www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Just war, pacifists, suicide bombers, and terrorists

I said the following:

"It seems the further back one goes in history the cheaper life becomes. When the first planes appeared during the First World War, the officers refused to give the pilots parachutes for fear they would escape from the planes too readily. After all the plane was worth more than any human. I could go on about how all those Generals should have been shot for war crimes but that was long, long ago."

I should have said:

When the first planes appeared in 'England' during the First World War, the English officers refused to give the pilots parachutes.

It was the English that held life cheaply as well as the French. The English and especially the French Generals did not gain an inch of territory during that war for two years, yet they kept sending their men out to die... And they did at the rate of 20,000 a day. Of course that was on both sides.

I believe this was the war that helped collapse the British Empire. It bothered the Australians who felt that their life was held to be the cheapest.

Zenovia

Yes, the targeting of civilians, a form of terrorism, did not begin with Hiroshima. The Allies consciously chose to indiscriminately destroy cities. Of course, the Axis was guilty of horrible crimes against humanity, as was Hussein today, and many of our allies then and now. My criticism of American actions should not be seen as blessing the crimes of others. Frequently Americans seem to think that it is sufficient to point out the crimes of others; that this excuses our own actions. Personally, I think that being American obliges me to first examine my own nation's sins. This is consistent with the Gospel: first pull the plank from your own eye, etc.
No, I don't think that Bush secretly orders maximum civilian deaths. But the myth of the "smart bomb" was long destroyed as further information leaked out after the first Gulf War. Indeed, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI [when he was a cardinal] said that the very nature of modern weaponry made just war problematic. Estimates of Iraqi deaths run to 100,000, but of course that is hard to verify, as the American military leadership long ago concluded that counting enemy deaths turns people antiwar...

I am not surprised that Rev Neuhaus can find a way to excuse nuclear warfare; he has certainly come a long way from the peace and civil rights marches, ideologically and materially [I understand that he lives, not in a rectory, but in a posh Manhattan apartment].

But what does the Church say?

Pius X, speaking of nuclear warfare, said "...it is no longer a question of defense against injustice...but of the annihilation, pure and simple, of all human life within its radius of action. This is not permitted in any account".
He is reported to have called the bombing of Hiroshima a "war crime".
Paul VI said of the atomic bombings that they were a "butchery of untold magnitude".
John Paul II, who more than fifty times publicly condemned the invasion of Iraq before it commenced, said that "Today the scale and horror of modern warfare -whether nuclear or not- makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations." Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, concurred that the War in Iraq was unjust, pointing out that "the concept of preventive war is not in the Catechism".
And the Church continues to proclaim, as it did at Vatican II [ Gaudium et Spes "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."
The Administrator's contention that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was targeting a military center, and that, I guess, the massive civilian deaths were a justifiable example of "collateral damage" is a novel and strange argument. 95% of the dead were innocent civilians; even if Hiroshima was a military target this would exceed proportionality, wouldn't it?
But even more primarily, what does the Gospel say? How can consequentialism be defended? What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?
-Daniel

Oh, and also, a good source for Catholic peace thinking, one that doesn't, like so many, insist on pacifism, is Catholic Peace Fellowship [catholicpeacefellowship.org]
-D

What exactly does Father Neuhaus� living situation have to do with the validity of his opinion? Will you then reject the Holy Father�s opinion because he happens to live the papal palace amid the splendor of Roman history?

It is the tactic of those who know they cannot support their position to instead resort to personal attack against those they disagree with. Iconophile, if you cannot make your argument without resorting to personal attack then maybe you should not make it. I think you need to accept that one can be either support the war effort or oppose it and (either way) remain a good Catholic.

A nice discussion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Dappled Things, recommended on the blog thread:
http://donjim.blogspot.com/ Here is a bit:
I agree with the administrator that it is unfortunate that iconophile included a comment on Neuhaus's apartment. Especially because that comment can be so neatly used to vitiate iconophile's entire argument - speaking of "tactics".

I think the crux here is the meaning of "indiscriminate". The traditional perspective, ISTM, would be that wiping out entire cities is inherently indiscriminate - it inherently involves huge losses of innocent lives - or to dissemble, "collateral damage". I think that it is quite an innovation, that goes against the expressed ideas of the Vatican on the specific matter, to assert otherwise - that one, for example, might avoid being "indiscriminate" merely by being discriminating in selecting the city to be annihilated; that prespective, in effect, absolves all targeting. Even the vilest terrorist is discriminating in this manner.

