Can a Catholic soldier be made to serve on a nuclear base?

[DL82]

If a Catholic joins the armed forces of a country with nuclear weapons (such as the USA or UK), can they be forced to work in a role where they would be required to be involved in the launch of nuclear weapons? If they know this is a possibility, should they refuse to serve?

Given the Church´s stance on weapons of mass destruction, I don´t see how this can be any different to a doctor being forced to carry out abortions, i.e. gravely immoral. Am interested in others´ views on this topic.

 

[JimG]

If a Catholic joins the armed forces of a country with nuclear weapons (such as the USA or UK), can they be forced to work in a role where they would be required to be involved in the launch of nuclear weapons? If they know this is a possibility, should they refuse to serve?

Given the Church´s stance on weapons of mass destruction, I don´t see how this can be any different to a doctor being forced to carry out abortions, i.e. gravely immoral. Am interested in others´ views on this topic.

I’m pretty sure that there are Catholics who serve as nuclear missile launch officers in the Minuteman III silos in the northern part of the United States. These are two-man crews consisting of a commander and a deputy who must turn keys simultaneously in order to effect a launch. Actually, they are now two-person crews, as women are now allowed to serve as launch officers.

I recall an instance not too long ago where a male launch officer refused to serve alone with a woman, as he considered it a threat to morals and a near occasion of sin. His local priest defended his position on this matter, but never questioned whether he was morally compromised simply by serving in that position.

The nuclear deterrent has quite likely prevented the U.S. from being involved in a nuclear exchange throughout the years of the Cold War, and continues to prevent nuclear attack on the U.S. even today. If I recall correctly, the old NCCB (predecessor of the USCCB) during the cold war issued a statement that nuclear deterrence was conditionally acceptable from a moral standpoint.

 

[JimG]

P.S. I might add, however, that under USAF policy, no one would be forced to, or even allowed to, act as a nuclear launch officer if they had moral objections to being placed in that position. I don’t think the same would necessarily apply to support personnel.

 

[JimG]

Here is a link to an article in First Things magazine about the missile officer who refused to serve with women.

In reading the article, I note that the officer in question also had a moral issue with respect to potentially being ordered to launch a strike against a city, which he resolved to his own satisfaction.

 

[Don_Schneider]

In light of Jim’s thorough response, I just wanted to add that I don’t think the term “conscientious objector” has any relevance in the absence of conscription. I don’t think an all volunteer military would accept an enlistee who states he or she will only serve in certain capacities. If one feels like that, then why enlist in the first place?

I don’t know what the position is of pacifist religions such as the Seventh Day Adventist Church which will allow members to serve upon being drafted as, for example, medics (noncombatants) in regard to an all volunteer army. That is, I don’t know if they countenance their members volunteering or not. If they do allow it, there is always the danger that the person might not complete his or her service school for whatever reason (such as failing) and, in that eventuality, the normal outcome is to be sent to some sort of regular unit. (In the Navy, it is referred to as “being sent to the fleet, ” the usual outcome in such situations.) What happens in that event? Perhaps Jim might know. However, I am skeptical that the military will accept conscientious objectors under current circumstances.

As Jim alludes to, there are certain positions in the military which are all volunteer, such as the submarine force in the Navy. The Navy will accept recruits who do not want to serve on subs and since there is never a shortage of volunteers for sub school, that is no problem.

Since there is no Catholic objection to serving in nuclear weapons fields, I don’t think the military would accept an individual objection as valid, even in times of conscription.

 

[JimG]

I can’t speak for the Navy or other services; I only have some familiarity with the USAF missile forces, and that may be somewhat outdated. Having myself served as a Minuteman missile technician, I was not oblivious to the moral quandaries of the job. My concern was less than it might have been since I served only at a testing base, not in operational silos.

However, the OP’s question is not entirely moot. The Church has not specifically forbidden Catholics to serve in nuclear weapons areas. But more recently, a group of bishops has, I believe, issued a statement to the effect that the idea of nuclear deterrence can no longer be justified. I disagree with that conclusion, but it is worth our attention.

I think that any further reduction of the nuclear deterrent would put us at risk of nuclear blackmail, and increase, not decrease, the risk of nuclear war.

In the linked article (“Sex and the Married Missileer) the Catholic airman made his peace with his duties by deciding, on a daily basis, whether it was likely, given world conditions, that he might be given an immoral launch order. If he thought that might be a possibility, he would simply refuse to report for work, and bear the consequences. (Presumably he did not believe that any launch order was immoral. If so, his position was simply incoherent.)

