio-weapons are sitting on the shelves of labs waiting for some to be suicidal enough to use it.

You might remember that the Japanese were suicidal.

[ConorMacNessa]

I disagree. They were industrial cities and they were still in play - still working to support the Japanese military machine.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[Jeff Chandler]

I used to teach engineering design in high school.

It's a good thing you didn't teach English Composition.