Even Unto Ignorance: Boyce Wrongly Dismisses Just War Theory

        

        Duane Boyce wrote that the “modern just war framework …makes no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to address the concerns of Latter-Day Saints.”[1] This is a stunning admission and great error which abandons great thinkers throughout history that have direct bearing on the Latter Day Saint views of war. Reading just war thinkers allows a person to realize the contours of the LDS debate, organizes LDS thinking into a powerful core, and adds specific application and advancement of LDS thought.

The Contours

        One of the biggest ironies of reading just war theorists and thinkers from the last few thousand years is the realization that LDS debates are not new. We bring new scriptures to the debate, but they are proof texted in support of the same arguments. Christian pacifists quote the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek, while just war proponents cite Jesus overturning the tables in the table and the Lord’s support for rulers who are agents of his wrath to the wrongdoers (Romans 13:14). Latter Day Saints offer “renounce war and proclaim peace” and “defend your families unto blood shed (D&C 98:16; Alma 43:47). Yet, it remains the same debate.

        Christian just war theorists offered an answer to that debate that became the first chapter of my book on just warfare. This was a command for warriors to have a peaceful heart, while recognizing the tragic, and occasional need to use the sword. This was espoused by just about every theorist from Augustine to Locke. With this in mind, Latter Day Saints can renounce war, proclaim peace, AND defend their families unto bloodshed.

        In a later piece he shows some awareness of the core of just war (see below), but it is in the third appendix of his piece, only one page long, and still almost exclusively focused on Augustine and Aquinas. Even though his entire piece is devoted to resolving a scriptural tension between Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount, he presents the solution as though it wasn’t articulated by theorists for thousands of years before hand.[2]

        His ignorance concerning the contours of the debate is especially glaring in his discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. He spent an entire chapter discussing its personal application without mentioning the easily applicable question about the Good Samaritan, or the ample evidence of the need for a peaceful heart (see below). His solution, that the Sermon describes a personal attitude that doesn’t exclude the use of the sword, repeats one of the most common of the 36 different interpretations that theorists have offered in the last thousand years.[3] With a knowledge of the contours of the debate he might simultaneously have more humility and confidence in advancing his opinion while transcending the perception that LDS thinkers are “restricted to the (metaphorical) mountain valleys as Mormon communities once were.”[4]

The Core

        With the understanding of how we can both proclaim peace and wield the sword, we can simply ask, if the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the midst of the attack, what would he do? This is a simple but powerful question that cuts through the proof texts and demands that we ask what would Jesus do in a given situation. His example of perfect love wouldn’t stand idly by while someone is attacked. Thomas Aquinas called that an “evil peace.” We can reasonably conclude that the Good Samaritan would have a peaceful heart, but also feel morally compelled to intervene. In fact, despite peace advocates like Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher talking endlessly about love, and calling their theory, “assertive love,” they don’t mention Jesus’ example of how we should love our neighbor and fulfill the second great commandment. I suspect they don’t mention this because of its powerful implications.

        Additionally, I first read this argument while reading Catholic Theologian Paul Ramsey.[5] Along with Michael Walzer, he is the leading theorist of the modern age. Thus, this is a modern application of the just war framework, using a clear scripture, that is imminently applicable to modern problems and Latter-Day Saint questions. Once readers notice the importance of the heart they can see it permeates all of scripture. Boyce noticed this as well, but he missed a chance to place this argument as simple but powerful core, buttressed by some of the brightest thinkers of the last thousand years. I put this core in the first chapter and returned to its importance throughout the book. Even after summarizing just war at the beginning of the book, Boyce left a discussion of the heart until chapters 13 and 14. In discussing “right intent” on page eight, he mentioned defense of rights, but not the state of the heart. In chapter 14, the heart is only one of many points included in a discussion of Alma 48, and its brief because he also discusses Doctrine and Covenants 98. In short, despite nearly approaching this core and describing its features, he presents this as just one of many ideas when it could be a simple but powerful summary of the whole argument. He misses its importance because he only has an acquaintance with just war theorists.  