Btw, some may be interested to read a little of perspectives that go against the idea that the atomic bombs were necesary to bring the war to a swift end.http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Dear Friends,

Actually, my living conditions aren't exactly shabby either!

I keep telling my wife that we need a nice place for the icons . . .

Alex

Thanks for the supportive post, djs. The intent of my posts is to get iconophile to put forth his position intellectually. When he resorts to personal attacks (like he often does) he only succeeds in getting his argument ignored. There is a huge difference between �according to my understanding of what Pope John Paul II wrote the use of force by President Bush to respond to Saddam Hussein does not qualify as moral� and �the best thing I can say about President Bush is that he is �incompetent� and possibly an �unwitting stooge for darker powers��. When one continually resorts to the second type of argument (which is very uncharitable) one winds up being ignored.

I agree with djs that the crux is in the meaning of �indiscriminate�. I�ve been arguing that point for awhile now. I know some will disagree with my perspective but to me �indiscriminate� must be given a bit of elasticity. Is it wrong to bomb a munitions factory during a war when there will be �indiscriminate� deaths of civilian employees who are pretty much being forced to work there? Is it wrong to take out an entire military-oriented city of an enemy who has sworn to destroy us? Is it wrong to take out an enemy military unit hiding in a city when you know there will be one or more civilians? While I have stated numerous times that it is absolutely necessary to avoid civilian deaths I also think that it is wrong to hold an expectation of fighting a defensive war with an expectation that there will be no civilian deaths.

Where atomic bombs absolutely necessary to bring the war to a swift conclusion? I don�t know. I am not an expert in the military strategy of WWII but everything I have read indicates that those involved in the decision deliberated very carefully before concluding to use atomic weapons.

Was the use of atomic weapons necessary to end the war? No. We could have attempted to storm the island. That action may have resulted in a far higher death toll. Some estimates say it could been at least an additional hundred thousand dead (both Allied soldiers and Japanese civilian-soldiers). One might argue that there were other possibilities to end the war more quickly but will remain forever theoretical.

Pat Buchanan does a reasonably decent job of making the case against the need for bombing Hiroshima at: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Christian Morality [realclearpolitics.com] .

Victor David Hanson has interesting commentary on this issue at: Considering Hiroshima [nationalreview.com] . Excerpts: "The Imperial Japanese army routinely butchered civilians abroad � some 10-15 million Chinese were eventually to perish � throughout the Pacific from the Philippines to Korea and Manchuria. Even by August 1945, the Japanese army was killing thousands of Asians each month." and "The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice. Hiroshima was the most awful option imaginable, but the other scenarios would have probably turned out even worse."

An account of an interview with the crew of the Enola Gay can be found at: Carlson: No regrets - The crew that dropped the A-bomb did its job [desmoinesregister.com] .

My son had the priveledge of visiting Nagasaki and Hiroshima as part of a group chosen from his History Department last summer. Theirs was both a research trip (for college credit) and a mission of peace for the anniversary of the bombings.

They were special guests and attended all the ceremonies to commemorate that day. They were even on Japanese television. (I never did see the footage unfortunately)

He said it was one of the most moving occasions of his life.

There were many first hand stories, like the meeting with a Roman Catholic priest who showed them the miraculous intact statue of the Virgin Mary from a Church that was the only thing that survived and did not turn to dust.

There were tales of pain like the old woman who was just a girl at the time, and ran to her mother, but the full figure of her mother just turned to ash when she touched her, and how that young girl contemplated suicide.

What was, however, the single most touching and inspirational thing he came back with was the utter forgiveness and unconditional love that the survivors of that horror extended to this group of Americans.

In Christ,
Alice

There were other possibilities. The lack of scrutiny of the other possibilities is what leads to thh facile suggestion of Hanson, that "Hiroshima was the most awful option imaginable, but the other scenarios would have probably turned out even worse." The link I provided suggested that the sticking point was terms of surrender. We were holding out for an unconditional surrender, but ultimatley accepted the immunity of and the retaining of the Emperor anyway. Where is the truth? Hard to say, but it is pivotal to the lesser of multiple evils argument.

But as Fr. Tucker indicated, the lesser of evils, flies against Catholic teaching. Likewise for the ends justifying the means. And here we are not talking about limited collateral damage. We are talking about the instant incineration of a hundred thousand - without discrimination to their age or participation in and culpability for the war effort. This is the essence of "indiscriminate".

