Oh yes, I forgot to mention that at the time the bombs were dropped, we were bring 1,800 soldiers back every two weeks from Le Havre, France, many combat veterans. They were to have 30 days of Leave, then report to a POE on the west coast for embarkation for the invasion of Japan. We all knew what we faced and newspapers contained estimates of casualties, around half a million. That half a million was because we made fearful underestimates of Japanese air planes (by about 50%) and subs, etc.
As I said, hopeless, stupid blatherings.
I didn't mention losing one cousin on D-Day + 4, and another on a destroyer that rolled over in the Pacific.
We were there. You weren't. Millions cheered, so don't anyone offer any apologies for me. A historical fact is simply that, a report of what happened that brought a certain result.
Howard E. Morseburg

As one whose close school chum (Allen Franken) died in the Battle for Manila, whose other close friend (Joe Gaudet) was on Okinawa scheduled to be in the first wave ashore, and who was scheduled to be there for the invasion as a crew member on a troop ship, I was one of those cheering at the news of both drops, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find no reason to question anyone's judgment, no regrets nor recall of my cheers. The Japanese committed many atrocious deeds, and it was their conduct that brought about the loss of many innocents in their own country. Do all the sanctimonious blathering you wish; the inescapable fact is that the bombs were dropped, other innocent lives were saved as a result, and it is over.
I saw 580 lives go up to the sky in a sheet of flame in an instant on the SS Paul Hamilton, April 20, 1944, off Algiers. There are few alive today who have witnessed anything like that. 580 young men died instantaneously!
It was a sight much like the Atomic bomb, only smaller.
A baby, a youngster, a teen-ager, is a maturing soldier, unfortunately. Is a soul judged by age?
Perhaps their fathers committed the sins for them in China and throughout the Pacific. One day all the answers you seek will suddenly become clear to you and every conception you have now may be different to you then. The answers that those 580 men, Army, Navy and Merchant Seaman, found that evening off the coast of Africa.

I think this debate hinges on one simple question: Do the ends justify the means? From my undersanding, people defending Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is based on the presumption that not doing so would result in far worse casulaties on all sides. In other words, it is perfctly acceptable to knowingly kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children if doing so would save far more innocent people in the long run. But how can one play God and presume to know exactly what will happen in the future? I will stand by my values and principles and let the chips fall where they may. It is against my onscience to drop a bomb on a city that I know will kil thousands of innocent people. Period.

Now that was SDG.

Damn straight. And kudos, sir, for your (sadly) well-warranted caution.

Now that was SDG.

Joe D'Hippolito: Your malice and gall is nothing short of astonishing. Before God, how can you dare to write such things as "doing things that would honor Christ and His Kingdom" while lying like the Devil in Genesis 3, telling the truth with just enough of a twist to corrupt it?
You even implicitly indict yourself for your comments about the attack on the Vatican. Is this how you demonstrate contrition, by fraudulently and contemptuously abusing the trust of people like the Chicken, above?
In principle, Jimmy really might have written most of what you lyingly ascribed to him -- with the glaring exception of the bit about "by calling him a war criminal, I'm judging the soul of a man I've never met," which of course he wasn't.
And maybe it's just me, but the idea that I would ever say "Your idea about doing things that would honor Christ and His Kingdom is a good one" -- as if this were an "idea" that had just occurred to me -- is preposterous.
Jimmy reached out to you with mercy and genuine spiritual concern. This was how you repaid him. Is your contempt for Jimmy and me greater than your fear of God? Or do you imagine that God agrees with you and approves of your actions?

I add my, "Amen," to Jimmy's comments, above, as well.
You know, if we had as much passion for feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and forgiving our enemies as has been demonstrated above...
I'm just saying...
The Chicken

I hope it was really Jimmy above.

I was with you until those two. However, I would accept them with modification:

Dear c matt
Perhaps one of us didn't pay enough attention to the comment you quoted. I believe Orthros wrote:
...there is no ground for reasonably supporting any of the following (guaranteed to offend all sides):

Which would mean that both of you are in agreement.

Joe D'Hippolito, just stop it.
Listen to the better angels of your nature.
Be the man you were in the e-mail that you sent in which you apologized.
That kind of person deserves respect.