Specific Applications

        Being familiar with just war thinkers I immediately noticed several areas where Boyce’s analysis would have been enhanced by applying them. In discussing preemptive war he discusses the complexity of judging the immediacy of attacks and the intent of the attacker. After a lengthy, and needlessly complex discussion of philosophy he added the example of a machine gun armed attacker that is about to attack a person's family.[6] He does all this to show some examples where preemption is allowed.

        If he read just war theorists, though, he could simply use the example of a “charging assailant with sword in hand” described by the 17th century German thinker Samuel Puffendorf. The father of international law, Hugo Grotius, talked about intent, means, and imminency. Or all the elements listed by Boyce, but Grotius did so in more succinct fashion. These are not scriptures, but still a brilliant insight that forms the foundation of modern international law, and their keen insights make them relevant today. (I show how they are relevant and provide numerous scriptures about the principles in my article with Square Two.) The omission of Grotius seems especially odd because Boyce included Grotius in his bibliography. I can only guess the reasons for the omission, but it must be some combination of not reading Grotius carefully, excluding him due to some kind of dismissive attitude towards non restoration leaders and scriptures,[7] or a desire to explain the concepts himself.

        This section of his book is one of the densest philosophically, but scripturally sparse. It didn’t have to be with a knowledge of just war theorists. I’ve since found at least nine scriptures that discuss the topic which aren’t included in his book. For example, Puffendorf discussed the charging assailant with sword in hand, which made me think of the phrase, “raise a sword” in Alma 48:14. This verse describes when the Nephites could preserve their lives by "raising a sword" to their attackers. Only the text doesn't use the words attack or defense which is vitally important to the concept of preemptive war. The text instead says, “raise the sword,” not smite, strike, slay, or any other word to denote that the sword had been swung and met flesh. That isn’t simply an evocative phrase but illustrates a fundamental truth. Mormon didn’t have to explain the distinction between a raised sword and a sword strike because the two concepts are so closely related that they are the same.

        Thus, while not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, if a Nephite attack is called “raising the sword,” Alma 48:14 suggests that righteous defense applies when a Lamanite soldier simply “raised his sword” to attack, and not after the first (or third) actualized attack. That means the Nephite standard for defense only requires an incipient attack, or someone that “raise[s] the sword.” The basic premise applied to both thought Alma 48:14 and Pufendorf, is that an individual who sees an attack in progress doesn’t have to wait for the first blow to assert their God-given right to defend themselves. They can preemptively defend themselves.

        Boyce quotes the first half of Alma 48:14 in a discussion of offensive and defensive war.[8] Without a knowledge of just war theorists his arguments sound more strained and needlessly complex, while missing scriptural support a mere clause away from the scripture he cited.

        He not only repeated the contours of an old debate while thinking he was original, but he also diminished the most important verses about warfare in the Book of Mormon. In a chapter separate from the Sermon on the Mount, and in a chapter that centered on Alma 48, he lists the important qualities of a peaceful heart. Only at the end of that section, perhaps as a capstone, but seemingly because it was least important, he describes how the Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms but reluctantly compelled" to do so(Alma 48:21-23.) With a knowledge of just war that should be the lead in the first chapter and constantly reinforced and referenced in every other part of work. For example, when Boyce rebutted the use of Mormon 7:4, “lay down your weapons of war,” he would have known that the second half, “and delight no more in the shedding of blood,” was a direct application of just war theorists on the war, and an easy refutation of a pacifist proof text. One searches in vain for any mention of a peaceful heart in the bibliography.[9]

Conclusion

        I endorsed his book in my review and I don’t withdraw that endorsement. Yet the text is most useful as a philosophical rebuttal to pacifist theories and rather short about an LDS framework for just war. Since I first read his book, I realized that a knowledge of just war vastly enriches LDS discussion on the topic and we should make a positive and thorough case for it because it’s so strong and easy to do. (I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I'm a leading LDS thinker on the topic, I've published or presented eight times on the topic in the last two years, because I seem to be the only one that has actually read just war thinkers.)  Boyce missed a similar chance in his book. Sadly, like pacifist writers such as Patrick Mason,[10] he only includes a smattering of just war theorists in his writings, such as Augustine and Aquinas while demonstrating little to no awareness of the applicable theory.[11] It is sad to see another writer diminish the importance of just war as “insufficient” at the same time his arguments and understanding of LDS scripture would benefit from those dismissed theorists.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer and if you liked these ideas please consider supporting my research. You can use the paypal button at the bottom of the screen or buy one of my books in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, (Greg Kofford Books: 2015), 223.