But that sort of begs the question. His target might be strictly military—perhaps an isolated command center in Siberia—or it might be mixed—say, KGB HQ in Moscow. But he would have no way of knowing, since he does not, as a launch officer, know what the target is; as far as he’s concerned, it’s just a number between 0 and 99. So how would he discern a moral launch order from an immoral one?

(P.S. His concern about sexual temptation appears not entirely unjustified. In a later incident, a male missile crew member was accused of sexual assault against a female crew member, who did not report the incident until after the end of the alert.)

 

[edwest2]

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction still stands. If an enemy, any enemy, launched an attack on the United States, they would not likely survive a counterattack even though the US might be gravely injured. The Catholic soldier is tasked with defending his country, and if all of his information about the target is a list of coordinates then he may be unaware of where a particular missile is going and why. If there was a sudden attack, I don’t know if he would be told who it is. If tensions were building up with a particular country and that country was clearly a potential aggressor then he would be defending his own country, or an ally.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure if the concept of mutually assured destruction is still military policy; currently it may be more of a “counterforce” strategy.

With extremely more accurate weapons, the current stance is surely a moral improvement over Eisenhower’s “massive retaliation” strategy of the 1950’s. The idea was that any Soviet attack–even a conventional attack–against our western European allies would result in a massive nuclear retaliation against soviet cities by our always on alert B-52 nuclear force. It had to be a relatively blunt instrument because the weapons were not accurate enough to threaten only military targets. And our on-ground forces in Europe could not have repelled a massive conventional attack by Soviet forces.

 

[promethius]

If a Catholic joins the armed forces of a country with nuclear weapons (such as the USA or UK), can they be forced to work in a role where they would be required to be involved in the launch of nuclear weapons? If they know this is a possibility, should they refuse to serve?

Given the Church´s stance on weapons of mass destruction, I don´t see how this can be any different to a doctor being forced to carry out abortions, i.e. gravely immoral. Am interested in others´ views on this topic.

Actually, while they could be placed there (unless they were an overall consciencious objector), it’s VERY unlikely that they would be.

The military considers two major psychological factors for missileers (on top of standard national security considerations):

1. That they’re not crazy or deranged that they would try to “pull the trigger” when it was not the right time.
2. That they ARE the type of person who would “pull the trigger” without hesitation if and when they were called on to do so.

It would do the military absolutely no good whatsoever to have a launch officer who refused to pull the trigger in the heat of the moment.

I also disagree that nuclear deterence is no longer needed, and thankfully according to just war doctrine that decision of scale of response is a moral decision of the state: bishops can recommend, but it is the job of the government to decide.

 

[Mike_Dye]

The thing that is really scary is guys like the “nut case” in North Korea that plans a Forth of July party for Hawaii. I believe that Idiot needs a taste of “What is Black and Charred and looks like a vast wasteland and Glows in the Dark Syndrome”.And make sure he knows where he is going there will be no more cool hair fixes like he is used to.

 

[didymus]

If it makes anyone feel better I read somewhere that the USAF ran simulations which launch officers didn’t know were sims and found they refused to “turn the keys” about a third of the time.

Obviously they couldn’t try this with bombers – don’t know if the Navy ever did such a test.

 

[RWMorris]

If it makes anyone feel better I read somewhere that the USAF ran simulations which launch officers didn’t know were sims and found they refused to “turn the keys” about a third of the time.

Obviously they couldn’t try this with bombers – don’t know if the Navy ever did such a test.

According to anecdotal evidence, Marine Corps commanders have reported roughly the same percentage of Marines
have problems firing their M-16s in their first live fire fight. Those that live through that first fire fight have no problems in subsequent situations. So your stats sound reasonable.

 

[cerad]

If it makes anyone feel better I read somewhere that the USAF ran simulations which launch officers didn’t know were sims and found they refused to “turn the keys” about a third of the time.

Obviously they couldn’t try this with bombers – don’t know if the Navy ever did such a test.

I think you may be recalling the 1983 movie “Wargames”. In general, Hollywood is not the best source of information on these sorts of things.

 

[promethius]

If it makes anyone feel better I read somewhere that the USAF ran simulations which launch officers didn’t know were sims and found they refused to “turn the keys” about a third of the time.

Obviously they couldn’t try this with bombers – don’t know if the Navy ever did such a test.

That doesn’t make me feel better, but thankfully it’s from a movie.