Blanket condemnation of ALL war
Blanket condemnation of ALL use of the death penalty
I was with you until those two. However, I would accept them with modification:
Condemnation of all war that does not meet just war criteria (in theory, one could meet it; in practice, exceedingly rare)
Condemnation of vast proportion of use of the death penalty (like above - in theory, could be used; in practice, very rare).

Joe D'Hippolito:
Doncha kinda think that calling yourself "God" is curious way to fight blasphemy?

Even if he had tested one bomb for Japanese authorities on a deserted space, would they have been convinced, especially if they were encouraging their citizens to fight to the death?
EXACTLY.
Truman no doubt did not believe they would be convinced. Which is exactly why the claim Hiro and Naga were selected because they were "military targets" is bogus. He wanted to to hurt the Japanese into surrender by attacking the Japanese and showing what he could do the them as a people/nation, not just their military.

All of those cited in your 12:16:38 comment wrote after the fact---with perfect hindsight. Near contemporary is not the same as contemporary.
I am sorry TL, but that has to be one of the weakest criticisms I have ever encountered. Of COURSE they couldn't criticize the use beforehond because, umm, it was kind of a secret weapons program, remember?

Much of the Japanese "war industry" was scattered throughout cities in small machine shops in and near peoples' homes. So "the cities" were combat-related targets.
Not too different from the US war industry. After all, those midwestern factory workers making arms for the Allies were as much a part of the war effort. I guess that makes Pittsburg a combat-related target.

The only GOD from whom the comment above could be is the "god" from Star Trek V...I wish William Shatner were here.

This is one of those things, like the death penalty, that I was gung-ho about as a teen and young adult, but have had to seriously re-think as an informed Catholic adult.
It is unfortunate, because I love my country, but I am not willing to say "my country, right or wrong". I love America enough to point out its flaws so it can be improved. (The beam in its eye is a beam in my own, so I am fully in my rights to point out its flaws.)

Harvey: Elwood P. Dowd was a loser. And you're an enabler.
Have to admit, though, I didn't give you enough credit as a prose stylist.

[DELETED]

IB Bill
My argument only makes sense if you accept my premises.
This is the same point that created the hang up with Mr. D'Hippolito.
Unless we have similar premises, all the arguments in the world won't matter.
If I accept utilitarianism, then my argument is absolutely worthless.
If God's will as revealed in His Catholic Church is the accepted basis, then there is no ground for reasonably supporting any of the following (guaranteed to offend all sides):
Abortion
Euthanasia
Fetal stem-cell research
Women priests
Firebombing civilian populations
Dropping atom weapons on non-military targets
Waterboarding prisoners
Usury
Oppression of the poor and widows
Failure to pay workers a just wage
Blanket condemnation of ALL war
Blanket condemnation of ALL use of the death penalty
My assumption was that most of the folks reading and participating on this blog accept the 2nd premise, above, and are just debating its application.
I am starting to feel like this is not actually the case. It certainly isn't the case in Joe's and Greg's particular cases.

Greg,
My apologies. I certainly am *not* saying that all of you whose grandparents had "Invasion of Japan" stamped on their orders should never have been born. Even less am I saying that I care not about your grandfather and would have gladly thrown him to be cannon fodder in the war.
Nor am I a population control freak; I have 5 children, and God willing, will have many more.
What I am saying, which may not make sense because I am not a theologian, is simply this:
I'll take God's will, through obedience and resistence to sin, over the alternative, even if it means that I would never have been born.
I have absolutely zero control over my own existence, but if following God's will would have led to my non-existence, so be it.
Fiat voluntas tua - The hardest phrase to pronounce in the English... er... Latin language.

Dear Greg
As I understood, Orthos' comment was applying D'Hippolito's reasoning over the fact that the very people that was supposedly allowed to live because of the atomic slaughter happened to be the abortion-hunger baby boomers.
In that sense, it certainly looked less despicable and more coherent than the apostate americanophile chickenhawkism of the one who responded to it.

To be a bit provocative, but utterly truthful: It may have been better, morally speaking, given our current state of society, if many of the people born in the U.S. because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (i.e. the lives of our grandfathers being saved) had NOT been born.
Orthos, this comment is both crazy and despicable. And so is Joe D'Hippolito's response to it. Catholics who make these kind of comments bring unspeakable shame upon both the Church and their own characters.

The fact is that Truman really had only these choices: Use the bombs or risk an invasion that would kill many more Americans and Japanese.
Not entirely: Truman could have used the bombs on MILITARY targets instead of cities. Thus, my question remains unanswered: Why were military targets not used? With all of the supposed access to unclassified documents, presidential libraries and letters, nobody ever seems to address this question.

>We will never know if one or two tactical demonstrations of the A-bomb (say in Tokyo harbor, or some place) might have persuaded the Japanese, because we never tried it.
I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that, you are not being serious. Even after Hiroshima was bombed, Japan did not surrender. It took a second bomb and threats of more.

" 'you can't do evil that good may come' disallows victory over Japan."
We will never know if one or two tactical demonstrations of the A-bomb (say in Tokyo harbor, or some place) might have persuaded the Japanese, because we never tried it.
As often as the idea has been suggested since, it seems highly unlikely to me that Truman, et al, had not at least considered it.
Wiping out hundreds of thousands of non-combatants right off the bat seems a pretty drastic way to make a point.

I'd also like to point out that the whole "targeting of civilians" debate becomes irretrievably complicated where civilians are used as human shields.
If an enemy plants a missile silo on the middle of a populated city, in a schoolyard, are we consigned to our own destruction based on the just war theory?
If an enemy arms the general population to resist invaders and act as combatants, is there any reasonable way to limit targeting to only those who MIGHT be combatants? The Geneva convention REQUIRES that a "combatant" is described as such if he wears a uniform, and enjoys the rules of engagement BECAUSE he has taken on the uniform in order to differentiate himself from the civilian population. Terrorists and insurgents do not enjoy the same rules of engagement because they are deliberately camouflaged among the population, and so invite the death of civilians in the reasonable desire of their enemy to eliminate them.

First of all, an armistice requires two participants, of which the Japanese would not have participated. So, it's moot.
Secondly, an armistice would have been a farce, since it would have probably required validation Japan's brutal occupation of Manchuria, and only left the Japan question to be resolved by the Soviet Union. Thus, Japan's fate would have come down to either a "benevolent" United States that would rebuild their country, or a Soviet Union that would enslave them. Additionally, the U.S. had already decided to sacrifice Eastern Europe because we were simply burned out and not up to another knock-down drag out battle to take down Stalin. Only General Patton correctly foresaw the need to deal with the Soviets while the opportunity and motive was there. Churchill begged Eisenhower to take Vienna, Prague, and Berlin before the Soviets got there, and he simply declined.
It's very likely Japan would have fallen to the Soviets since we were in no mood to engage them in war, and certainly not to save a mortal enemy in imperial Japan.
So that brings us back to the necessity of a land invasion that would have automatically involved targeting of civilians with conventional weapons.

It may have been better, morally speaking, given our current state of society, if many of the people born in the U.S. because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (i.e. the lives of our grandfathers being saved) had NOT been born.
Thanks for that, Orthros. My father had "invasion of Japan" on his enlistment papers for the Marine Corps. Truman dropped the bomb before the invasion. He later met my mother and had three children, the youngest of which is me. So, in all likelihood, you're talking about me not being born. Or at least to somebody else.
As far as my argument about "we couldn't invade," I stand by my argument ... not as actual policy or what I would do, but instead saying that's exactly where the anti-consequentialist premises lead. You can talk about "double effect" all you want, but "you can't do evil that good may come" disallows victory over Japan.
Perhaps that's what God wanted -- perhaps a negotiated cease fire would've avoided the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy and the nuclear arms race to follow. But perhaps the Soviets would've invented the bomb and since our official policy is "you can't do evil that good may come," we couldn't have armed, we couldn't have threatened to nuke them back -- because that would be doing evil that good may come. Perhaps we'd face a standoff with a militarized, aggressive, fascist Japan to this day, and that Japan would've invented the bomb. Could we, a nuclear disarmed nation, could have contained both the Soviets and the Japanese? I dunno.