[2] Duane Boyce, “Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount: Resolving a Scriptural Tension,” BYU Studies, 60:2 (2021), 127-162.

[3] Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Social Rhetorical Commentary, (Erdmans: 2009), 160-162.

[4] Benjamin Hertzberg, “Just War and Mormon Ethics,” Mormon Studies Review, 1:1 (Article 15) 2014.

[5] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, 2002), (New York: Scribner, 1968),143.

[6] Boyce, Bloodshed, 194, 197, 202.

[7] Perhaps he has similar views to Mark Henshaw, who gives lip service to the importance of just war theorists, but then never applied them in 20 years, even though his work would clearly benefit from those thinkers. He did take time in those decades to scoff at those thinkers for being “medieval Catholics.” Mark Henshaw, Murder to Get Gain: LDS Thoughts on US Elements of National Power, 6509. Mark Henshaw, “A Response to ‘Kishkumen’s Dagger: First Strike in the Book of Mormon’ by Morgan Deane,” SquareTwo, Vol. 16 No. 1 (Spring 2023). Mark Henshaw, “On just peace,” in Perspectives on National Security in a Time of Upheaval, Latter Day Saint National Security Conference, Provo Utah, March 2023.

[8] Boyce, Unto Bloodshed, 238.

[9] Boyce does list peace in the index, but since his book is largely designed to philosophically oppose pacifism that is expected and too broad.

[10] Patrick Mason often uses secondary sources to quote church fathers which suggests he isn’t familiar with or hasn’t read them. See fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason, "Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 2020. In fact, every footnote in that piece referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. See also fn. 4 in, Patrick Mason, “Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War,” Public Square Magazine, August 4th, 2023. That footnote lists the primary and secondary source, suggesting he only found it in the latter: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77.

[11] The mentions of historical just war thinkers across LDS literature often seem limited to perfunctory references of St. Augustine and Aquinas before much longer analysis of LDS scripture or descriptions of modern international law and the UN charter. Michael Young, Chapter 19, Times of War Times of Peace: LDS Ethics of War and Diplomacy, Valerie Hudson, Eric Talbot Jenson, Kerry Karchner, (BYU Kennedy Center, 2018.) line 6509.

The Parable of the Two Princes

 

        The 9^th century Irish monk, Sedulius Scottus, wrote an interesting parable that interacts with the heart of just war and the Book of Mormon that I explained in my latest book. In his work he compares a righteous prince who sought peace for his enemies even after war with an evil prince.[1] In contrast with this righteous prince, the wicked prince continued to fight after refusing a sincere offer of peace. Sedulius wrote this to illustrate and expand upon the concept of the peaceful heart first elucidated by Augustine and Isidore of Seville.

        This interacts with the Book of Mormon and illustrates key concepts of just war within the text. The prince that prays for peace and his enemies even after war recall the Nephites who were “sorry” and “reluctantly compelled” to take up arms against the Lamanites (Alma 48:21-24). The Nephite felt sorry because they had to send so many unrepentant sinners into the afterlife. And they displayed the kind of hearts that welcomes Lamanite converts like the Anti Nephi Lehis and prisoners who make a covenant of peace into their midst (Alma 62:16-17), even after the many murders that the latter had committed. This reinforces the idea that the heart of the important wielding the sword is paramount and provides an illustration of the peaceful and violent heart.

        I described the violent heart of the second wicked prince in my first book. The story of a leader whose heart is so hard and warlike that they refused peace is found both within the Jaredite civil war and the Chinese War of the Eight Princes. Coriantumr saw the slaughter of the civil war which prompted him to repentance (Ether 15:2-6).

