Japan In Wwii

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1270185883' post='2085398']
(It would have been just as wrong if 100% of them were Taoist.)
[/quote]
i agree...but did you know that only 1 % of the Japanese population at the time were Christian? And they were all concentrated in the areas of hiroshima and nagasaki....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='02 April 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1270185984' post='2085401']
i agree...but did you know that only 1 % of the Japanese population at the time were Christian? And they were all concentrated in the areas of hiroshima and nagasaki....
[/quote]
Yea, it really is odd. Although personally, I'd rather believe that Christians were specifically targeted if that was the only logical position left to take. I prefer, maybe just for my own sanity, to assume that for some reason, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were attractive places for Christians to be, and that is somehow related to them also being attractive targets to be devastated.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1270184328' post='2085389']
There's a difference in principle here. The atomic bombs targeted civilians. This is wrong in every single circumstance, fullstop. I won't pretend to know much about wars and diplomacy, but what I do know is that civilians cannot be targeted. That's pretty basic.
Maybe my alternative ideas were poor. I can accept that. However, decimating Nagasaki and Hiroshima cannot be justified by a Catholic. The good end (ending the war) cannot justify the evil means (targeting civilians). That's Catholic morality 101.
[/quote]
If you have two choices, you make the one causing the least damage. Every man, woman, and child were trained to resist and kill,they did not consider themselves "civilians" as we would use the term now, millions more people on both sides would have died.
"Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West.). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[32]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[33]
our favorite wiki.

Nagaski was picked because it was the shipbuilding port for the Imperial Navy. Hiroshima was the headquarters of one of the armies, a key military port, and a depot for supplies. The idea that it was picked because there were christians there is simple conspiracy theory croutons.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='02 April 2010 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1270207270' post='2085476']
If you have two choices, you make the one causing the least damage. Every man, woman, and child were trained to resist and kill,they did not consider themselves "civilians" as we would use the term now, millions more people on both sides would have died.
"Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West.). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[32]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[33]
our favorite wiki.

Nagaski was picked because it was the shipbuilding port for the Imperial Navy. Hiroshima was the headquarters of one of the armies, a key military port, and a depot for supplies. The idea that it was picked because there were christians there is simple conspiracy theory croutons.
[/quote]

I think natives of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would disagree...unless you believe devout Christians also had this mentality of dying for the "divine" emperor and their homeland...these people were victims...not aggressors!

..i believe there were more important military targets out there other than these two cities... and yes, i wouldn't doubt the masons in our government (including our president at the time..) would take into consideration dropping the bomb over a Roman Catholic Cathedral...somewhat appealing...

[dominicansoul]

Did you know Truman was Grand Master? Did you know that he had a full Masonic service when he died? He was one of the few presidents who remained very active in his masonic service while serving as president...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='02 April 2010 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1270207270' post='2085476']
If you have two choices, you make the one causing the least damage. Every man, woman, and child were trained to resist and kill,they did not consider themselves "civilians" as we would use the term now, millions more people on both sides would have died.
"Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West.). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[32]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[33]
our favorite wiki.

Nagaski was picked because it was the shipbuilding port for the Imperial Navy. Hiroshima was the headquarters of one of the armies, a key military port, and a depot for supplies. The idea that it was picked because there were christians there is simple conspiracy theory croutons.
[/quote]
So was it a-ok to kill close to a million Japanese civilians? Nearly the same amount who were killed at Auschwitz? This is all utilitarian thinking. They didn't have to be killed.

[CatherineM]

If each civilian had been given weapons such as grenades, and the training to use them, are they still civilians? I don't know, but I do think that question needs to be asked.

As to the military targets at both cities, here's what the geniuses at wikipedia had to say:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='02 April 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1270221397' post='2085544']
I think natives of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would disagree...unless you believe devout Christians also had this mentality of dying for the "divine" emperor and their homeland...these people were victims...not aggressors!

