Are Nuclear Weapons Intrinsically Evil?

 Are Nuclear Weapons Intrinsically Evil?

Matthew Bellisario O.P. 2020

Talk in Catholic News

With the anniversary of the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan, there has been much talk in the Catholic online sphere about the immorality of nuclear weapons. In fact, Pope Francis said on August 6th, 2020 that “the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral." and for peace to flourish, therefore, “all people need to lay down the weapons of war, and especially the most powerful and destructive weapon: nuclear arms that can cripple and destroy whole cities, whole countries,”. This statement makes it appear as if any use of atomic energy in war is immoral. Is it however that simple to condemn any use of atomic energy for purposes of war or weapons? The second sentence of Pope Francis seems to make a qualification that must be considered, which focuses on arms that can cripple entire cities or countries.  

An Important Question and Distinction

In today's theological climate statements made by theologians today often lack the proper use of reason in analyzing distinguishing aspects concerning moral theology.  It is essential in moral theology to look at moral acts closely in their proper context when it comes to actions that are not intrinsically evil in and of themselves. Not all acts are immoral because of their very nature such as the taking of innocent life through abortion or the use of artificial contraception. Some acts are evil because of the context of the act, the means used to achieve it, or the proportion of their execution. 

For example, using a shotgun for hunting or self-defense is not immoral. Using a firearm is not intrinsically evil. Using one to murder someone is evil, or using a shotgun to defend oneself from someone with no recognized ability to do one serious harm would be disproportionate. Thus these acts are immoral not because of the use of a shotgun, but the way in which it was used. Hunting or proportionate self-defense demonstrates proper use of a weapon of which can be used for good or ill. Likewise one can have an alcoholic drink and not become intoxicated, thus alcohol is not intrinsically evil, but its abuse is evil. What can we say about nuclear weapons in this respect? 

The Use and Proportion of Nuclear Weapons

It can be argued that nuclear weapons of a lesser capacity known as tactical nuclear weapons could be used legitimately in times of war. By definition, tactical nuclear weapons are, "small nuclear warheads and delivery systems intended for use on the battlefield or for a limited strike. Less powerful than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are intended to devastate enemy targets in a specific area without causing widespread destruction and radioactive fallout." For example, a small yield nuclear weapon directed at a military installation in which the fallout would be limited to the military target area could be argued to be a legitimate use of such a weapon. An example could be targeting a military installation that contained a high yield nuclear weapon capable of only taking out targets the size of major cities. In order to be sure of the destruction of such a high yield weapon, the military could use what is referred to as a tactical nuclear weapon with limited destruction to destroy this lethal military target. In other words, it can be argued that it is not the technology of the weapon in this case that is the issue. It is not in utilizing nuclear or atomic energy that is evil, it is the destructive yield of the weapon and the target for which it is intended that would make its use evil. 

Most of the nuclear weapons possessed by the US yield between 0.3 kilotons and 50 kilotons. Just to give you an idea of what this yield means in laymen's terms, 1 kiloton is a force equal to 1,000 tons of TNT. So obviously there is a colossal difference between a .3 kiloton warhead and a 50 kiloton warhead. These facts cannot be ignored or dismissed by moral theologians. It would be incorrect to say that any weapon that utilizes atomic energy is immoral, being that even propulsion systems for weapons or military vehicles or ships can utilize such technology that would at face value fall under Pope Francis' condemnation. The mere technology however does not make them immoral. Nor would using or possessing a lower-yield nuclear weapon which can be confined to military targets be in and of itself immoral. The topic however which always comes up is the two Atomic bombs dropped on Japan. This event will offer us a full explanation of this moral question. 

Japan and the Atomic Bomb

The big question that remains a point of moral debate is the use of the two Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski. This answer to the legitimacy of these two particular cases needs to be examined closely. The critical element in these two cases concerns: 1. the intended target, 2. the proportion of destruction to the target area, and 3. the collateral damage to non-combatants. Was the collateral damage within reason in order to destroy the intended target? Obviously, these factors fall into a somewhat subjective area of moral theology. There are however proper ways in which to apply these moral principles. The idea of total war to many today is very foreign. The idea of "non-combatants" being casualties although this is many times unavoidable in war, is not acceptable for many moral theologians. For them, war itself is never permissible, although we know that there is such an entity as a just war, and this means that there are just methods of combat as well. The question is, was the use of the Atomic bomb on Japan moral, and if it was not does this justify the condemnation of all nuclear weapons. 

It seems to be an accepted fact that Japan was largely utilizing what we would call the civilian population to prepare the country for an invasion of the homeland. The two targets were indeed industrial centers being utilized to fight the US as they were approaching Japan to end the war by invasion. The targets were military being that these cities did produce military weapons. The question then revolves around the definition of what constitutes combatants and non-combatants and whether or not the destructive proportionality of the bombs was necessary to achieve the desired outcome of destroying the military infrastructure. The idea of never having any non-combatant casualties in war is never a realistic outcome being that even large conventional bombs killed countless civilians during the war even when obliteration bombing was not conducted. Even if a military target is only hit it is still possible that non-combatants can be killed. We know that there are several countries in the world that build military compounds in the midst of civilian populations just to deter an attack. Thus, there are conditions that allow for double-effect which allows for unintended civilian casualties. We must understand that things are not always black and white during the war. 

The Church and Theologians 

Interestingly enough an essay titled 'Between Piety and Polity: The American Catholic Response to the First Atomic Bombs' Emma Catherine Scally writes, "As early as 1943, Pope Pius XII had spoken out in opposition to the use of nuclear weapons saying that, “…it should be of utmost importance that the energy originated should not be let loose to explode.” However, once the United States dropped the bombs on Japan, the Vatican’s seemingly clear position on nuclear weaponry became muddied by the Pope’s subsequent actions. Although the L’Osservatore Romano, Rome’s official newspaper, had published an editorial that harshly criticized President Truman’s decision to use the bomb, the Pontiff retracted similar statements that were published in the Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for soldiers, and classified them as “not authorized.”9 As commented on by the New York Times, Pope Pius XII’s decision to remain ambiguous on international affairs was unsurprising, as the Vatican, “…in general prefers to remain… ‘gray’ rather than taking a stand that would make it ‘black’ or ‘white’ on controversial issues.”

Although the indiscriminate taking of civilian lives has always been condemned by the Church, there are arguments on both sides of the table by Catholic theologians as to the legitimacy of the Atomic bombs. It is no secret that during the war Catholics in 1945 were not united against the use of the atomic bomb and were divided on the matter. Even today Catholic theologians debate the topic, although there is a consensus of moral theologians, which we will get to in due time. Catholics in the US were divided for many reasons, some of them being that it would seem unpatriotic to go against the decision, or that an invasion would have cost many American lives. Many argued that it effectively ended the war of which was a great source of agony for many who had lost loved ones. Of course, none of these reasons are theologically sound but are subjective opinions given the time and circumstances of which Catholics found themselves. For many Catholics, the reasons fall under the error of casuistry. 

The Catholic Theological Debate

Fr. Heribert Jone has argued that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be argued as being proportionate. He writes, "We think this proportion can exist 1) because today’s concept of “total war” has greatly restricted the meaning of the term “non-combatant”; 2) because in modern warfare the conscription of industry, as well as manpower, greatly extends the effort on the home front; and 3) because it is difficult to set limits to the defense action of a people whose physical and even spiritual existence is threatened by a godless tyranny. Therefore, while use of atomic weapons must be greatly restricted to the destruction of military objectives, nevertheless, it may be justified without doing violence to the principle of a twofold effect." (Moral Theology #219 pp. 143-44 1961 Edition) You can read an entire article on this position here. The general argument is that the loss of innocent life can be accounted for under the law of double-effect. 

The opposing theological opinion, which we must admit is more popular is that it was not proportionate. Father George Zabelka, the Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Air Force who actually blessed the bombs which dropped over Japan and initially supported the attack regretted that he ever did such a thing and condemned the act after he saw the destruction. "All I can say today is that I was wrong. Christ would not be the instrument to unleash such horror on his people." Father John K. Ryan, a professor at the Catholic University of America said just a day after the bombing that, “[t]he story of the atomic bomb should fill us with dismay.” Theologian John C. Ford referred to this type of bombing as "obliteration bombing" which overreaches in its destruction of intended targets. This would include bombings such as the one in Dresden or in other areas that were bombed on both sides which killed much too indiscriminately. Although nuclear weapons were never used on Germany, just take a look at Hamburg below and see if you can tell much of a difference. 

After Hamburg Bombing

Father Ford stated the following illustrating the general problem of obliteration bombing, which is really the issue at hand, "The hierarchy of France protested in the following terms: Almost daily we witness the ruthless devastation inflicted upon the civilian population by air operations carried out by the Allied Powers. Thousands of men, women and children who have nothing to do with the war are being killed or injured; their homes are wiped out; churches, schools, and hospitals are destroyed. . . .We are convinced that it should be possible to distinguish with greater care between military objectives and the humble dwellings of women and children with which they are surrounded... .We beg you to intercede with the responsible statesmen of your countries so that no further acts of warfare may be carried out, which, by striking blindly at innocent populations, by mutilating the face of our country, might engender between our nations a volume of hatred which not even peace will be able to assuage."