        This story contains the often-ridiculed number of two million people. Before we consider that number, it shows that critics would rather pettifog an inconsequential detail and miss the much more important morale of the story. Indulging that trivial detail, the number isn’t as implausible as the critics contend and shows us the savagery of the war and God’s wrath on the people. Ether 15 doesn’t refer to a single battle, but to the massive slaughter described in Ether 14. The losses of two competing factions over at least 8 battles of Ether 14,[2] plus numerous cities being overthrown (Ether 14:17), and multiple instances of women and children being slaughtered (Ether 14:17, 22), mean that two million is an entirely plausible number of dead. The ancient capital of China, Luoyang, had a population of 600,000 but only held a few thousand by the end of the War of the Eight Princes (see below.)  If the Jaredites had a few cities even a fraction of that size, the extirpation of “many” cities described in Either 14:17 and 22 easily accounts for many of those supposedly ludicrous “millions” of deaths.

        Returning to the more important moral of the story, after that slaughter Coriantumr began to repent, and wrote the leader of the side trying to find peace. But Shiz, showing the stone heart of the unrighteous warrior, demanded Coriantumr give himself up to be slain. The latter naturally refused, and both continued to fight until the bitter end.

        When I first studied this civil war, I compared it to the Chinese War of the Eight Princes because it had a very similar example. One of the eight princes in the civil war, Sima Yong, executed Zhang Fang and sent the head to the rival prince, Sime Yue, as part of a peace offer to no effect. The offer of peace might not have been sincere, but it was a chance to stop a war that was so devastating it turned one of the ancient great capitals of the world into a graveyard where “bleached bones covered the field.”

        The story shows the creativity of this Irish monk and reinforces the importance of Alma 48:21-24. I find those verses in Alma the most important of the war chapters and the most important scripture about warfare. The Title of Liberty really enthralls with its martial glory, but I’ve witnessed too many militant militia members with the Title of Liberty on their wall to fully rely on this story without significant caution from Alma 48. Being reluctant warriors is more important but far less romantic and hence less well known. It is only reading Sedulius that I realized those verses in Alma contrast with the rejected peace deal in Ether 15, to show different kinds of hearts.

        On a final note, it shows me once again that my instincts are very good. I’m not very famous. I can’t even make a list of lesser known Mormon scholars. (I’m Starlord man… Come on.) My posts on social media have more scammers than actual people liking them. I don’t have the right letters by my name, and I don’t work for any organizations that impress you. Lots of people look at my lack of worldly fame, credentials, and obscurity even within the Mormon community, and they cast me aside with a chortle and a few insults.

        But my ideas are solid. I regularly express ideas that are later validated by impressive scholars. The day I wrote this piece Robert Kagan, holding some endowed chair of geopolitics, agreed with my analysis on the use of human shields. In this and this post I explain key details about preemptive war that I later found in academic literature on the subject. I intuitively grasped the heart of just war here (about halfway down) and refuted the “renounce war, proclaim peace” cudgel a decade before I read any Christian thinkers.

        The tale of the two princes highlights my intuitive grasp of the heart found in Alma and Ether. The story from Seludius further solidifies and shows examples of the hearts that renounce war and proclaim peace, but also shows how the righteous wield the sword. It contrasts with those that are hardened beyond feeling, even though the warfare of both types of people might look similar. I hope it helped you think more deeply about the matter. Thanks for reading.

I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work, please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 
************

---

[1] Sedulius Scottus, Liber De rectoribus Christianis, 47.

[2] Ether 14:3, 4, 5 (a siege with combat), 11, 14, 16, 22 (multiple slaughters of soldiers and civilians, “shedding blood to shedding blood”), and 26.

Book Review: How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian

        

        Demonic Crossan is the expert on the “historical Jesus” but wrote a book that was severely flawed. Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies (types of justice, radical nonviolent God verses normal civilized God), dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image.

The Historical Jesus

        The foundation of his argument is the nonviolent teachings of the historical Jesus. But his interpretation rests on a house of cards. He points to a general historical trend in the first two centuries AD that he calls “the matrix,” or general cultural and societal attitudes within Jewish society. Yet these attitudes are selectively chosen and amplified. For example, he points to the attempt of Caligula to install a pagan statue in the temple (146-148). In response, a crowd of Jews not carrying weapons gathered in the square to oppose the action. This is supposedly an example of nonviolent resistance but doesn’t account for how militant they seemed simply using the power of an angry crowd. These Jewish people weren’t calmly nonviolent resisters proudly bandied about by modern pacifists. They were militant agitators, that even without weapons were on the verge of a violent and deadly riot. The unarmed Lamanite prisoners, for example, were so violent the Nephites were forced to slay 2,000 of them (Alma 57:13-14). Yet Crossan massages the incident to make readers assume the example supports a nonviolent ideology. (For someone who builds their case on the “historical” Jesus this sloppy understanding of history is especially egregious.)

