Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Moral aspects of military action
Topic Started: Friday, 10. June 2011, 17:51 (2,020 Views)
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Monday, 20. June 2011, 20:06
That's what troubles me - how could something be wrong today but not wrong 70 years ago? I don't think sin changes with time or in line with what is acceptable by wider society; I get the distinct impression that the Church has in fact been following behind society in this area rather than leading it.
Carpet bombing was always wrong but as with all things the issue of whether or not it is sinful and the degree of culpability depends upon the circumstances. In WWII carpet bombing was one of the few means open to Britain and the its allies from the colonies and former empire, from May 1940 - 22 June 1941when Hitler ordered the invasion of Russia, the USA did not join the war until December 1941 and did not add its forces to the battle in Europe until the USAAF began regular missions in August 1942. Today it is often forgotten but had Britain surrendered in 1940 Hitler’s Nazi regime would have been unopposed who knows what state we would be in now.
I agree that Jesus calls us to rise above the old ways and the sward is not to be taken up lightly, and those who take it up will die by it, as many young men and women have learnt, but some of us live and we hope take the experiance of war and from experiance help find a better way forward. The UN was an attempt by some who had been scarred by WWII to build a better way. It is not the best organisation for ensuring peace but it is the one global authority we have. It needs to be reformed but there is a rule of law and the sward is alas sometimes the only way of enforcing the law.
Once parents smacked their children and it was considered the norm, even the bible supported the use of physical chastisement, today parents still smack their children but it is no longer the norm and in some countries it is illegal, was it always wrong or have we simply learnt that there may be a better way. One day I pray we will find a better way to settle international disputes, but you only have to watch the crowed at a soccer match to know that that day is not today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Monday, 20. June 2011, 21:27
One day I pray we will find a better way to settle international disputes, but you only have to watch the crowed at a soccer match to know that that day is not today.
That would require a spirit of charity from the leaders of both sides. In some cultures the leaders choose to opt for agression to gain and maintain power, whatever the cost to others, so I doubt whether that day will come before The Second Coming. It takes two to seal an agreement, like Peace In Our Time.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eileenanne

Wouldn't it be great if ordinary young men simply refused to fight? If every country found itself unable to raise an army? Yes I know it's a fanciful idea but still... If only ordinary folk could realise what power they actually have.

Eileenanne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trying hard

wonder did you guys know that the atomic bombs were dropped on the 2 christian cities of Japan. Coincedence or what with all the cities avaiable to target.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

trying hard
Monday, 20. June 2011, 22:24
wonder did you guys know that the atomic bombs were dropped on the 2 christian cities of Japan. Coincedence or what with all the cities avaiable to target.
Yes the weather determind wich of five cities were choosen and in case you were interested here is just one of the remarkable stories of those attacks.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2010/08/05/the-priests-who-survived-the-atomic-bomb/

Mind you having been tough by Jesuites I am tempted to say, " The devil looks after his own" but I will settle for the theory that Our Lady of Fatima had a part to play.
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 20. June 2011, 22:36.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trying hard

went there read article but read further and although it is bordering on miraculus it may not quite have been recorded properly in first article :-(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Monday, 20. June 2011, 11:52
Was the carpet bombing of Dresden acceptable to Christians? Were the nucleur bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable?
Nope!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trying hard

i agree clare; both usa and gb used the war as cover for these actions which were experiments. Even the excuse often used for dresden that they did it to us first doesn't count as revenge or retribution is not a just cause for war or actions in war either as far as i'm aware.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
trying hard
Wednesday, 22. June 2011, 22:30
i agree clare; both usa and gb used the war as cover for these actions which were experiments.
Is that personal opinion or fact? If fact, where is the proof? The effectiveness of an atom bomb can be tested without bombing a city full of people. It was done, on Christmas Island. I have personally served with aircrews and engineers from the lowest ranks up to Air Chief Marshall, who were involved in wartime action. I cannot think of one who would be willing to be involved in anything so barbaric as the killing of all residents of a city, solely for experimental purposes.

My opinion is Group Leonard Cheshire VC would not have written what he did if it was experiment. He was the British observer of the operation to bomb Hiroshima. He said he had no moral regrets because if the allies had not done what they did the war death toll would have been far higher on both sides.

