Just war and today's wars

[Ice_nine]

I agree with Credo. It's hard for me to make it through that video.

I've heard the argument that Japanese people were strongly nationalistic and/or being mobilized into a military force but isn't that a similar logic that al-queida (sp?) used when they attacked the US in 2001? If there is no live between civilian and soldier then why can't you take your aggression out on any member of a nation to address your grievances? Why is it a terrorist attack in one instance and an act of war in another?

 

I really think this is a great song that addresses the use of nuclear weapons in history. If you're a fan of hip-hop check it out. WARNING: there's an f-bomb and another word for feces in the third verse if that will bother you.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Just war is always defending your nation, it is never Just if you launch an attack on another nation un provoked and than what is provoking and how much provoktion is needed before one can defend oneself. And in Just war you are allowed to use all means necessary to subdue the enemy. That's my understanding of just war doctrine. It's only my personal idea and have only read just war posts here on phatmass. Modern warfare has perhaps deepened actually in its understanding of just where only military targets are bombarded, wheras previously you would just shell the whole town or city.

Though now that i think about it it wasn't so true in operation desert storm, bahgdad had the croutons blown out of it. But i guess the final blow needs to be the killer. I hate violence as much as any wanna be martyr but also i think not all are called to be martyrs.

If i had a say a just war would be only millitary targets to be targeted, even if that means getting on the ground and many more casualties.

But humanatarian wise where trying to avoid casualties on our side but not on theres, which is kind of flip side, but also in an all out ground war invasion of japan, there may have been as many casualties as the bomb being dropped if japan had the time to fortify, if not more.

I honestly don't know, i'm no expert on just war tactics from the catholic perspective.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Norseman82]

What makes it worse is that these targets were chosen partially for the shock value. Another option was to blow up a bomb off shore or in a remote part of Japan as a demonstration.

But it was decided they needed to kill masses of civilians in order to achieve the desired goal. The other options weren't horrifying enough. Chilling.

One of the things I have read was that the reason Hiroshima was chosen was because it was never previously bombed, and therefore it was the best chance to study the effects of the bomb without other data "tainting" it.  To me, that is what is chilling.   

[beatitude]

To me the most sickening thing was Nagasaki - that they could go and drop a second bomb when they knew what the first one had done. And that the bombardiers and ground staff wrote jeering 'hello' messages on that second bomb before it was loaded onto the plane, even though they knew what it was going to do. It makes me wonder what it takes to become so sick at soul and violent.

[Socrates]

I agree with Credo. It's hard for me to make it through that video.

I've heard the argument that Japanese people were strongly nationalistic and/or being mobilized into a military force but isn't that a similar logic that al-queida (sp?) used when they attacked the US in 2001? If there is no live between civilian and soldier then why can't you take your aggression out on any member of a nation to address your grievances? Why is it a terrorist attack in one instance and an act of war in another?

 

I don't think the bombing of cities full of civilians was morally right, and think a military or remote target should've been used first.  (Though it could be argued that even that would not have stopped the Japanese government, with its fanatical and suicidal "death before dishonor" policy.)

But those bombings weren't in response to the Japanese people being "nationalistic" or "mobilized into a military force" (that much was true of every major nation at the time).  It was after years of a long, brutal, bloody war to the death, that the Japanese absolutely refused to surrender, continuing suicidal Kamikaze bombings long after they had been solidly militarily defeated.  If continued unstopped, this could have caused much further deaths on both sides, until all Japanese fighting-age men were killed.

The war with the U.S. was initialized by Japan with its attack on Pearl Harbor, which wiped out most of America's naval fleet.

Without justifying the bombings of those cities, your simplistic comparison to the 9-11 terrorist attacks is ignorant and completely ignores the reality of the circumstances.

[NadaTeTurbe]

To me the most sickening thing was Nagasaki - that they could go and drop a second bomb when they knew what the first one had done. And that the bombardiers and ground staff wrote jeering 'hello' messages on that second bomb before it was loaded onto the plane, even though they knew what it was going to do. It makes me wonder what it takes to become so sick at soul and violent.

The demonization of the ennemy was terrible during the Pacific war (in both camp). in 1944, for exemple, the magazine Life published a picture of a young, pretty woman, watching a japanese skull that her fiancée sent to her : http://time.com/3880997/young-woman-with-jap-skull-portrait-of-a-grisly-wwii-memento/ 
The american mutilation of japanese dead was terrible : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead 

[SaintOfVirtue]

Had we continued fighting in an ethical fashion, regardless of how many more would have died, they would have died in a way which was truly honorable. 

But let's ask ourselves today if Fr.'s thinking is correct.  We could nuke ISIS right now. Would that be the best moral option for us to take? What if other countries supported our decision and the data supported the hypothesis that it would save more lives in the long run? Would we stil be justified in nuking them knowing innocent civilians would also die? Hopefully anyone with a moral compass would agree it would not be the right decision to take such actions regardless of if "all" other options have failed.  We are morally obligated to continue fighting the good fight and to give our lives for this good fight instead of fighting a bad fight and securing temporary happiness in exchange for eternal ruin.  

