Regarding Dr. Meinert’s castigation of the WWII atomic bombs, Christians for generations will mourn the 250,000 dead. It’s unfathomably horrific. But I also sympathize with those wanting to end the war quickly with minimized mutual suffering. Yes, President Truman and the target committee considered future reconciliation with Japan, sparing heavily populated Kyoto.
What was America’s alternative? Dr. Meinert pontificates about the ends not justifying the means, but math counts. If innocent suffering is unavoidable, aren’t we morally obliged to minimize it? If one innocent death is intolerably immoral, we’d all be Third Reich subjects today.
I see Truman having four options:
Abandon the war and bring our troops home, boasting of the soldiers saved. But with 10,000,000 east Asians and two million Japanese dead, the war would have surged.
Invade Japan. Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff projected 800,000 American and 4,000,000 Japanese deaths.
Drop bomb #1 on an uninhabited target, hoping the ‘shock and awe effect’ would end the war. Although considered, Japan’s emperor Hirohito refused to quit after Hiroshima.
Bomb targets that would quickly break the emperor’s will to continue fighting.
Truman chose #4, showing constraint by not bombing more populated targets or multiple cities simultaneously (more bombs were available). Amazingly, that ‘shock and awe effect’ proved to prevent subsequent use of nuclear weapons.
Finally, this rebuttal was prompted by Dr. Meinert’s assertion that “If one approves of the atomic bomb, one must also approve of abortion”. I believe that God views the indescribable suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as awful but necessary. The means justified the ends. Furthermore, beyond my commitment to my faith and fellow man, I hold nothing more dear than working to end the abortion holocaust. Who possesses the moral certitude that these two beliefs are incongruent with my Catholicism? That’s a future discussion between an all-knowing God and me, not an editorial edict.
Richard Bosse
Baton Rouge