..i believe there were more important military targets out there other than these two cities... and yes, i wouldn't doubt the masons in our government (including our president at the time..) would take into consideration dropping the bomb over a Roman Catholic Cathedral...somewhat appealing...
[/quote]

cmother says when you have two bad options, you have to take the least worse. that only works when you have no other options. you can only say 'it's not justifyging the means, when it's the lesser of two evils', when it's only optiosn there. targeted nukes, or nukes just to show the power on noncivilian or even human places, would have worked, probably. it's not like it's nuke em, or millions would die alteratively. that sort of far fetched mentality is just to justify the preconceived notio taht we had to bomb them. it's a positio that was probably engrained to most of the people here, who say 'the bombs were okay'. never mind the sensibility of a middle zone in nukes, and how the war was swiftly coming to an end anyway.
they're just making it clear, taht there was no justificatio for dropping two nukes so abruptly like they did, cause they offer no rational justfication, for anyone who claims to be chrsitian.
and, it's not like we're judging them. we're 'characterizing their situation', it's not like we're saying 'they're bad' or 'they're going to hell' for dropping them, etc etc.

Edited April 2, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

An armed civilian is still a civilian, not a member of the military. That said, too much resistance from an armed populace could make them legitimate targets.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='02 April 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1270221744' post='2085546']
Did you know Truman was Grand Master? Did you know that he had a full Masonic service when he died? He was one of the few presidents who remained very active in his masonic service while serving as president...
[/quote]
Let's get away from any sort of conspiracy theories. I like to spit when I see Masons as much as the next Catholic (not exaggerating) but if you think Christians were targeted as part of a Mason plot you're 1. not addressing the topic and 2. [i]playing right into their hands[/i]

Edited April 2, 2010 by toledo_jesus

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1270225480' post='2085563']
So was it a-ok to kill close to a million Japanese civilians? Nearly the same amount who were killed at Auschwitz? This is all utilitarian thinking. They didn't have to be killed.
[/quote]
The Japanese didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor. You are denying that war changes things, which is preposterous.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='02 April 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1270237812' post='2085631']
The Japanese didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor. You are denying that war changes things, which is preposterous.
[/quote]
War does not change the moral law:

[quote]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."

--Catechism of the Catholic Church #2312[/quote]
[quote]"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.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church #2314[/quote]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='02 April 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1270241487' post='2085659']
War does not change the moral law:
[/quote]
I'm sure the Japanese would have been very impressed by the Catechism if we'd dropped that instead of a-bombs.
I'm not trying to be flippant about the Church teachings, because I submit to them, but I really don't think you and the others are seriously engaging here. You just keep quoting things that would only matter in an ideal world where everyone agreed on ethics and moral standards for war.
We weren't there, we don't know the true military situation. If the leaders at that time felt the best option for preventing needless fatalities was to drop the atom bombs, I accept their informed judgment and trust in God's mercy to those placed in such a situation.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 April 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1270225480' post='2085563']
So was it a-ok to kill close to a million Japanese civilians? Nearly the same amount who were killed at Auschwitz? This is all utilitarian thinking. They didn't have to be killed.
[/quote]
The combined death toll at wiki is 246,000 as a result of the atomic bombs. The total of 1 million is from all the bombing over the course of 3 years. And in every case leaflets were dropped over the cities and people were urged to leave. If you live in a town with a military depot and you are at work you can expect to be bombed.

In case of war in the US, I live in a prime target area and expect to be blown to bits.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='02 April 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1270242610' post='2085665']
I'm sure the Japanese would have been very impressed by the Catechism if we'd dropped that instead of a-bombs.
I'm not trying to be flippant about the Church teachings, because I submit to them, but I really don't think you and the others are seriously engaging here. You just keep quoting things that would only matter in an ideal world where everyone agreed on ethics and moral standards for war.
We weren't there, we don't know the true military situation. If the leaders at that time felt the best option for preventing needless fatalities was to drop the atom bombs, I accept their informed judgment and trust in God's mercy to those placed in such a situation.
[/quote]
we weren't there...but the Catholic Church was...how can you say that Her teachings only work "in an ideal world?"

Edited April 2, 2010 by dominicansoul