        His use of the Q source is even more dubious. This is the name of the anonymous source that may have inspired Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Because Matthew and Luke both contain polished expansions of Markan material using the same wording, many scholars conclude that Matthew and Luke relied on the Gospel of Mark and a second, unknown, or Q source (Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13; Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9-10). Yet some scholars argue that maybe Q didn’t exist at all. Others think that perhaps Mark was first to write his gospel but relied on some of Jesus’ unpolished sayings written in Aramaic, that may have been from an earlier Q source and polished by Matthew and Luke. Others think Mark was a later and abbreviated “summary” gospel. There is so much disagreement among scholars concerning which source inspired what and when each was written that it usually needs a chart to explain it. See the chart on this page for example.

        It’s all as plain as the sun in the sky!! Crossan takes this ~settled~ debate and looks at Jesus’ militant statements recorded by Matthew and Luke deriving from Q. Combined with the idea that Matthew and Luke use Q to “update” the original Jesus of Mark with militant statements he concludes that Q had the unsanitized version of the radical nonviolence of Jesus that was changed to the normalcy of violent civilization by Matthew and Luke (see 174-179 for example). The previous sentence sure is a mouthful, but simply stated without Crossan’s buzz words, he claims the historical Jesus was corrupted with bad theology derived from cultural attitudes of later writers. Crosson’s over reliance on Q to try and separate a pure Jesus from a corrupted one within the gospels is unsatisfying from an evidentiary standpoint.

Selective Theology

        It is even weaker from a theological standpoint. His weak arguments that reconstruct the so called, “historical Jesus” are used an excuse to lop off entire segments of the Bible. He somewhat admits this problem when he contends that Christians follow Jesus, not the Bible. Yet outside of living prophets that add living eye witness testimonies, the holy texts that describes God’s dealing with His people are the only information we have about God. So Crosson claims to follow Jesus, while he picks and chooses among the texts that authoritatively describe Jesus.

        For example, he talks a great deal about distributive justice. He doesn’t account for the injustice that derives from nonviolent impulses. If people stand idly by because of their vision of the historical, nonviolent, redistributive Jesus, then their innocent “wives and…children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren” (Alma 48:24). Moreover, it’s immoral to have a personal choice by individuals impose unjust and immoral consequences on others. For example, Patrick Mason and David Pulispher used the example of Dallin Oaks talking down a mugger holding a gun as evidence that people should adopt their non violent proposals. This is a heartwarming story and I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t need to use violence. Having someone hold a gun on innocent family members and relying on a speech to save them from gunfire is not a reasonable or safe standard for families. But pacifists expect their passive standards from a selective reading of scripture to guide other’s foreign policy and personal safety with innocent victims at stake.

        Instead of acknowledging that different parts of the Bible reflect different attributes of the same God, Crosson refers to “parallel tracks” of a “bipolar” and “schizophrenic” God (71). At one disgusting point he calls the God of the flood a “terrorist” (71).[1] He claims that God was “sucked into” the escalatory violence of the world (71-72), as though God isn’t in charge, he is simply led around by the nose and provoked by His creations.

How Weak a Foundation

        Unfortunately, Crosson’s attitude that judges God based on his concept of nonviolence reminds me of LDS scripture and pacifists. They are so interested in seeing a “God made in their own image” that they minimize and misunderstand God (D&C 1:16). One LDS writer, David Pulsipher, complained that God and His prophets lacked the “moral imagination” that the writer and his favorite pacifists had.[2] It is our job to understand the divine, not try to limit or diminish God because he doesn’t have our “imagination.” (Also, see Helaman 16:22.)