I shouldn't be getting involved in this debate, but I believe what you are saying is twisted and delusional.

"Regardless of how many more would have died?"  Really? So if we stormed the island, lost men on the beaches, lost men in the cities, the fields, the caves, and mountains and then on top of that killed the entire population to win, it would have been "truly honorable".  That's sounds sicker and more twisted a moral philosophy than the bomb.  Does it make any difference in the end whether they died by infantryman or atomic bomb? No. the fact of the matter is that war is a gruesome and ugly thing and people who cannot come to terms with that say the sort of things you do.  Essentially: "More should have died to prevent this atrocity."  Give me a break. Then we'd be talking about the atrocity of how we exterminated an entire people when we could have broken their spirit to continue fighting with two bombs and forced a surrender.  Every time the bomb debate comes up I hear someone say exactly what you said, and while I find myself on the fence about whether the bomb was justified or not, I find it utterly disgusting to hear people say that it would have been morally right/desirable for more to die.  You defeat your own argument with your solution.

Edited August 10, 2015 by SaintOfVirtue

[Nihil Obstat]

The moral choice was between "A" and "not A". Not between A and B and C and D. The moral object of A is inherently evil, therefore A is morally forbidden.

[Credo in Deum]

I shouldn't be getting involved in this debate, but I believe what you are saying is twisted and delusional.
"Regardless of how many more would have died?"  Really? So if we stormed the island, lost men on the beaches, lost men in the cities, the fields, the caves, and mountains and then on top of that killed the entire population to win, it would have been "truly honorable".  That's sounds sicker and more twisted a moral philosophy than the bomb.  Does it make any difference in the end whether they died by infantryman or atomic bomb? No. the fact of the matter is that war is a gruesome and ugly thing and people who cannot come to terms with that say the sort of things you do.  Essentially: "More should have died to prevent this atrocity."  Give me a break. Then we'd be talking about the atrocity of how we exterminated an entire people when we could have broken their spirit to continue fighting with two bombs and forced a surrender.  Every time the bomb debate comes up I hear someone say exactly what you said, and while I find myself on the fence about whether the bomb was justified or not, I find it utterly disgusting to hear people say that it would have been morally right/desirable for more to die.  You defeat your own argument with your solution.

You make alot of assumptions and I'm sorry you cannot see the ethics behind having military men fighting each other vs wipping out both military and civilian indescriminantly via automic weapons.  Sorry but saying "war is gruesome and an ugly thing" does not take away our moral obligation to do what is morally right during times of war. You also jump to the odd conclusion that every Japanese citizen was ready to fight and die for the empire. This is a common tatic used to jusitfy the use of bombs and one born out of more delusion than my own.  You probably think we should nuke North Korea since all of its citizens love their brutal dictator and would need a show of power to sap them of their desire to die for their opressive government.  

 

[truthfinder]

And in Just war you are allowed to use all means necessary to subdue the enemy. That's my understanding of just war doctrine. 

idk, if Tab is on here right now, but I still wanted to address this statement, because I don't think it has addressed yet.  Just war does not say you can use all force necessary. You are not allowed to directly attack civilians; civilian casualties are to be minimized; only as much force as necessary to defend is to be used. 

There are an equal number debates over whether fire-bombings were just, but maybe the nuclear bombs are more discussed because they were so dramatic and pointed to a very clear shift in warfare.  I think you could make a good argument, though, that the mentality to hit civilians was well in place through the firebombings and not a new strategy. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

idk, if Tab is on here right now, but I still wanted to address this statement, because I don't think it has addressed yet.  Just war does not say you can use all force necessary. You are not allowed to directly attack civilians; civilian casualties are to be minimized; only as much force as necessary to defend is to be used. 

There are an equal number debates over whether fire-bombings were just, but maybe the nuclear bombs are more discussed because they were so dramatic and pointed to a very clear shift in warfare.  I think you could make a good argument, though, that the mentality to hit civilians was well in place through the firebombings and not a new strategy. 

Yes, I think the fire bombings of Japan and Germany were every bit as evil, and morally speaking identical to the nuclear bombs. When I am being more careful I always try to refer to both at once.

[little2add]

l

A British sniper from the elite SAS saved an 8-year-old boy and his father from an Islamic State executioner by shooting the executioner in the head last month.

The SAS sniper team was reportedly tipped off to the execution in the Syrian desert by an Iraqi spy. When they arrived, they found that several Shia Muslims had already been beheaded by their captors. The IS (commonly referred to as ISIS) executioner, flanked on both sides by armed companions, was preparing to kill a young boy and his father next when the SAS team deployed its .50-caliber silenced sniper rifle.

“The ISIS thug who was about to decapitate the father was shot in the head and collapsed,” an unnamed source told the Daily Star. “Everyone just stared in confusion.”

“The sniper then dispatched the two henchmen with single shots–three kills with three bullets.”

The young boy and his father were last spotted heading to the Turkish border as the Syrian town they were evacuating celebrated the killing of the IS fighters.

WAS THE BRITISH SNIPER JUSTIFIED?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

WAS THE BRITISH SNIPER JUSTIFIED?

Probably yes. But if instead he incinerated ten Syrian towns, men women and children, to intimidate the executioner into surrendering, then no probably not. If instead the British military kidnapped the executioner's entire family, and tortured them until he surrendered, then no probably not. See the pattern here?

[Benedictus]

One of the things I have read was that the reason Hiroshima was chosen was because it was never previously bombed, and therefore it was the best chance to study the effects of the bomb without other data "tainting" it.  To me, that is what is chilling.   

It was likely because they were racist too. They waited until the end and then decided to drop a bomb on Japan. Why not Germany and when Hitler was alive? It's not like they didn't know about all the atrocities and deaths going on. Did they ever bomb or destroy any of those train lines taking Jews to their deaths? What about those gas chambers installations? Nope..

Japanese people aren't white and they aren't Christian. So it seems they were disposable to 'end it'. There was also an aspect of retribution to it too after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. But at least the Japanese only bombed a military target!

I see the same attitude now against those in lands who are systematically dehumanized and given over to bombing campaigns, some done in reprisals or in fear. The problem now is the 'targets' aren't nations, but terrorist cell groups operating across countries where they can take advantage of a poor western track record, national instability, a history of abusive regimes and civil wars. They can't be easily dealt with as it's more subtle and insidious. Militarism and violence simply fuels its growth. Wrong tools for this problem, on the whole anyway, as the evidence shows it doesn't work. Efforts to create stability, access to resources, education, safety and diplomacy should be the first avenues in this day and age. But that doesn't win political ratings when things are seen to go bad at home with voters. Leaders tend to play to the gallery, so it seems, and that always requires resorting to force and other bad options.

 

I used to be in the just war theory camp but became a pacifist when I started working in humanitarian aid and I met people who had suffered through war. Listening to them, and gathering data on what they had experienced, I began to feel that talking about a just war is like talking about a rosy hypothetical la-la land that can never really exist, because even wars that look just in principle are not just in the way they are carried out. In addition to setting certain preconditions for war, just war theory also requires that wars be waged in a certain way - and I have yet to come across a single war that didn't also involve war crimes. Hitler's regime was murderous and needed to be stopped, but despite that, what the Allied bombers did to Dresden was unconscionable - the end doesn't justify the means in Catholic thought. This makes war a very thorny issue in Christian thinking and you're not obliged to support it.

Yes, totally. They killed loads of civilians, partly as reprisals, to destroy a cultural hub and German morale. The allies said they did it to destroy factory production, communciation and travel hubs. However, they left key industrial bases on the edges of the city because they did indiscriminate bombing in the town centre instead. If anything, they slowed down and made it harder for the Russians to capture the city. About 30,000 lost their lives as a result of that bombing. War always has more of a devasting impact on civilians, mostly women and children. What capturing forces did to women, including young girls and boys, is also well documented. Completely barbaric.

 

[SaintOfVirtue]

The moral choice was between "A" and "not A". Not between A and B and C and D. The moral object of A is inherently evil, therefore A is morally forbidden.

The choice "not A" was implied by Credo in Deum per the statement "Had we continued fighting in an ethical fashion."  I'm not arguing for or against the bomb here I'm saying that the choice "not A" is not an iota morally better than "A" (Also, irony is 'fighting in an ethical fashion')

 

You make alot of assumptions and I'm sorry you cannot see the ethics behind having military men fighting each other vs wipping out both military and civilian indescriminantly via automic weapons.  Sorry but saying "war is gruesome and an ugly thing" does not take away our moral obligation to do what is morally right during times of war. You also jump to the odd conclusion that every Japanese citizen was ready to fight and die for the empire. This is a common tatic used to jusitfy the use of bombs and one born out of more delusion than my own.  You probably think we should nuke North Korea since all of its citizens love their brutal dictator and would need a show of power to sap them of their desire to die for their opressive government.  

 

I fail to see how a course of action which would have caused more to die can be considered "morally right" is the life of the civilian worth more than the soldier?  From your statements I think your answer would be yes, but don't let me assume; what is your answer?  Further I am not speaking of every individual Japanese person, but that the majority would have stood and fought invading American soldiers and the same end would have been met but at a greater cost to both sides.  Did you know the Japanese army was so upset with the emperor for announcing a surrender that a thousand of them attacked the Imperial Palace (August 14th, 1945)?  Lastly you too have made assumptions: I do not support nuking North Korea.  A war with North Korea would be terribly a terribly sad ordeal because its people are so ignorant as to not be culpable for their actions.