Leonard Cheshire was an honourable man. He founded Cheshire Homes, starting by asking his mother if he could bring one man with incurable illness to the family home, for himself to care for until he died. His Catholic Faith meant everything to him.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
It is all too easy for we are too young to have followed World War II events at the time, to pontificate on the morality of decisions made and actions taken.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

While I accept that the moral issues must be evaluated to some extent in the abstract, when minded to censure decisions and actions of those who have the power and responsibility of protecting the nation and otherwise directing its course, I try to imagine what it is like actually to have to make (rather than pontificate about) those decisions. Often I conclude that:
a) I don't know what I would have done, but might well have done what I had been minded to criticise;
b) I'm glad I am not the one who makes such decisions (gratitude probably shared by all who know me).
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

In 1945 decisions were made based upon the information available at the time. Dresden was considered a legitamate target because, it had a large military barracks, 140 factories, some of which produced munitions including anti-aircraft barrels, Zeiz lenses and poison gas (As used in the gas chambers of the extermination camps). Dresden stood at a major strategic crossroads but these are just a few of the facts that history has neglected to mention in the "Fluffy" retelling of events that contributed to ensuring that the NAZI regime was defeated. In hindsight it is easy to make judgements which could not have been made at the time. The Atomic bombs were tested in the deserts of America but only two were produced for military use, it was the threat to Japan that a third was available that finely forced the Emperor to order his forces to surrender.

Of course it would have been better to have prevented WWII and find some other way to prevent the NAZI regime from acting as they did, Chamberlain did his honourable best but his trust was misplaced. Perhaps people could have signed a petition of the sought Katy has asked us to sign to try and persuade Pakistan to be "Nice" to Christians. Well we can ask but I don't hold out much hope.
In the end it is sad, no seriously damning that for all our Christian principles and values we are all to often called upon to take a stand and say no to the atrocities and horrors carried out by others. Unfortunately, for all the talk of politicians when they say no to the intended actions of a foreign regime it costs the lives of young men and women of this country. Pray for things to change but when the tide is coming in you have a choice; retreat and allow the tide to do its thing or build coastal defences to protect the land from the sea. The Tames Barrier is a marvellous feat of engineering and for a number of years has protected London from serious flooding. It will need to be upgraded or even replaced as the threat of rising sea levels increases. So if you live in Derby will you pay for London's flood defences or condemn Londoner's to their fate. Well so it is with National defence, we need to have up to date equipment and personnel trained to use it if the UK and its interests are to be protected.
War is abhorrent and perhaps if politicians were all required to have served a minimum of six years in the Armed forces before being allowed to hold a Cabinet post they would learn to listen when the Chiefs of Staff talk and maybe we might find ourselves having to bring fewer bodies home from foreign fields. Perhaps if people were prepared to pay a higher price for their petrol or even do with out private cars altogether we would not have to engage in the politics of the Middle East and ensure the trade routes by which that oil arrives are protected. Perhaps if people were prepared to allow people the freedom to go to school, both males and females, worship where they wish and in a manner that does no harm to others, we might not have campaign for other governments to respect Human Rights. Perhaps ...Perhaps Perhaps... I would love to see and end of wars, but many centuries ago Plato said. "Only the dead have seen an end of war"
The moral aspects of Military action can only be judged fairly form the context of the time with the information available at the time, it is immoral to condemn someone for breaking a rule that did not exist at the time or for failing to act on a piece of information that he/she did not posses at the time. A day later is to late, 34,000 men were dead by the end of the 1st July 1916 in a patch of land by a river in France over 60,000 were wounded.
I am not seeking to justify any particular military action but I wish to say that if war is to be avoided or prevented it is better to stick to facts rather than fiction. Mr Cameron may wish to talk but the Chiefs of staff wish to save lives; Cameron is interested in votes, the chiefs want to sleep peacefully knowing their lads and lasses are safe. But politicians and generals both rises morally head and shoulders above newspaper and TV hacks who just want to increase profits. Sensational headlines sell more advertising than the dull truth. Morality of military action is far more probable than morality in the press. And the press has been the cause of most of the jingoistic hype that encourages politicians to take steps to war. Control of the press is usually the first goal of those leading a revolution, and TV studios are a strategic asset to those wishing to control the will of the people, in the relatively benign west that control tells us which car to buy or which cereal to eat for breakfast, elsewhere less benign messages are the norm.
Edited by Penfold, Thursday, 23. June 2011, 02:32.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Penfold, Very well written, yet again!
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

The Japanese occupied several islands and territories each requiring their own "D Day" and their forces were far more suicidal than the Germans which made it very difficult indeed for the USA and British forces.

Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais

Military action-yes on the ground factors-all justiable in retrospect.
Re Tasmania; colonialism;ok; lets annilate them. Goody now its all ours.
Yes here we all are sitting comportably posting this and that and that and this- but to what inner private ends?
What of Rome and Israel? Which side are you and you and you on?
Roamn Catholics,some, condemn the bomb; what about peverty? Feeding the poor?
Essentially and this is only my view and thought- it is ssentially down to individual cerebral wiring! Well not just my view.Hre science and certaim philosophical writing come very close together.
See " Infomatics"-it is on line1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply