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

[RWMorris]

… 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?

Apparently, you haven’t been reading a lot in these forums. Your question has been asked and discussed ad nauseum.

I don’t think a declaration of war is necessary to retaliate against a rogue nation that is guilty of some provocative deed. A declaration of war comes with a lot of political baggage and the connotation of having to defeat one’s enemy.

In the case of Iraq, it is my view that the US Congress did declare war, they just didn’t use those exact words. A skunk, by any other name, still stinks to high heaven.

Back to the subject of this thread, I don’t believe individual soldiers have a right to selective conscientious objection (CO). Either one is a CO, or one is not. If a soldier decides that a particular conflict or duty violates his sense of right and wrong, he should have the courage to say so, and suffer the consequences, just or unjust. Anything less is not CO, but cowardice.

 

[abukamoon]

I don’t think a declaration of war is necessary to retaliate against a rogue nation that is guilty of some provocative deed. A declaration of war comes with a lot of political baggage and the connotation of having to defeat one’s enemy.

In the case of Iraq, it is my view that the US Congress did declare war, they just didn’t use those exact words. A skunk, by any other name, still stinks to high heaven.

It’s interesting that you agree with our politicians that a Declaration of War in not necessary. But that’s what the Constitution requires.

And who is to determine who and who is not a “rogue nation”, some politicians in Washington? Because our criminal politicians no longer follow the rules (actually, the law), they have made us the most hated nation on the earth.

A Declaration does indeed carry a lot of political baggage, but so does bombing and invading another nation, and I happen to believe that when you engage in something like that, you need to do it the right way.

People who blindly follow politicians and their lap dogs in them media are exactly the kind of people who elected Hitler. They believed his lies.

 

[RWMorris]

… It’s interesting that you agree with our politicians that a Declaration of War in not necessary. But that’s what the Constitution requires.

And who is to determine who and who is not a “rogue nation”, some politicians in Washington? Because our criminal politicians no longer follow the rules (actually, the law), they have made us the most hated nation on the earth.

A Declaration does indeed carry a lot of political baggage, but so does bombing and invading another nation, and I happen to believe that when you engage in something like that, you need to do it the right way.

People who blindly follow politicians and their lap dogs in them media are exactly the kind of people who elected Hitler. They believed his lies.

You are incorrect of your analysis of what the Constitution says, it does not require a declaration of war for the President to act. As early as 1801, Thomas Jefferson, sent a small force to North Africa to fight the same enemy we continue to face today, and he did it without a Congressional Declaration of War.

I suppose you is the who, who is to determine who and who is not a “rogue nation” (say that three times real fast). No thanks, the Constitution leaves that to “some politicians in Washington”, as you so aptly put it. And those “politicians in Washington”, along with a little help from their constituents, removed that democratically elected Hitler from power.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I would never be the key turner at a nuclear launch facility. I could never do that. I am strongly opposed to weapons of mass destruction and if I were to ever turn the key at a nuclear launch facility, I’d never be able to forgive myself. That said, I do feel that it would be immoral for a Catholic to serve in such a position. However, I very well could be wrong.

 

[johndessuza]

What we are dealing with here is that God can either shorten or lengthen the time until these events take place. Wein berger and other officials tried to make a case for nuclear weapons with Catholic bishops wrestling with theological aspects of the arms race.

 

[StephenFrancis]

What we are dealing with here is that God can either shorten or lengthen the time until these events take place. Wein berger and other officials tried to make a case for nuclear weapons with Catholic bishops wrestling with theological aspects of the arms race.

I am not familiar with Weinberger’s case before the Bishops, but would be interested in knowing more. In the meantime, we could say that every time we take a pill that keeps our bodies alive, reduce pollutants that keep the earth cleaner, or exercise to keep our hearts strong, we are just postponing the inevitable. I used to use that argument (with no success!) on my mom when she asked me to help clean the house–“why, its going to get dirty again anyway.” My point is, even if that is what we are doing, as stewards of our bodies and the earth, we are responsible to make both safe and healthy if possible. I also know of a Protestant sister who wouldnt buy a mattress with a 20 year guarantee because, in her words, “we won’t be here in 20 years anyway.” That was over 10 years ago, incidentally. We are not meant to just sit back and say “these things will happen anyway” so it does not matter how we deal with them. I am not suggesting you implied that, but just wanted to make it very clear that Catholic social teaching gives us great responsibilty to protect the earth, and that might at times include “just war” in order to prevent further war later on. And that war, hopefully very rarely, but possibly, might include nuclear weapons so we (I believe) are justified in being prepared.

On another note, this is Independence Day and thank you to all our military folks on here who do protect and serve us so well. God bless!

