Japan In Wwii

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='02 April 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1270271915' post='2085913']
If memory serves the Japanese Emperor who was still considered a god at the time, effectively drafted every Japanese citizen. And planed to fight for every inch of the Japanese mainland.
[/quote]

As already shown, the Japanese had offered to surrender already, asking only that the Emperor's person be respected. As to civilians being "drafted" are you trying to argue that this somehow justifies their destruction? Consider this from John McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan O.P. Their works on moral theology were standard texts in seminaries prior to Vatican II. This one is entitled "Moral Theology on War: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities" published in 1958:

"Occasionally it is argued that modern "total" warfare demands that allcitizens contribute to the war effort and that consequently everyone isa combatant. The argument can hardly be sustained, for Catholicdoctrine insists that those whose participation is only remote andaccidental are not to be classified as combatants. In a well-documentedarticle on "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing," by John C. Ford,S.J. (Theological Studies, V,1944, pp. 261-309), the validity of the distinction between combatantsand innocent non-combatants, even in the condition of modern war, isupheld. Fr. Ford shows that in an industrial city, as found in theUnited States, three-fourths of the population belong to thenon-combatant category, and he lists more than a hundred trades orprofessions which, according to the natural law, exclude their membersfrom the category of combatants. Direct attacks on such a populationclearly would constitute unjustifiable killing or wounding ofnon-combatants."

S.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='03 April 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1270271915' post='2085913']
If memory serves the Japanese Emperor who was still considered a god at the time, effectively drafted every Japanese citizen. And planed to fight for every inch of the Japanese mainland.
[/quote]

...then maybe truman should have decided to drop the bomb on the emperor's head...not on the Almighty God's house...

[quote name='Skinzo' date='03 April 2010 - 07:59 AM' timestamp='1270295964' post='2085964']
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "critical targets". The factories which were there had never been bombed prior to the atomic attacks. Of the 33 prime targets the USA had listed in Japan, it is a fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never mentioned. And, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted in 1946 : " "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." At Nagasaki it was the Catholic cathedral that was destroyed first, as Karl Keating puts it:
"Fat Man exploded directly above the Catholic cathedral in Nagasaki. Thecity was the historical center of Catholicism in Japan and containedabout a tenth of the entire Catholic population. The cathedral wasfilled with worshipers who had gathered to pray for a speedy and justend to the war. It is said their prayers included a petition to offerthemselves, if God so willed it, in reparation for the evilsperpetrated by their country."

From the National Catholic Register, Aug. 31, 2005:
"PopePaul VI called America's use of the atomic bomb "butchery of untoldmagnitude." Pope John Paul II called it "a self-destruction of mankind"and named Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Auschwitz as places marked by man'ssin that should now be places of pilgrimage. <br style=""><br style="">TheSecond Vatican Council condemned our nation's use of the atomic bomb.The Catechism repeats its denunciation verbatim in No. 2314:

"Everyact of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole citiesor vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man,which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

No matter howvicious the Japanese war tactics were, and they were cruel and brutal,America crossed a line we never should have crossed.

Though wewere surprised at the intensity of readers' response, we can understandthe concern that many letters expressed. The Church's condemnation ofthe bomb is severe and unsettling. It could seem that, by calling ouruse of the atomic bomb a "crime against God and man" and comparingHiroshima and Nagasaki to Auschwitz, the Church is making America'sposition in World War II the moral equivalent of our enemies'.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Americansacrifices in World War II are not in the least impugned by thejudgment that our president was wrong to use the atomic bomb. WithoutAmerica's contribution to the war, the world would be a very different,and much darker, place. Pope John Paul II himself said he was"personally grateful for what America did for the world in the darkestdays of the 20th century."

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen in hisseries of talks titled "What Now America?" said that, by our tacitrefusal to recognize the evil of the atomic bomb, Americans becamesusceptible to a new notion of freedom -- one divorced from morality.<br style=""><br style="">

"When,I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom meanshaving no boundaries and no limits?" he asked. "I think it began on the6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.... Somehow or other, from that day on in our American life, we say wewant no limits and no boundaries."





S.<br style="">
[/quote]

the beginning of the culture of DEATH in America......