"I love life, my wife and children, but God's will is paramount, and if doing God's will would have resulted in my non-existence (an eerie thought, I admit)... then Thy Will, not my will, be done."
Amen.

Since Mr. D'Hippolito is no longer welcome to participate, I'd rather refrain from further interaction with his posts.

By the way, to clarify my statement that set off Mr. D'Hippolito, I include myself in that number (i.e. those who may not be born).
I love life, my wife and children, but God's will is paramount, and if doing God's will would have resulted in my non-existence (an eerie thought, I admit)... then Thy Will, not my will, be done.

Mr. D'Hippolito,
As long as you're not bitter. :)
Regards,
orthros

NOTE: FOR MULTIPLE, INCORRIGIBLE, FLAGRANT RULE VIOLATIONS, JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO IS DISINVITED FROM PARTICIPATING ON THIS BLOG.

It may have been better, morally speaking, given our current state of society, if many of the people born in the U.S. because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (i.e. the lives of our grandfathers being saved) had NOT been born.
Just for that comment, orthos, I hope someday that the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne and the Israeli Defense Force join ranks, attack the Vatican, place the pope under house arrest at St. John Lateran, arrest and execute summarily anyone wearing a cassock (especially the Curia), declare that the Vatican City State ceases to exist, enters negotiations with the Italian government to return the territory to Italian control -- and, for good measure, turns St. Peter's into a synagogue.

orthos, you are attempting to change the subject by focusing on me because your own arguments not only lack logic but any historical fact. Allow me to butress my case:
From the New York Daily News:
LAGRANGEVILLE, N.Y. - Sixty years later, Tomiko Morimoto West still remembers the low drone of the B-29 that flew over Hiroshima and changed her life forever.
She was just 13. The horrific atomic blast on Aug. 6, 1945, all but wiped out her hometown in an instant. Her widowed mother was killed, and her grandparents would die later in agony.
"They left me all by myself," she said.
All alone, she suffered the effects of radiation sickness, which may have contributed to her inability to have children. But she is not bitter.
West, now 73 and a retired Vassar College lecturer, believes the atomic bomb that robbed her of her family and her innocence saved countless lives - Japanese and American.
"If it was not for the atomic bomb, we [Japanese] were in such a mental state, we would have fought until the last person," said West, who was taught as a little girl how to fight with a sharpened bamboo stick in the event of an invasion.
From William Manchester's biography of Douglas MacArthur:
All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”
This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)
The fact is that Truman really had only these choices: Use the bombs or risk an invasion that would kill many more Americans and Japanese. Even if he had tested one bomb for Japanese authorities on a deserted space, would they have been convinced, especially if they were encouraging their citizens to fight to the death?
As I've said before, a commander-in-chief's primary moral responsibility is to protect the troops under his command from excessive casualties, whether he pursues victory or avoids defeat. I don't know how old you are but if you ever lost a loved one in war, you would understand.
You say you stand behind Pius XII's quote. Do you realize the ramifications of what he said (and what you apparently believe) when applied to the situation we're discussing?
I was baptized and raised a Catholic but the more I look at threads like this -- and the more I see the pervasive corruption that the Church refuses to confront -- I truly believe that the Church really doesn't care about the innocent or about human life (except for politically correct groups like immigrants and the unborn). The Church cares more about its own traditions and esoteric theories born out of its own arrogance and isolation.
A sovereign, righteous God will scourge a Church that for centuries has become infatuated with temporal, secular power; He may be doing it now through the bankruptcies of various dioceses and archdiocese as the result of the clerical sex-abuse scandal. He will certainly judge that same Church -- just as you have done the with the sons and daughters of many American servicemen [It may have been better, morally speaking, given our current state of society, if many of the people born in the U.S. because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (i.e. the lives of our grandfathers being saved) had NOT been born.] -- for its apostacies and arrogance.