        In another instance, Pulispher and Patrick Mason suggest that we use modern scholarship to dispute the historical accuracy of the Bible, thus “eroding any moral authority that might be gleaned from scriptures that endorse human violence.”[3] Unsurprisingly, just a few pages earlier the same authors cited Dominic Crosson,[4] who not only undermines any moral authority for violence but doubts the character of God to such a degree that he calls him a genocidal terrorist. That is putting the cart before the horse. It uses modern tools of scholarship, themselves a reflection of cultural concerns, to dispute God, who commands us to put aside small-minded cultural attitudes and follow Him.

        Of course, the Bible isn’t a clear manual about God and mankind’s concept of deity is often misunderstood and used to commit awful acts of violence. Still though, Latter Day Saints should be especially wary of a methodology that diminishes God’s character that reduces him to a figure head for an ideology. And an ideology that forbids the use of force actually perpetuates injustice. Rather than showing a schizophrenic God, the Book of Mormon’s account of the destruction immediately preceding His ministry and Christ’s teaching reveal a consistently loving God that recognizes the need to use force. Right before Jesus’s personal ministry among the Nephites he violently destroyed many cities (3 Nephi 9:3-12). Then he lamented that His people didn’t listen to him (3 Nephi 9:13), and he offered a tender example of how he would gather them as a hen gathered her chickens before offering the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek (3 Nephi 10:4-6; 3 Nephi 12:39). Then he finished by reminding his audience of Isaiah's violent prophecies of a militant God executing his “vengeance” (3 Nephi 21:14-21).

        One version of God shouldn’t be believed over the other. Both versions ARE GOD and worthy of study. We are reading about different aspects of his personality, that is just, merciful and loving while God recognizes the need to use violence, often as punishment that compels men to be humble (Alma 32:13), and lead them to repentance and redemption (3 Nephi 9:17).

        Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies, dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image. I can’t recommend his book unless you want to see the “playbook” that LDS pacifists attempt to run on scripture.

**********

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal link below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. My latest, is a book length treatment of the above ideas. 

---

[1] I was seriously tempted to stop reading at that point. Terrorist is an overwrought, emotional term and directed towards God it revealed a great deal of Crosson’s character. I no longer wondered why he was a disgraced ex priest.

[2] Pulsipher, J. David (2021) "Defend Your Families and Love Your Enemies: A New Look at the Book of Mormon’s Patterns of Protection," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 60: Iss. 2, Article 6. 179-182)

[3] Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Ancer to an Age of Conflict, (Deseret Book, 2021), 167-168.

[4] Ibid., 150 fn 7.

Moral Clarity on the Atomic Bombing

 

    August 6^th marks the dubious day in 1945 where America became the only power to use a nuclear bomb. This continues to spark controversy. From 1945 to 2005 American approval of the bombings has dropped from 85 to 57 percent. And a record low number of Americans are proud of their country. This is somewhat understandable as societal attitudes change and there is a great deal to critique over the decision. But it might also be what the editors at the National Review recently pointed out is part of the crisis of self-doubt gaining traction in America and what Wilfred McClay called a deeply unserious country that doesn’t believe in itself. Yet a proper study of the history surrounding the decision to drop the bombs and an examination of ethics finds the bombing was both justified and necessary.

    During the war both sides held a great deal of racial animus towards one another, which suggests the bomb might have been more willingly used because of racism.[1] Though, the bomb wasn’t ready in time to end the war against Germany so that is hard to gauge. Using an area effect weapon that didn’t distinguish between civilians and military targets invites condemnation.[2] The lack of military targets in Hiroshima and the dubious effectiveness of the bomb makes some people say this was terrorism.[3] After all, the Strategic Bombing survey revealed that the trains ran normally a mere two days later and this was often considered a way to stun the Japanese into surrendering and impress the Russians with the viability of the program.[4] (Though it should be noted that both cities had important military components. Both cities house important military garrisons as well as critical war industries, and Nagasaki was a foremost military shipping depot, and thus remained valid military targets.) Plus, there were supposedly peace feelers from the Japanese that made this completely unnecessary.

    As I will show below, these are all extremely flawed arguments that don’t accurately reflect the historical context and seem like excuses to blame American and undermine moral confidence today, instead of understanding the tragic but justified decisions of the past.

