And yet another great reflection on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings

Last updated on: June 2, 2016 at 8:00 pm by Dave Griffey

And yet another great reflection on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings 2016-06-02T20:00:00-04:00 Dave Griffey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Over at the always interesting Sardonic Ex Curia, we have a reasoned discussion on this tough topic. He takes the case for and against the use of the bombs by examining the arguments of Fr. William Miscamble and G.E.M. Anscombe.

As usual, it’s a fair and insightful piece and worth at least a read or two. The treatment is balanced, and he brings up a great point, that the more credible case against the bombs ultimately leans on the action of the bombs itself. And from a Catholic point of view, that’s tough to argue with. Not that understanding the context or the surrounding world situation isn’t of value. It certainly is. And if condemnation of the decision is to be had, it should be with great fear and trembling and sorrow, for the loss of life and for those who were burdened with the choice between such horrible alternatives.

I will mention the hypothetical that is at the end of the post. It reads like this:

Let’s say that a certain wanted and proven crime boss is holed upon on the top floor of a building, which he owns, and he is well-supplied with food. He is behind thick glass and armored doors. He is surrounded with well-armed thugs who have enough ammunition to repel SWAT forces, and taking the floor will result in the serious loss of police forces. He will not come out unless he is guaranteed absolute extradition outside of the United States, but there are well-founded fears that he will simply continue his criminal enterprises from whichever foreign country, so the only option is his absolutely surrender or death. The crime boss has a wife and children for whom he truly cares, and these people have been placed in police protective custody pending outcome of the situation. He is known to be the head of a large and active drug network, which is responsible for many killings, and will likely continue to be until he is neutralized in some way.
In such a situation, which are the morally acceptable options?
1. The police can invade the floor, and risk heavy losses.
2. The police can bring down the entire building after warning the other inhabitants and giving them a chance to depart.
3. The police can wait for the crime boss to come out, risking a long siege / stakeout.
4. The police can attempt to bribe the crime boss out in some fashion.
5. The police can bring the crime boss’s family out to the front of the building, and threaten them with execution if he does not capitulate.

The one thing I would add is to choice number 3. In this case, remember we must conclude that the crime boss can, and likely will, randomly kill inhabitants of the building during the length of the siege. So many might die that to pursue option 2 might not end up with any higher casualty rate. In fact, some might survive the destroyed building easier than the rampaging crime boss. I think that’s a little closer to the situation as the allies understood it in August, 1945. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that the bombing as an act itself is either good or evil, no matter the context or the reasons surrounding it. The historical conditions, if it is an intrinsically evil act, don’t alter the evil of the act. And that’s assuming we will aver agree on the historical conditions.

Which is, of course, the problem. Whether Russia tipped the scales, or Japan was on its knees, or the Imperial high command was killing anyone with a peace sign, or an invasion was the only way, or dropping leaflets could have done the trick, are all arguments that will, in the end, have no final resolution. Just read why Napoleon lost Waterloo or Harold was defeated at Hastings for a taste of military history’s tenacious ability to avoid agreeing on historical events.

It’s ultimately a moral argument. And as I said, from a Christian point of view, I have a hard time saying yes to the decision as it was carried out. Thankfully, most people I know from that era didn’t see it as an awesome thing, but usually referred to it in some version of ‘such a horrible thing, but it had to happen.’ Perhaps it did. Perhaps it didn’t. In 2000 years historians might agree, but I doubt it.

My only insistence is that we don’t fall into partisan or nationalist banter, one way or another. I certainly wouldn’t want to hear anyone cheering the decision. At the same time, those who use the event as a convenient club to beat America over the head with, or as a shield to avoid confronting Japan’s horrendous track record, are just as bad as anyone cheering the deaths of thousands, if any do.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 2, 2016

Another thought about Hiroshima

Next Post

June 2, 2016 Memorial Day 2016

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Atheism Awesome things Bigotry for the hip American Blogging Books Catholic Catholic Teaching Catholics on the Internet Christian Persecution Christian Unity Christianity and America Christianity in the Post-Modern World Christianity in the world Culture of Death Culture of Life Current Events Decline and Fall of the Christian West Defending Liberty Fun Stuff Global Warming Good Causes Good News Gun Control Health Care History Holidays Homeschool Humor Important things Inspiring Stories Interesting Insights Interesting Stories Islam and the West Liberal "Tolerance" Liberal observations Life in a post-Christian world Memorial Movies Musings News Other Blogs Our Big Politically Correct Bother Politics Popular Culture Post Modern Values Prayers Pro Life Promoting LGBT Protecting Liberty Racism in the world today Scientism Social Observations Sports Strange Stories The Boys The Catholic Church and the Left The Decline and Fall of the American Dream The end of liberty The Faith and the Left The Faith and the Right The Family The Greatness of God The Internet The Leftist Juggernaut The LGBT Question The Media The Pope The post-liberal Left The Power of Propaganda Tributes Twilight of the American Experiment Uncategorized Uneducating Postmoderns When the Church is wrong Why learn from history when we can repeat it instead Wisdom in the Post Modern Age World Events

Select a Month August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What order did the four beasts that rose from the sea in Daniel's vision appear?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Leopard, bear, lion with eagle's wings, terrifying beast with iron teeth Bear, lion with eagle's wings, terrifying beast with iron teeth, leopard Terrifying beast with iron teeth, lion with eagle's wings, leopard, bear Lion with eagle's wings, bear, leopard, terrifying beast with iron teeth