 

[JimG]

If it makes anyone feel better I read somewhere that the USAF ran simulations which launch officers didn’t know were sims and found they refused to “turn the keys” about a third of the time.

Obviously they couldn’t try this with bombers – don’t know if the Navy ever did such a test.

Launch crews spend a lot of time in simulators practicing every possible scenario, and are graded on their performance. The simulations are indistinguishable from the real thing; but they do know they are not in a real war.

It’s rather inconceivable that a valid launch command would be transmitted to operational crews just to see if they would do a key-turn. It couldn’t be done without the cooperation of four other separate crews and risking a valid launch vote being accepted by all the missiles in a squadron. Of course, commands increasing the level of alert can and are given depending on world conditions. (Read “The Whiteman Scenario” for an example.)

 

[edwest2]

The thing that is really scary is guys like the “nut case” in North Korea that plans a Forth of July party for Hawaii. I believe that Idiot needs a taste of “What is Black and Charred and looks like a vast wasteland and Glows in the Dark Syndrome”.And make sure he knows where he is going there will be no more cool hair fixes like he is used to.

Hi Mike,

This is not scary – at all. I think Mr. North Korea knows (insane as he may be) that sub launched, ship launched and air launched cruise missiles would be heading his way. With 24/7 satellite coverage, the US will spot (and knows about) his missile installations. I suspect the Airborne Laser will be added to the mix at the appropriate time.

I am all for peace but a strong defense means an enemy, even one that is nuts, may think twice. And even if he doesn’t, knows what’s in store.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StephenFrancis]

If a Catholic joins the armed forces of a country with nuclear weapons (such as the USA or UK), can they be forced to work in a role where they would be required to be involved in the launch of nuclear weapons? If they know this is a possibility, should they refuse to serve?

Given the Church´s stance on weapons of mass destruction, I don´t see how this can be any different to a doctor being forced to carry out abortions, i.e. gravely immoral. Am interested in others´ views on this topic.

My personal take on this is that the Church teaching is that we are not to DELIBERATELY harm civilians, and that the war must fit “just war standards.” If the GOAL is to end the destruction, such as in WW2 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a SIDE effect is that civilians are harmed, that is not the same thing as deliberately trying to kill civilians. The same, on a smaller scale, would apply if you were doing face to face combat and a civilian stepped into the middle of it and was shot as a result. Should we avoid nuclear use? Absolutely–but if we are attacked, and by not responding we allow hundreds or maybe many thousands to die as a result, I do not see that as a moral dilemma personally. One of the men who helped drop the bomb that ended WW2 and its potential world wide destruction, while knowing many civilians would likely die as a result, still stated that “he slept well that night.” And it was not because he was enjoying the idea of killing civilians–it was however the “least evil” choice in an unprecedented situation. I would have no problem dropping a bomb if I was fairly sure it was going to save more lives than it would lose.

 

[06convert]

I’m pretty sure that they are going to want someone turning the key that isn’t going to have second thoughts about it. If you state moral objections I’m sure they wouldn’t designate you the key turner.

 

[StephenFrancis]

I must agree with Edwest2, and another point to consider is the our Commander in Chief, even if totally Catholic and pro-life, would have to be willing to “push the button” to drop a nuke at any given time–that is part of the job. If we think it is immoral for soldiers to guard such bases then we should, logically, also believe that no traditonal Catholic should ever run for US President, and I do not think the Church would ever teach such a thing.

The issue is being sure that any war or defense we make is based on “just war” teachings and done with the hope of peace, rather than furthering war or imperialism. I believe we need a strong offense in order to have a just defense.

Having said that, I do not believe we should be “hoping for the North Korea leader to burn,” which was at least the implication of one poster. We should be praying for the salvation of every terrorist–even while we defend ourselves as needed. That is the balance.

 

[abukamoon]

I don’t understand the significance of nuclear weapons. Any weapon can be misused. Or it can be a deterrent. To me, that is common sense.

My observation is the conflict arising from an order to bomb a nation that hasn’t attacked us, and without a Declaration of War. I am referring to the many bombings carried out of the last several decades against nations that hadn’t attacked us, like Iraq.

At the same time, when Israel and North Korea both attacked American ships in the late Sixties (the Pueblo and the Liberty), nothing was done. I think this is more than a case of selective indignation.

To attack another nation that hasn’t attacked you, and especially without a Declaration of War is the questions that needs to be asked. This violates the Just War principle. Why don’t we hear anyone asking this?