    The strongest criticism seems to be the peace overtures. Who doesn’t want the war to end early? This theory argues that the Japanese were ready for peace and only block headed, blood thirsty, and maybe even racist generals kept the war going. These were detailed by a revisionist historian, Gar Alperovitz and thus come long after the fact when it became more fashionable to search and promulgate these theories.[5] More importantly, this theory cherry picks some information and leave out much more important events that shows these peace feelers were completely impotent and U.S. officials were correct when they disregarded them.

    The best evidence against this theory comes after the Japanese emperor’s decision to surrender. After America dropped the bombs and the emperor wanted peace army leaders challenged and almost reversed the decision through a military coup. Up until the dropping of the second bomb Japanese officials thought a defense of Japan could produce favorable peace terms that at times included conditional surrender, voluntary reduction (but not elimination) of their military, and protections from war crimes tribunals.[6] The peace overtures before the dropping of the bomb were impotent, and dropping the required of unconditional surrender ignores the many other conditions that Japanese officials favored until the second atomic bombing.

    Let me stress, even AFTER America dropped atomic bombs significant factions in Japan wanted to keep fighting. Peace was not possible before the bombs were dropped. The idea is an ahistorical fantasy used by modern pundits to attack America. Moreover, American willingness to negotiate before the bombs dropped would have emboldened the Japanese and aggressive army generals to think that more fighting would have gotten them more concessions.

    Other critics quote leaders who sound authoritative but really aren’t. Many of these quotes also ignore historical context. One example comes from Eisenhower who said: [I believe] that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[7]

    With all due respect to Eisenhower and other leaders cherry picked for opposing nuclear weapons, he was thousands of miles and away and was not privy to the intelligence and decision-making councils that led to it. It would be like Admiral Nimitz second guessing Eisenhower’s decision to stop at the Elbe. Eisenhower is a particularly odd choice for opposing nuclear weapons since his New Look military relied so heavily on nukes and spooks.[8] Those that blanche at the use of nuclear weapons and hate the national security state should probably avoid quoting a general that as president, threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait crises, and unleashed CIA sponsored coups on democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala that still reverberate today.

    Other military critics were vocal against nuclear weapons not because of moral principles, but because of parochial rivalries. The bombs were delivered by bombers, and this helped Curtis LeMay argue for the creation of an independent Airforce. In turn, this would take resources and prestige away from the Navy and Army chiefs, who were incredibly territorial, had differing strategies and demands, and wanted the air corps assets divided between them.[9] Thus it isn’t surprising to find that admirals would elevate the role of commerce raiding in the defeat of Japan and minimize the “barbaric” “toy” dropped by the budding air corps. Their opposition had little to do with the moral concerns of the time and are especially dissimilar from modern antiwar sentiments. In fact, the admirals preferred a blockade of the Japan that would have slowly killed millions, and the army preferred an invasion that would have also killed millions (see below.)

    The sad truth is that the Japanese would not surrender without the atomic bomb dropping or millions (of Americans, Japanese, and Chinese) dying from an invasion. The East Asian victims of Japanese aggression are often forgotten in Western centric debates over the war. But the Japanese launched the Ichigo offensive in late 1944 which was comparable in size and scope to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.[10] Nationalist Chinese leader Kiang Chai Shek had seen a great deal of bloodshed but called this period the worst of his entire life. An estimated two hundred thousand Chinese a month were dying at this point in the war. An invasion by American forces on the Japanese homeland would have skyrocketed those figures. General Marshall estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (later updated to 1.2 million). Secretary of War Stimson estimated that 400,000 to 800,000 Americans would have died, (including 100,000 prisoners of war that were set to be executed upon invasion), and 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died from an invasion.[11]

    There was the option not to fight which would have left China and much of Asia in the hands of a regime as bad as Hitler’s. Yet one has to wonder how long the imperial Japanese would have felt comfortable with the U.S. in Hawaii so they would probably have attacked America again anyway. The U.S. could have continued to bomb them. The firebombing of Tokyo and conventional attacks actually caused more deaths than the nuclear bombs so that couldn’t have been a better option.

