The Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, observed that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means (Robert Greene, The 33 Strategies of War, 2006). In other words, when diplomacy fails–or is perceived to have failed–war is the inevitable next course of action.
Today marks the 65th anniversary of the detonation of a nuclear device over the Japanese city of Nagasaki, the second of two such weapons employed at the end of World War II; the first was dropped on Hiroshima just three days earlier. The immediate death toll from the two bombs is said to have been 200,000, with twice as many deaths occurring in the months and years following the detonations. Most of the dead were civilians.
My friend and colleague, Dr. Charles Mabee at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary in Detroit, has spent the past few years thinking and writing about the theology of the bomb. Mabee says his father, now deceased, was a JAG lawyer in the Army Air Corps, and Mabee suspects that his dad may have had a hand in passing on the legality of the use of the then-new weapon. The U.S. military routinely consults their legal staff with regard to campaigns where civilian deaths are likely to occur. I doubt that they ever seek a theological opinion, but owing to our ready acceptance of the “just war,” it probably would make little difference.
My colleague says there is evidence of a back-door attempt by some Japanese leaders to surrender in the days before the two bombs were dropped. They only wanted assurances that their emperor would not be executed for war crimes. For years some historians have concluded that the very development of the atomic bomb essentially assured that it would be employed. We built it. Doggone it, we were gonna use it!
There was also the concern over the numbers of Allied causalities that likely would have been sustained in a land invasion of Japan, thus making the nuclear option more justifiable, if not attractive. Mabee says that speeches by various personalities in the years after the war (e.g. Gen. Curtis LeMay and President Harry Truman) suggest the casualty estimate for an invasion campaign actually decreased in the minds of the speakers. Perhaps using the bomb was not the only way to go after all. Perhaps we will never know for certain.
Most people, myself included, would say that World War II had to be waged. Some would argue that the civilian war deaths from 1939-1945 are but collateral damage, a term of more recent coinage. I am prepared to declare that any civilian death is unacceptable and immoral. The numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths since 2002 are still not accurately known. If any war was ever un-justified, it is the one in which we are currently engaged, and this one does not even involve nuclear weapons.
To be sure, Iran’s refusal to play by the rules has made many folks nervous. Some thoughtful people have observed that the likelihood of some sort of military confrontation with Iran is high, as would be the related prospect of civilian casualties. I hope President Obama calls my friend Charles Mabee before he make up his mind about that. Policymakers could use a good theological opinion.
Raising Basileia 
My dad was serving as a Marine in the South Pacific during WWII at the time the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. He tells me that all the Marines he knew were dreading an invasion of Japan because the Japanese were fighting more and more fanatically as Allied forces came closer to the home islands. Estimates of casualties of a homeland invasion may decreased after the war (I’m not sure what the benchmark would have been) but I guarantee they would have been enormous. There’s a niggling feeling in the back of my mind whenever the appropriateness of dropping the bomb on Japan was justifiable or not that reminds me that there was a good chance that my dad may not have survived the invasion — and I may not have existed to write this. An while the casualties of the atomic bomb were enormous, an invasion numbers would have been astronomical.
Having said this — my dad — who served for 40 years as a Lutheran pastor has always contended that war in and of itself is always wrong, bad, immoral, and should be the last resort in settling international affairs. And even when wars are justified, they are never wholesome or something to wish for. Nor were the use of nuclear weapons in 1945.
Thanks, Tim. The post-war analysis is always in hindsight by its very nature. You raise valid questions. I guess I agree with your dad that war is always wrong, but like him, I live with the tension that perhaps it is sometimes unavoidable. I am sure those who advocated the assassination of Adolph Hitler, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, agonized about committing an evil act in order to avoid greater evil.
Still, I am haunted by the possibility that we may have rushed to judgment about the use of the bomb in 1945. As a friend recently reminded me on FB with regard to this post, there is validity in “turning aside” from what might seem to be the obvious course of action. I merely raise the question. I do not have the answer!
Thanks for your comments. I hope to see you soon.
I wish I had more answers too. At this point I think that the best we can do is raise awareness as to the on-going possibility of nuclear holocaust, and support those in politics committed to reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles, as well as using every ounce of their influence to prevent atomic weapons from ever being used on people in anger again.
Hope to see you soon too.
Amen to that, brother!