Were the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki War Crimes?

Trent Horn Discusses this Issue on YouTube

I listened with interest to Trent Horn’s recent podcast asking if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings in 1945 were war crimes. He fairly presents the arguments given by Catholics on either side of the argument. Trent agrees with the side that the bombings were not justified. He rightly cites St. Paul, that we cannot commit evil that good may come, and the Second Vatican Council, that, “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.” (Gaudium ct Spec 80).

Trent describes well the problems with taking the stance that the bombings were justified because good outcomes came from it. He discussed the flawed “consequentialist morality” that would justify performing an intrinsically evil act in order to bring about good results. He points out that Catholics understand that with abortion we cannot directly take the life of the baby no matter the possible positive outcome. But many Catholics fail to apply this same morality to war, he notes.

I have to admit to being torn on this event for many years. I was persuaded by arguments for the bombings on the grounds that it was a choice of the lesser of evils, in that many more lives were saved by the war being ended. I still found that stance murky to say the least, and I was thankful that I was not put into President Truman’s position, or piloting one of the B-29s that dropped those bombs. However, I now have to agree with Trent’s position, and I am thankful to him for making very good arguments against the bombings.

Yet, while I am in agreement with Trent’s main arguments against the bombings, I have some comments on parts of his presentation that I think distract from the main moral point. And let me say right up front, these items do not negate his main stance, but I see them as distractions to it.

My object here is to assist, not detract from Trent’s stance on this. Take it for what it is.

Distraction One: There is an Important Difference Between Being the Good Guys and the Bad Guys

Trend rightly points out that if you use “consequentialist morality,” you will have a hard time calling out anything that happens in wartime as a war crime. The justification will always be that we are doing this to save lives. Absolutely correct. Trent goes on to illustrate that we have an easier time seeing a war crime when it happens to us. He provides a hypothetical example of the Nazi’s bombing Pittsburgh; how we would undoubtedly see it as a war crime, not just another battle in the war meant to hinder our steel production. He also sites a true example of the Japanese sending balloon bombs over America that in fact killed some people, as well as a plan to spread the plague into the American population.

His point is for us to see that there’s not much difference between these and the atomic attacks in that they unjustly target the civilian population. Agreed. The problem that clouds all of these examples is that ALL attacks by the Axis powers during WWII were unjust, in that they were not fighting a just war, against every principle of the “Just War Theory.”

Thus, it really is harder to see the distinction between what the enemy has done and what the good guys have done. For example, the Japanese started the war by attacking a naval base with minimal civilian casualties, and the country rightly viewed this as an awful crime. So, Trent’s examples lack the clarity needed to see the difference. (Not that I have a better example to offer.)

All that said, can we do anything we want if we have a just cause? Obviously not, and this is a problem for those on the “just” side. We may get to thinking that because we are in the right, we can do anything needed to stop the enemy. I think we see this problem today with Antifa—they believe they are in the right so they are justified to use their own fascist-like tactics to put down their enemies.

Leaflets and Terrorism? 

Under this general category, I have to disagree with Trent when he discusses how the U.S. dropped leaflets after the Hiroshima bombing that truthfully described the power of the bomb and, as Trent put it, attempted to “coerce” the civilians to petition the emperor to end the war. Trent labeled this “terrorism” and that it was wrong.

However, context matters! To point, is it really terrorism to ask the population of a country fighting an unjust war to reconsider their stance and petition the government to stop the war? Perhaps a little terror on their part was needed. The intent was to change the minds of the Japanese public away from supporting the militaristic faction running the country, and to avoid the U.S. from having to use the bomb again. That’s not wrong.

Also, I think we can agree that civilians are innocent and should not be killed like enemy combatants without characterizing them as a helpless “rabble of victims.”

Fallacy that the Bombs Caused the Surrender?

Trent cites classified documents that indicate that the Japanese were more demoralized by the Russian invasion of Manchuria than the atomic bombs. Even if true, I can only say that this flies in the face of common sense to believe they were less concerned about a bomb that could destroy one of their own cities than the Russians’ invasion of a part of China.

He also mentions that they had weathered several other devastating aerial attacks in the past, and what would make us think they would surrender at these atomic bomb attacks? I can think of two obvious answers—One, the cumulative effect of having your cities destroyed one after another. Two, a building terror at the sheer awesome power of the A-bombs. Was Tokyo next?

And also, one could argue in the opposite direction that the nuclear bombs were needed because even though the conventional attacks were just as deadly, these didn’t appear to change the morale or minds of the Japanese leadership.

Once again, my arguments here are not to justify the bombings but to present good counter-arguments to what Trent suggests. He already made a good moral argument for not using the bombs, but now he’s trying to attack other justifications for their use. His arguments here are less persuasive. (His presentation of Fleet Adm. William D. Leahy’s opinion that the bombs were not justified, however, is quite powerful.)

Distraction Two: Building the Bomb was Bad

Trent uses lots of what if’s to decry the creation of the bomb—the lingering effects of having these dangerous weapons. That it could be used to end all life, and the subsequent scares we had during cold war. This is not arguable. Having the bomb has darkened humanity irreparably. But this ignores the fact that the “bad guys” had their own bomb program and that failing to develop our own would have been dangerously foolhardy. Once the idea was out, all sides were working to get the bombs.

I cover this more specifically in my other related posting.

Distraction Three: Objective Evil vs. Subjective Fault

Although Trent does mention that we should honor those who fought in wars, the subjective faults of those involved with the bombings was not the focus of his presentation. That said, I think more could be said about the subjective faults of those involved with the bombings. The horrors of the war, the massive loss of life, and the dread of it continuing on played a deep part in these actions.

We can decry the objective evil of an act, but understand that the subjective faults of the individuals involved may be diminished. For example, we know it’s objectively evil to put a gun to your friend’s head and pull the trigger. But what about in the midst of a pitched battle, where the friend is screaming for you to put him out of his misery because half of his body is missing? It’s still objectively evil to kill him, but then only can God judge your subjective guilt at the moment you pulled the trigger.

War has an awful effect on people, quite obviously. As to the crews of the B-29s, they were deeply impacted by the daily death and destruction of combat. For Truman’s part, I’m sure he saw daily, even hourly, the casualty reports, both military and civilian, coming in from all over the world, especially the horror had occurred in the invasion of Okinawa. And this had been going on since 1941. Surely this impacted his decision.

As an aside, I am not sure about Trent’s interpretation of Truman’s remarks about the Japanese being “repaid in full” for their attack on Pearl Harbor, suggesting that the bombs were used in revenge to that attack. I’m not sure that’s what exactly Truman meant. It can also be taken to mean that, as a factual matter, the dropped A-bomb more than made up for the attack on Pearl Harbor and that the cause for war is now over. At any rate, I think this is a needless distraction.

The point being that I do not believe that these were evil men. They likely did not recognize themselves as engaging in an intrinsically evil thing. Regardless of my thoughts, we must leave that judgment for God.

Distraction Four: Questioning Whether Wars are Ever Just

Trent ends his remarks by questioning if any war is ever just, quoting Pope Francis. This certainly captures a truth in that God hates war, and that it occurs only due to man’s evil. But remarks like this, it seems to me, tell us something we already know, that a war ultimately is a failure of mankind to love God and one another. However, it does not address the very real issue that wars often have good guys and bad guys. Both sides are wicked and unjust before God, but undoubtedly, sometimes one side is fighting for a just cause, and the other is not.

I think we can agree that the U.S. found itself involved in a war it did not seek, and in turn sought to fight it justly. This did not give the U.S. or the Allies the right to do anything, moral or immoral, to win, and we can admit the Allies did not always conduct themselves morally at every point in the war. But in general, the U.S. and the Allies had a just cause.

---

In summary, we can rightly take the position that the use of the bombs to directly kill civilians was an intrinsically evil act. However, the points discussed above can be distractions to this stance. Such as, I don’t think it helps by arguing as if the U.S. and Japan were morally neutral combatants in the war, or arguing against the positive outcomes that came from the attacks. These are highly debatable points and far less certain than the main moral point, that even if there were positive outcomes, that doesn’t make the bombings right. This should not be clouded by distractions.