 

[Al_Masetti]

Please keep in mind that the U.S. military is an all-volunteer force; we have not had a draft for decades. All members of the U.S. military are volunteers. Everyone knows that the U.S. military has nuclear weapons. Members of the U.S. military cannot expect to pick and choose their assignments. It is not civil service where you generally apply for a specific job and stay there. So, if an individual has some reservation about being around nuclear weapons, it would be best if they stayed out of the military.

There was some discussion about individuals being given non-combat jobs … clerical jobs in safe areas … but they overlooked that the military has difficult & hazardous duty assignments/ remote assignments and isolated assignments. The non-combat, light duty, clerical jobs are often preferred as rotation and rest assignments for people who have been serving in the less desirable jobs. By giving certain people the rear area jobs, there was no longer a place to which the folks in the tough jobs could rotate.

One final comment. There must have been some complaining going on. Because one day, by order of the Wing Commander. a rather large sign appeared: “The mission of the Air Force is to fly and to fight … AND DON’T YOU EVER FORGET IT.”

 

[abukamoon]

You are incorrect of your analysis of what the Constitution says, it does not require a declaration of war for the President to act. As early as 1801, Thomas Jefferson, sent a small force to North Africa to fight the same enemy we continue to face today, and he did it without a Congressional Declaration of War.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe that Letters of Marque are the way the Barbary Pirates were dispatched with, and this is how those who attacked the World Trade Center should have been dealt with. Again, there is a right and a wrong way to deal with situations. Our criminal politicians refuse to follow the law (the Constitution).

I suppose you is the who, who is to determine who and who is not a “rogue nation” (say that three times real fast). No thanks, the Constitution leaves that to “some politicians in Washington”, as you so aptly put it. And those “politicians in Washington”, along with a little help from their constituents, removed that democratically elected Hitler from power.

Where did the term “rogue nation” originate? I suggest that no one determine when a nation is “rogue”. The criteria is whether or not American lives or property are under attack. You will notice I said under attack, not when our politicians say they will attack, may attack, might attack & c. Imagine how you would be dealt with if you told the police that you shot your neighbor because you thought he was going to try to kill you.

And removing Hitler while helping Stalin was no bargain. Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler. They were two of a kind. We should have allowed them to kill each other. Why waste American lives helping either side?

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big stick. I believe in a strong military, but I don’t believe in an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. It is that foreign policy that has brought terrorism to our shores.

 

[phoage]

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.

I was at an Army (tactical) missle site in Germay during the '80s. I was security and eventually Security NCO. I was also part of a 2 man team to break and authenticate release messages. We did not have keys. We (the 2 man team) had to agree that the release message was authentic to give the command to launch.

We had a program called Personell Reliability Program (PRP) that one had to qualify on. It was totally seperate and different than a security clearance. It looked into many things, and one of the questions asked of an applicant was do you have any moral issues with the use of WMD.** If the answer was yes, you could not qualify for the program and could not pull missle duty.** This had nothing to do with your clearance and would not get you transferred to another unit but would keep you out of touch with the launching area.

DISCLAIMER: The unit handled Special Weapons, or US weapons. I did not know at the time, and do not know to this day if there were nukes there. I had no Need To Know.

Having said that, I had a Top Secret clearance, and we were armed with live ammo and guards operated under Rules of Deadly Force.

 

[RWMorris]

… It is that foreign policy that has brought terrorism to our shores.

You were doing pretty good, up until your last statement, which invalidated your entire premise.

Your logic reminds me of blaming the scantily clad teenage girl for being raped. She may have attracted the rapist’s attention, raised the level of his vile lust, but she is not guilty of rape.

America’s liberty attracts the attention of those who despise liberty. Our foreign policy did not bring terrorism to our shores, terrorists did. STOP EQUIVOCATING!

 

[RWMorris]

I was at an Army (tactical) missle site in Germay during the '80s. I was security and eventually Security NCO. I was also part of a 2 man team to break and authenticate release messages. We did not have keys. We (the 2 man team) had to agree that the release message was authentic to give the command to launch …

I did the exact same job for an Air Force tactical missle Wing in Sicily in the '80s. Everything you said is absolutely correct.

 

[phoage]

Personally, I would never be the key turner at a nuclear launch facility. I could never do that. I am strongly opposed to weapons of mass destruction and if I were to ever turn the key at a nuclear launch facility, I’d never be able to forgive myself. That said, I do feel that it would be immoral for a Catholic to serve in such a position. However, I very well could be wrong.

The person who eats meat shares the same moral level as the butcher.

 

[phoage]

After I posted the above reply, I realized that it could be misconstrued as factitious criticism of the post I quoted. It was not intended as such. If it is taken that way, let me abjectly apologize in advance.

I was stating a fact and pointing out a possible conflict in Holly3278’s position.