Mr. D'Hippolito,
First, my errata: It had to have been the Catholic cathedral in Hiroshima. I couldn't remember which of the two cities was the target, my wife (by far the better half, and a political science major) reminded me, and in true inelegant style, I didn't preview to proof my submission. Sloppy work on my part, really.
As for your other points, I would say that I hadn't realized that you weren't Catholic, or for that matter if I may read between the lines, a theist, so my arguments aren't overly influencing since we're starting from different premises.
That said, I do think there's a bit of logic fallacious thinking in your approach.
I am not a philosopher, but there is a problem in your argument that I will call "Either-Or" fallacy: EITHER we bombed innocent civilians OR we did nothing and sent millions of Americans to their deaths, as well as the many Japanese deaths, etc. Binary forced choice, if you will.
Independent of the morality of the situation, I am not convinced, based on historical evidence, that these were our only two materially available choices.
As for my Pius XII quote, I do wholly stand behind that. If you don't believe in God, then there's no such thing as sin, and I follow your line of logic in passionately rejecting that belief, but again, I would humbly submit that your basic premise (i.e. rejection of Catholicism) is in error.
It also appears that you believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to a man, again based on your premise. I believe that there are multiple things worse than death... one in particular, damnation, that is infinitely worse.
To be a bit provocative, but utterly truthful: It may have been better, morally speaking, given our current state of society, if many of the people born in the U.S. because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (i.e. the lives of our grandfathers being saved) had NOT been born.
God alone knows the net impact to the world, and (more important) whether these individuals will ultimately be saved or damned.
So that I am clear and not making more assumptions: Do you believe in God, heaven, hell, some/all/none of the above?

Unfortunately, sir, you appear to be an American who happens to be Catholic rather than a Catholic who happens to be an American.
Given the respective attitudes toward evil and preventing it -- the American attitude of trying to do something and the Catholic one of couching things in esoterics while refusing to confront, especially when it comes to evils w/in the Church, such as the clerical sex-abuse scandal and the general abuse of episcopal authority -- I'll take that as a compliment. Catholicism is becoming Anglicanism w/o the "Anglican." IOW, it is venturing toward apostacy.
As Pius XII said "For the sake of saving the entire world, we cannot commit a single venial sin".
IOW, orthros, you and Pius X would allow a ghastly war to continue for a couple more years, at least, and claim many more lives merely in order to adhere to academic, esoteric versions of morality? And you don't think that's sinful?
The target chosen for the 1st bomb in Hiroshima was the *Catholic cathedral* in Nagasaki.
You make no sense. How can the target chosen for one city be a cathedral in another? Try again.
You also fail to address my challenge: Since the Japanese government knew what the bomb could do after Hiroshima, it had the choice either to surrender or continue fighting an unwinnable war. It chose the latter, knowing that the population would pay a heavy price. Why is that never brought into consideration?

These comments are a perfect synopsis of the Catholic mindset. Everything comes back to abortion, sin, etc... Thank god (pun intended), that our leaders haven't yet bowed to the Catholic mindset. It is truly frightening.

The question that is always missed/ignored in this discussion is: why didn't we bomb a military target?
Mr. D'Hippolito and IB Bill seem to skip that obvious question and assume that it was a civilian population or no bombing at all, and this is where Jimmy was making his point:
To intentionally bomb a civilian population INSTEAD OF a military target was gravely immoral.
Once, just once, I would like to see an objective argument explaining why a military target was the WRONG choice over a civilian city.

Very good post.
Regarding the dropping of leaflets: I used to work with a man who was a child living in Hiroshima at the time. Because of the leaflets, his father apparently decided that it would be prudent to take the family for a vacation somewhere else, which is how they happened not to be in the city when the bomb was dropped.

Mr. D'Hippolito,
Although there are many points I wish I could address to you, I'll stick to just two.
1) Anything that is sinful is to be rejected. As Pius XII said "For the sake of saving the entire world, we cannot commit a single venial sin".
2) The target chosen for the 1st bomb in Hiroshima was the *Catholic cathedral* in Nagasaki.
Unfortunately, sir, you appear to be an American who happens to be Catholic rather than a Catholic who happens to be an American.

In regard to the "peace feelers" put out by elements of the Japanese government prior to Hiroshima, there is no evidence that Japan was prepared to surrender.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NQHSxnDN0_gC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=japan+peace+feelers+prior+to+Hiroshima&source=bl&ots=GtCRuSADw4&sig=FzTV3QExIL9l5MihMpHCOO0vI9I&hl=en&ei=r5cISpLEDJH4MbWVwckH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA84,M1
The proof of course as to how far Japan was from surrender prior to the atomic bombings is that the Japanese government did not indicate its intent to surrender until August 14, 1945, five days after Nagasaki, and Hirohito did not address the nation by recording until the following day.