As a side note, I don't know if people remember that the hypocenter (ground zero) of the detonation over Nagasaki, the district known as Urakami was home to 80% of the 20,000 or so Nagasaki Catholics and almost all perished?

The detonation was originally centered above another district called Kokura but was overcast on that fateful day and Urakami took the brunt instead.

What the Japanese Imperial Government was unable to eradicate in more than 200 years of intense persecution was wiped out in an instant by an atomic bomb dropped by American Christians. St. Francis Xavier's Nagasaki Catholics were pulverized and gone!

Thankfully, by the grace of God and by the dint and courage of the Catholic survivors and immigration from the Philippines and from other Southeast Asian countries, Catholics throughout Japan now number more than a million!

Amado

I apologize for my commment about Rev Neuhaus' bourgeous life; it was irrelevant to the discussion. I know the Administrator understands that in the heat of discussion these things happen; at least I have seen him do the same from time to time
But I am sorry.
And while I certainly agree that one can support the war in Iraq and be a good Catholic [for some of my closest friends do] I will argue that one cannot defend bombing civilian populations and be a "good Catholic"; the Church has unhesitatingly condemned such acts.
Mr Buchanan, in the article the Admin linked, presents the argument against the use of nuclear terror quite cogently.
-Daniel

I don�t think that Hanson�s suggestion was facile at all. I think he is accurate in his analysis (he has stated it far better then I could have). What other method do you suggest that would have guaranteed total surrender? Was sending troops to take the island and risking hundreds of thousands of more deaths (American troops and Japanese civilian-soldiers) a better option? Why? Our decision makers were worried about the threat to our troops should there not be a total surrender. It was not, like some revisionists suggest, merely a point of pride for America.

The whole �lesser of multiple evils� and �ends justifying the means� arguments are pretty silly. Those making the decision were indeed choosing between a bunch of options they didn�t want to consider (remember that we didn�t start the war). They also didn�t sit around saying �if we kill a lot of innocent civilians now we can save lives in the long run�. What they did was to attack an enemy who would have either killed or enslaved every single American if they had won the war. As I study history I can wish that such a decision was not necessary but I really have no qualms with it.

I was in Hiroshima in 1997 on business (actually at a manufacturing plant in nearby Koryama). There was little time for sightseeing but I did get to spend the afternoon wandering alone in an open air market that was teaming with Japanese of all ages. A good number of them came up to me to speak with me (because they were friendly, because I was a foreigner, and because they knew some English they wanted to try). It was a wonderful experience.

I only had one conversation about Hiroshima, at a dinner honoring the representatives of my business organization (one of my traveling partners or me had asked something about the memorial). They did not wish to dwell upon it but it was pretty clear to me that they still very much felt shame for the War. I found it interesting that the publications I brought back did not mention the United States at all. They were pretty uniform in referring to Hiroshima as �only one of two places were atomic weapons were used in war� (or something along those lines).

I found the Japanese people to be warm and extremely friendly. But I still am not sure I forgive them for serving me raw squid in some sort of raw egg sauce. I will be eternally thankful for the Japanese guy on my left who said: �I hate that and if I hate that John will hate that. Order him something else.� Not much later I was served a delicious plate of chicken teriyaki.

Look over Weber's article at the IHR link, or the Buchanan article, and reflect on the necessity of unconditional surrender. Hanson presupposes, without rationale or historical analysis, the necessity of unconditional surrender. Could we have accepted a surrender that allowed for legal immunity of the Emperor and for the continuation of a ceremonial posiiton of Emperor - both conditions we ultimately adopted? Would this have precluded the need for invasion or the atomic bombing? Difficult to say. But any analysis that concludes that what we did was the best of our options - that we either had to a-bomb or to invade - and doesn't address the other possibilities - is facile.

The war was lost for Japan before the a-bombs were dropped. They knew it. And we knew that they knew it. It was simply a matter of finding terms and a way to settle. It is thus wrong to suggest that an imminent, grave threat justified, morally, the a-bombing. That acute threat had long passed. In fact, to raise it in this context, sounds more like a revenge motive that a military one.

Actually the records suggest that those conducting the war did give some thought, thank God, to the ethics of their action, and did, in effect make this immoral calculation. (Certainly people who say, on the whole this action saved lives, are making that very calculation.) Perhaps you are right, however, that they just acted with utter indifference to the ethics of their conduct. Perhaps it was just the wartime mentality that required unconditional surrender of an enemy that started it, with no holds barred. I hope that we could agree that such indifference is immoral, period.