Friday, August 06, 2004
1945 was a triumphant year for the Allies, but six years of all-out war had taken its toll on the moral resolve of the good guys. The old canard about a conventional invasion of Japan is mere wishful thinking. Perhaps millions would have died in such an assault. But I'm amazed that such an invasion would be considered a mandatory alternative. It sounds more like an outright excuse for the use of the atomic bomb against a civilian population.
Choices -- moral or immoral ones -- carry consequences outside the immediate cause and effect. Immoral choices bite the choosers not because God directly punishes immorality. (The Scriptural witness suggests otherwise.) The use of atomic weapons against civilians brought its own consequences for our nation. I'm not sure we're in better shape as a nation than we were in 1944. But I'm willing to be convinced if someone can make a case.
Civilians are the target of choice for warmongers these days. At least collateral damage inflicted upon the innocent is considered tolerable. But am I talking about superpower targeting of cities, or terrorists trying to sow anarchy and confusion?
Pacifists would not be targets of terrorism. That's easy to say, I suppose. Just as easy to call pacifists unrealistic. But the lesson I see from the last ninety years of history (if not going further back) is that those who make the argument for war, even just war, are losing the cause for peace. I see very little hope in the "peace by show of strength" argument. Who is more "powerful" than the world's only remaining superpower? What has this show of strength netted us? Not anything moral, to be sure.