I've struggled with the question of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I guess, from those who defend Akin's argument, the only acceptable alternative to nuking Japan would be to have negotiated an armistice. That is, the U.S. doesn't invade Japan (thus avoids all those casualties on both sides), stops the firebombing (immoral for the same reasons as the atomic bomb), and negotiates a cessation of hostilities with Japan's military government. A little like the end of the Korean War. The U.S wouldn't have gotten a victory.

So far, no one has commented on the following irony: out of all of the cities and civilians that might have died fighting the Allies by the emperor's command, Nagasaki was the least likely, having, at least in 1929, 63,698 out of the total 94,096 Japanese Catholics in that city (it, also, being an archdiocese), who certainly knew that the emperor was no god and were not morally bound to fight for him.
One may claim that there would have been fierce fighting by the civilians for the emperor, but not in this city. It is mostly innocent of the possibility of being a city that would have fought to the death. The dropping of the bomb on this city (it was a secondary choice, since the original was cloud-covered, if I recall correctly) was possibly the worst of all possible actions if one wanted to defend any type of moral permission.
The Chicken

Sorry dude, I didn't know there was another 'Ben' commenting on this site. From now on I'll go under 'Benchwarmer' to avoid the confusion, cheers!

"Please tell us what you would do if you were in Pres. Truman's position?"
This is the question that bugs me the most as someone who would definitely aver that just war principles proscribe taking innocent life.
That position looks at the a-bomb in the most favorable light and still, correctly, concludes it is wrong. Invasion seems impossible, if not, also wrong. Certainly tremendous life is lost and it could be construed as an act of terrorism. Doing nothing to stop the aggressor is tantamount to surrender, at least in the short term, and is also wrong. If the president can somehow see hope in diplomatic channels, that would seem correct, but I doubt that seemed a legitimate option in this case.
However, what is a person to do if he believes every possible course of action that he has been presented with, including non-action, is morally wrong? In my mind, that is the only potential avenue to legitimize the a-bomb. The leader in such a position prays for guidance, but ultimately claims moral stupidity, and does the action that seems to cause the least harm to him. Even then, one could argue that the intrinsic acts of evil are still automatically worse than the non-intrinsic acts of evil. Is that statement morally sound, or can you argue that once an act is considered evil, it no longer matters whether it was intrinsic or not, in order to determine which was more evil?

Everytime Catholics twist themselves into justifying the atrocities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima they are bolstering the pro-abortion and gay marriage movements, for without their theological method, those movements would not hold in Catholic circles.
Rubbish, Patrick. When it comes to abortion on demand, the unborn child is not "at war" with its mother (despite feminist thought). And what does same-sex marriage have to do with the death of anybody?
Since you're so morally smug, Patrick, please tell us what you would do if you were in Pres. Truman's position? Remember, you're facing an enemy that will not surrender, despite its tenuous position, and are the commander-in-chief of an army that has already taken horrendous casualties over a four-year period -- and could very well take its worst casualties of the entire war on an invasion that would also send untold numbers of civilians to their deaths.
This is why I am losing respect for Catholic "moral teaching" (at least, as it is "applied" by the Sheas, Keatings and Akins of the world ... who, btw, have no Magisterial standing of their own!). It has less and less to do with real moral problems that real people face and more and more to do with these esoteric "thought experiments" that come out of these pseudo-academic hot houses.

Greg,
That's a nice piece of proportionalist theology there. You kind of give yourself away when you only evaluate point 4 of the double effect. Father McBrien would be proud.
Unfortunately, proportionalism is a condemned theology (this is clearly explained in Veritatis Splendor). You simply make a case that an action is moral solely based on the good effects. Even if the good effects are very very good.
Everytime Catholics twist themselves into justifying the atrocities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima they are bolstering the pro-abortion and gay marriage movements, for without their theological method, those movements would not hold in Catholic circles.
God bless!

Eloquently and intelligently stated, Greg.