Modern warfare had introduced new technology and with it new circumstances. A major question to be answered was important for solving the moral dilemma. For Ford, "The thorny question is rather: Who are to be considered non-combatants in a war like the present one?" Ford investigates this issue being that Catholic theologians were engaged in trying to define what constituted a "non-combatant." Were those who were actively building weapons of war merely innocent bystanders? Could those participating directly in the war effort in factories and neighboring housing be classified as acceptable unintended casualties? If so, to what extent? If there is doubt as to the collateral damage is a nation obliged to err on the side of preserving life rather than completing its military objective? Ford will answer these questions. 

Ford describes the dilemma, 

The "distinction between combatant and non-combatant has been called into question. It has been entirely eliminated in theory and practice by out-and-out exponents of total war. Mr. Spaight considers it an anachronism when applied to civilian munitions workers. Even some Catholics appear to believe that, as founded on the difference between innocence and guilt, the distinction is meaningless in modern practice. Other Catholics, however, cling to the distinction as essential even for our own times. For instance, Father Ulpian Lopez, S.J., while admitting the difficulty of applying the distinction, insists that it is still valid and clearly valid for numerous classes of persons. He considers that old men, children and women, and in general all who are engaged in works of peace rather than works of war—doctors, clergy, religious, teachers, nurses, etc.—are certainly to be classed as innocent non-combatants. Even munitions workers are to be distinguished from combatants who are armed and ready to fight. Though not so positive on this point, he believes they should be classed as non-combatants both by natural and international law, and hence as immune from direct attack."

 "...it is obvious at the same time that the conditions of modern war are changed, and the change makes it very difficult and sometimes impossible to draw accurately the line which separates combatants from innocent non-combatants according to natural law. Soldiers under arms are obviously combatants. It is not so clear what is to be said of civilian munitions workers, the members of various organized labor battalions not under arms, and so of others. Of these doubtful classes I do not intend to speak. But it is not necessary to draw an accurate line in order to solve the problem of obliteration bombing. It is enough to show that there are large numbers of people even in the conditions of modern warfare who are clearly to be classed as innocent non-combatants, and then that, wherever the line is drawn, obliteration bombing goes beyond it and violates the rights of these people. 

This is where the moral question of the Atomic bomb comes into play. Ford offers a definition of obliteration bombing which can be applied to the use of these attacks on Japan, "I have defined obliteration bombing as follows: It is the strategic bombings by means of incendiaries and explosives, of industrial centers of population, in which the target to be wiped out is not a definite factory, bridge, or similar object, but a large section of a whole city comprising one-third to two-thirds of its whole built-up area and including by design the residential districts of workingmen and their families. It is perfectly obvious that such bombing necessarily includes an attack on the lives, health, and property of many innocent civilians. Above I estimated that at the very least three-quarters of the civilian population in a country like the United States must be classed as certainly innocent civilians, and immune from attack. That estimate applied to the general population and was an extremely modest one. But even in industrial cities in war time there is a very large proportion of the civil population which it would be certainly immoral to attack most women, almost all children under 14 years, almost all men over seventy, and a very large number of men who are engaged neither in war manufactures, transport, communications, nor in other doubtful categories."

There is one other hurdle however that Ford must overcome and that is the issue of 'double effect' which is the unintended result of an attack, in this case, the killing of non-combatants. 

Ford writes, "so the immorality of obliteration bombing, its violation of the rights of these innocent civilians to life, bodily integrity, and property would be crystal clear, and would not be subject to dispute, at least amongst Catholics, were it not for the appeal to the principle of the double effect. This principle can be worded as follows: The foreseen evil effect of a man's action is not morally imputable to him, provided that (1) the action in itself is directed immediately to some other result, (2) the evil effect is not willed either in itself or as a means to the other result, (3) the permitting of the evil effect is justified by reasons of proportionate weight. 

Applying the principle to obliteration bombing, it would be argued: The bombing has a good effect, the destruction of war industries, communications, and military installations, leading to the defeat of the enemy; it also has an evil effect, the injury and death of innocent civilians (and the destruction of their property). The damage to civilian life (and property) is not intentional; it is not a means to the production of the good effect, but is merely its incidental accompaniment. Furthermore, the slaughter, maiming, and destruction can be permitted because there are sufficiently weighty excusing causes, such as shortening the war, military necessity, saving our own soldiers' lives, etc. This viewpoint, therefore, would find a simple solution to the moral problem merely by advising the air strategist to let go his bombs, but withhold his intention. In what follows I shall attempt to show that this is an unwarranted application of the principle of the double effect."

