A world without nuclear weapons is possible, Pope Francis says in Japan

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicCourier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicCourier

Guest
“Convinced as I am that a world without nuclear weapons is possible and necessary,” the pope said, “I ask political leaders not to forget that these weapons cannot protect us from current threats to national and international security.”
 
I totally agree in theory.

But who’s gonna take the first step?
 
Why not us? Why not take the step towards becoming a more forgiving country with humility? Granted, doing so might not be easy but why not work towards a future of peace? For example, in Iran, it seems like it’s a mess from our hands since we supported the deposing of a democratically elected leader which ended up making a mess of things in Iran. And I realize this is offensive but if we were more forgiving in 9/11, maybe we wouldn’t have got into Iraq, wasting a lot of treasure that could have gone towards our infrastructure, our cities or helping working class and low income communities and schools? Why not learn our lessons and move on?
 
Last edited:
Will we be safe if other countries know they’re more powerful than us?
 
To be fair, I’m predisposing this with the possibility that we can always built a nuclear shield to protect ask (something that President Reagan proposed) so that’s scumbagggish.
 
Never mind that. What do you have to say regarding the rest of my post. Pardon about me sounding rude.
 
Last edited:
No prob 🙂

Yes, if we were safe and protected, then yes, let’s get rid of the nuclear weapons
 
Perhaps the many billions of dollars that go into creating nukes every year could be redirected towards a Star Wars program like shield.
 
I agree with the churches teaching on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Thought Experiment:
Nuclear Weapons are banned. Nuclear weapons are defined in this 200 page document.
Here are the scraps of what would be needed to make a nuclear weapon, that can be quickly assembled.
Every Tuesday, the army has a drill on how fast you can put together all but one piece of the nuclear weapon.
Every minor confrontation, attack, non-nuclear missile, and more results in every nation debating on the need to assemble the pieces of the nuclear weapon together. Every conflict could be the conflict that starts the nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Anyhow, the churches teaching still stands.
 
I hope I’m not in sin then, but I’d much rather this country continue to build and deploy nuclear weapons than be victimized by others who have them, or get into a conventional world war every generation, as I firmly believe would happen if nukes weren’t on the table.

Unless we as a world are ready to sacrifice nationalism altogether (a goal that is receding farther away), then a deterrent to large-scale warfare is needed.

I for one reject the premise that thousand-mile trench lines, carpet bombing, and generations of young men disappearing into conscription are OK but nuclear weapons are not. The leaders of nations need to be as afraid as everybody else if there are to be no more “lost generations.”

ICXC NIKA
 
What about something more targeted like I heard that back in WWII there was an idea about bat bombs, wouldn’t a more targeted approach have saved innocent lives?
 
Bat bombs? In an intercontinental war?

It wouldn’t work now anyhow. The animal-rights lunatics would have the head of whoever proposed it.

ICXC NIKA
 
It didn’t work then. On paper, looked good. In development, too long and too expensive.

It was, for all that, thought to have more potential than the pigeon missiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top