    The U.S. could have blockaded the country. The admirals at the time and later scholars argued that the U.S. had already destroyed much of Japanese shipping and merchant marine by August 1945,[12] and this may have been what Eisenhower meant by already defeating Japan, but then America would have to wait for the country to starve to death. That would have caused more deaths and in a slow manner arguably worse than two nuclear bombings. Its effects would have been unevenly felt across the population. With the elites that caused the war suffering far less than the population that fought it. It also would have given the Japanese army in China more time in their genocidal war against China. So between deaths from famine and deaths from the Greater East Asian War that option would have killed millions more than the bombings. Even then, any peace offering from the emperor would have likely faced a coup just like the surrender after the atomic bombings. Keep in mind that the admirals who argued for this possibly unjust and criminal course are the same admirals being quoted out of context today for entirely different reasons than the military leaders originally intended.  

    Dropping the atomic bomb quickly ended the war which prevented the Soviets from invading as well. The first atomic bomb was dropped literally the day after Stalin finalized plans to invade Japan and he invaded a day after the second bombing. The Soviets treated Eastern Europeans to show trials, mass deportations to the gulags, the Soviet army’s refusal to help the free Poles in the Battle of Warsaw etc., so it was a good option to end the war quickly and prevent the negative effects of Communist rule seen in East Germany and Eastern Europe even today. You can easily argue that the Japanese Constitution and rebuilding under MacArthur was far preferable to Soviet occupation.

    After looking at the other options and strategic context in late 1945, the decision to drop the bomb was moral and justified. In fact, ending the war for mere hundreds of thousands compared to the abject blood bath and millions of deaths that awaited all sides is the reason why the allied leaders considered this weapon a godsend. Even though Michael Walzer opposed nuclear weapons, he also said that ending a war swiftly with a minimum of causalities is the greatest kindness a leader could offer.[13]  Secretary of State Henry Stimson exemplified the latter idea when he said: My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man, in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.[14]

    In short, every other option than using nuclear weapons was worse. Taken in vacuum nuclear weapons are horrific, but that weapon wasn’t used in a vacuum and its incredibly unfair to blame America for being barbarians while ignoring the context that justified and compelled their use. This is probably because few have studied military ethics in depth, they simply think that some things are “bad.” But again, considering every option and the context of their war the dropping of atomic weapons was justified and necessary. The war was ended more quickly, saving lives, including millions of Asian lives.

    Americans and members of the church must rightly hope to avoid the tragedy of any having any conflict. But Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sadly reminds us that the specter of war can never be vanquished with hopeful thoughts. Americans can recognize that war, particularly defending life against the most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, was necessary, and the atomic bombings were a necessary and justified choice in World War II.  And every American should strive to have the knowledge and tools to properly judge the morality of the past, which in turn provides the moral confidence to justly proceed in the present.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. If you're attacking me somewhere online about this post, please use the code word: war plan orange, to let me know you've actually read my argument. 

*****

---

[1] For a good overview, see John Lynn, Battle: A History of Combat and Culture, (New York: Basic Books, 2009), chapter 7.

[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (New York, Basic Books, 2015), 250-260.

[3] Howard Zinn, “Breaking the Silence.” ND. (https://web.archive.org/web/20071201172331/http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html Accessed August 6th, 2021.)

[4] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report: 24.  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effect of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6.  https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks

[5] Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Vintage Books: 2010). https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

[6] Richard Frank. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, (Random House, 2001), 97.

[7] Julian Borger, “Hiroshima at 75: Bitter Row Persists Over US Decision to Drop the Bomb, The Guardian, August 5^th, 2020, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/04/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-us-japan-history (Accessed August 6th 2021.)

[8] Gordon H. Change, He Di, “Eisenhower’s Reckless Nuclear Gamble over the Taiwan Strait,” American Historical Review 98 (December 1993), 1502-1523.

[9] Keith McFarland, "The 1949 Revolt of the Admirals" Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College Quarterly. XI (2): 53–63.

[10] Morgan Deane, Decisive Battles in Chinese History, (Westholme Press, 2017), chapter 12.  

[11] Frank, Downfall, 340.

[12] Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report, 11.

[13] Michael Walzer, Just Wars, quoting Moltke the Elder, 47.  

[14] Henry L. Stimson, as quoted in The Great Decision: The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1959) by Michael Amrine, p. 197