Ford then refers to the moral theologian Fr. John K Ryan whom I quoted earlier to solve the issue, 

"Looking at obliteration bombing as it actually takes place, can we say that the maiming and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent persons, which are its immediate result, are not directly intended, but merely permitted? Is it possible psychologically and honestly for the leaders who have developed and ordered the employment of this strategy to say they do not intend any harm to innocent civilians?

To many, I am sure, the distinction between the material fabric of a city, especially the densely populated residential areas, and the hundreds of thousands of human inhabitants of such areas, will seem very unreal and casuistical. They will consider it merely playing with words to say that in dropping a bomb on a man's house, knowing he is there with his family, the intent is merely to destroy the house and interfere with enemy production (through absenteeism), while permitting the injury and death of the family."

Catholic Church Among Hiroshima Ruins

Further, Dr. John K. Ryan of Catholic University wrote on this point as follows (after the present war started, but before we entered it):

"The actual physical situation in great modern cities is not such that they can be subjected to attack on the principle that only industrial, military, administrative and traffic centers are being attacked directly, while the damage done to noncombatants is only incidental and not an object of direct volition. Modern cities are not as compact and fortresslike as were those of the past. Their residential sections are so extensive, so clearly defined, and so discernible, that it is for the most part idle to attempt to apply the principle of indirection to attacks on these districts. Thus to rain explosives and incendiary bombs upon the vast residential tracts of say, Chicago, or Brooklyn, the Bronx, and the suburbs of New York City, on the score that this is only incidental to attack on munition plants and administrative headquarters in other parts of the city, cannot stand the slightest critical examination either moral or logic, as an instance of the principle of the double effect. 

In such an argument is contained the explicit distinction between groups and sections that may be made the object of direct attack and other groups and sections that are immune from such attack. But incendiary and explosive bombs would hardly respect this distinction, for they destroy with equal impartiality either group. When an entire city is destroyed by such means the military objectives are destroyed indirectly and incidentally as parts of a great civil center, rather than vice versa. It is a case of the good effect coming along with, or better, after and on account of the evil, instead of a case where the evil is incidental to the attainment of a good.... It is hardly correct to think and speak of the damage done to life and property in such situations as being 'incidental destruction. 'Rather it is the realistic interpretation of this situation to hold that any good gained is incidental to the evil, and that the phrase 'wholesale destruction of property and civilian life' indicates the true relation between the good and evil effects involved. 

The evil effect is first, immediate and direct, while any military advantage comes through and after it in a secondary, derivative, and dependent way. As far as the principle of the double effect is concerned, an attack upon a large city with the weapons of modern warfare is the direct opposite of such an attack with the weapons of earlier days.... The general civil suffering from the immediate effects of total war cannot be justified on the score that it is indirect. Justification for the infliction of such suffering must be sought by other means, and it is doubtful if even war-time propaganda can present the new warfare as other than it is—a direct and intended offensive against the non-combatant population of the nations at war, especially as concentrated in large numbers in the great capital and industrial cities."

Ford then concludes, "Obliteration bombing would come squarely under the condemnation of this argument...Now I contend that it is impossible to make civilian terrorization, or the undermining of civilian morale, an object of bombing without having a direct intent to injure and kill civilians. The principal cause of civilian terror, the principal cause of the loss of morale, is the danger to life and limb which accompanies the raids. If one intends the end, terror, one cannot escape intending the principal means of obtaining that end, namely, the injury and death of civilians. Both from the nature of the obliteration operation itself, then, and from the professed objective of undermining morale, I conclude that it is impossible to adopt this strategy without having the direct intent of violating the rights of innocent civilians. This intent is, of course, gravely immoral... I conclude from all this that it is illegitimate to appeal to the principle of the double effect when the alleged proportionate causç is speculative, future, and problematical, while the evil effect is definite, widespread, certain, and immediate." 

Conclusion

In closing, the issue of the morality of nuclear weapons concerns not the technology of the bomb but the way in which it used and whether or not it becomes an object of obliteration bombing. Since certain types of nuclear weapons can indeed with today's guidance systems and low yield capacity target specific military installations while avoiding the death of civilians, we must conclude that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are not evil, but in how they are targeted and to what destructive capacity they will yield.