I saw a cartoon once that I liked and refer to often. Two obviously wealthy ladies seated at a table in a fine restaurant. One says to the other, “I do not believe it is right to kill harmless animals.” The Waiter pops in with, “Madam will be pleased to know that all of our meat died of natural causes.”

Patrick

 

[JimG]

I was at an Army (tactical) missle site in Germay during the '80s. I was security and eventually Security NCO. I was also part of a 2 man team to break and authenticate release messages. We did not have keys. We (the 2 man team) had to agree that the release message was authentic to give the command to launch.

We had a program called Personell Reliability Program (PRP) that one had to qualify on. It was totally seperate and different than a security clearance. It looked into many things, and one of the questions asked of an applicant was do you have any moral issues with the use of WMD.** If the answer was yes, you could not qualify for the program and could not pull missle duty.** This had nothing to do with your clearance and would not get you transferred to another unit but would keep you out of touch with the launching area.

DISCLAIMER: The unit handled Special Weapons, or US weapons. I did not know at the time, and do not know to this day if there were nukes there. I had no Need To Know.

Having said that, I had a Top Secret clearance, and we were armed with live ammo and guards operated under Rules of Deadly Force.

As far as I know, the PRP is still in effect. Also, missile launch officers are allowed to temporarily remove themselves from duty if they are experiencing personal problems which would hinder their good judgment in the line of duty, without having any adverse mention placed in their records.

 

[adriancombe]

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.

It should also be noted, however, that the ‘moral objections to service involving nuclear weapons’ question is usually asked of new recruits as part of the security clearance process, and is not explained very well.
In other words, I thought if I answered that I had no objections, I would get stuck in nuclear weapons duty, I did not realize it had to do with security clearance. They do give you that out but they do so in such a way that you do not realize you may be severely limiting your career options, most of which had NOTHING to do with nukes!

 

[adriancombe]

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.

I know for a fact during training they get inside your head and if you are the hesitant type you will wash out.

Also during exercises you don’t always know it’s an exercise. Trust me, the deterrent is credible

 

[antunesaa]

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.

In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which by the way is the city in Japan with more catholics), I think the bombing was immoral. True, it ended the war and avoided many deaths, eventually more than those it caused. But the bottom line is that the wanted effect of the bombings was to inflict so much damage that the Japanese would realize that it would be impossible to counter such destructive power, and then surrender. This is what happened. So, the means was to provoke destruction, including the deaths of several hundred thousand people; the aim was to later avoid further and possibly more numerous US and Japanese deaths. Now, this is in my opinion immoral because it involves a calculated tradeoff between people in two distinctive moments; it was not an immediate necessity. There were other options available. For instance, the US could have detonated Little Boy somewhere else and allow access to Japanese officials, telling them Fat Man was ready to be launched over Japanese cities. This could have been tried and wasn’t. In my humble opinion, only in the context of combats within Japan between the US army and the Japanese army would any such bombing be morally justified.
In the first Kuwait war, I think the US army behaved entirely morally: after defeating the Iraqis in Kuwait, the US army abstained from going all the way to Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein. Now, that was a moral attitude in the context of a defensive war, the only type of war permitted by the Mother Church. The same goes, in general, for Afghanistan. The second Iraqi war is another story.

 

[RWMorris]

In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which by the way is the city in Japan with more catholics), I think the bombing was immoral. True, it ended the war and avoided many deaths, eventually more than those it caused. But the bottom line is that the wanted effect of the bombings was to inflict so much damage that the Japanese would realize that it would be impossible to counter such destructive power, and then surrender. This is what happened. So, the means was to provoke destruction, including the deaths of several hundred thousand people; the aim was to later avoid further and possibly more numerous US and Japanese deaths. Now, this is in my opinion immoral because it involves a calculated tradeoff between people in two distinctive moments; it was not an immediate necessity. There were other options available. For instance, the US could have detonated Little Boy somewhere else and allow access to Japanese officials, telling them Fat Man was ready to be launched over Japanese cities. This could have been tried and wasn’t. In my humble opinion, only in the context of combats within Japan between the US army and the Japanese army would any such bombing be morally justified.
In the first Kuwait war, I think the US army behaved entirely morally: after defeating the Iraqis in Kuwait, the US army abstained from going all the way to Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein. Now, that was a moral attitude in the context of a defensive war, the only type of war permitted by the Mother Church. The same goes, in general, for Afghanistan. The second Iraqi war is another story.

Does the term ‘back seat driver’ mean anything to you? How about ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’? I can do that, too. My take on all the scenarios you talk about above is exactly opposite. The use of the Atomic bombs in WW II was moral. Your suggested ‘demonstration’, while not immoral, is naive in the extreme. The ending of the ‘Kuwait war’ before the destruction of Saddam Hussein, his government, and his military was immoral, allowing the predictable deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis in the south. I can predict your ‘another story’ concerning the second Iraq war, but that’s another story.