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='03 April 2010 - 10:17 AM' timestamp='1270307858' post='2086026']

the beginning of the culture of DEATH in America......
[/quote]
That may be a very interesting observation. I'll have to think about it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

whether the cities were civilian. the principal of double effect, allows one to get around the 'ends means' prohibitions if a result wasn't intended. many times in war, civilians die, collateral damage it's referred to, morally allowed via the principal of double effect. even if it's known that civilians are probably going to die.
with that said, trying to get around 'ends means' etc by only putting up a facade doesn't work either though. if you are bombing an area to kill civilians, but put up a banner which says 'oh see there's military stuff there', taht doesn't fly, as the intention is what truly matter, true intention, not fluff. that'd be a violation. as i quoted recently, it was picked because of the military stuff, and because of the densely populated area. if it was at targeted because of the population, it was immoral. as an objective act, it could have been a place proper to pick, but they only had bad intentions... but it wasn't even objectively that great f a pick. they could have and should have focused on more military dense places. the places were picked because of the civilian population, and the only reason anyone would... is because of the civilian population- it's pretty cut and dry.

[Winchester]

Can we have that in English?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 April 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1270271582' post='2085910']
I specifically alluded to Japanese war crimes in my poll. I don't see how evil actions by one side justify further evil form the other. Did Pearl Harbour justify military response? In my opinion, yes. Did it justify killing civilians? No. I find that to be unjustifiable.


I'm referring to both the atomic bombs and the firebombing. 1 million is an appalling amount of civilian deaths. It's an appalling amount of deaths period.
[/quote]
you can't fight a modern war without killing civilians. end of story until Detroit finishes making Robocop.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='03 April 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1270314199' post='2086120']
you can't fight a modern war without killing civilians. end of story until Detroit finishes making Robocop.
[/quote]
making robocops to fight wars would be the coolest thing...no more human casualties...

...somehow I think that wouldn't suffice, though...not to the powers that be...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='03 April 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1270314534' post='2086122']
making robocops to fight wars would be the coolest thing...no more human casualties...

...somehow I think that wouldn't suffice, though...not to the powers that be...
[/quote]
what are you talking about? Robocops would KILL with absolute precision. No more [i]civilian [/i]casualties. Also, Robocop is a cyborg (human machine hybrid), not a robot as the name implies.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='03 April 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1270314709' post='2086123']
what are you talking about? Robocops would KILL with absolute precision. No more [i]civilian [/i]casualties. Also, Robocop is a cyborg (human machine hybrid), not a robot as the name implies.
[/quote]
ohhh...i was thinking more like....the enemy would send their robocops to battle our robocops.....

[CatherineM]

I heard a story about how Pacific island tribes had wars. They would line up all their men, and each chief would kill one of their own, then the other chief would do the same. Eventually one of the chiefs would surrender before having to kill another man.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='03 April 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1270314199' post='2086120']
you can't fight a modern war without killing civilians. end of story until Detroit finishes making Robocop.
[/quote]
Sure, but [u]morally[/u] you can't fight [s]a modern war[/s] any war *while specifically targeting* civilians, [b]which is what the firebombing and atomic bombing did[/b].

Like I said, I'd rather lose a war morally than win one with evil. No matter the circumstances.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 April 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1270322533' post='2086199']
Sure, but [u]morally[/u] you can't fight [s]a modern war[/s] any war *while specifically targeting* civilians, [b]which is what the firebombing and atomic bombing did[/b].

Like I said, I'd rather lose a war morally than win one with evil. No matter the circumstances.
[/quote]

I wonder if laying siege upon a city would be considered targeting civilians.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 April 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1270323880' post='2086220']
I wonder if laying siege upon a city would be considered targeting civilians.
[/quote]
Hm, good question. I guess it depends on whether or not the siege is more to limit resources coming in, or just to raze the entire city. Probably depends on how it's conducted.

[Lilllabettt]

i haven't read the entire thread.

I'm just responding to the posts about how Truman etc. knew that the Japanese were on the brink of surrender, and just wanted to see how the bomb would work / demonstrate US military power etc.

My university happens to be the depository of the National Security Archives, so students always have to include research from there in papers. I did some on this particular issue (why Truman dropped the bomb .. not if it was a moral choice.)

I've read the minutes from the "Interim Committee" thing that made all these decisions, its all declassified. There's a record up until two days before the dropping of the first bomb of them talking about how its going to be another six months at least before Japan surrenders ...

An interesting thing I found out: did you know Truman never gave the order to drop the bomb? The momentum was so strong that everyone just pushed ahead and did it.

He received a briefing about the devastating effects of the first bomb a few hours after the dropping of the second bomb ... at which point he said there would be no more without a presidential order.

fyi, I think the use of weapons of mass destruction is immoral. But I am not about blaming the people who did it. May God have mercy on them, that's all I can say.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='03 April 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1270331873' post='2086297']
But I am not about blaming the people who did it.
[/quote]

Those people had free will. They are responsible for what they did.