Can "Mutual Assured (nuclear) Destruction" MAD still happen today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven_Merten

Guest
During the “Cold War” of the later part of the last century, the US and Russia spent a large amount of money on “MAD” Mutual Assured Destruction, in order to contain each other’s nuclear bomb capabilities. The concept of MAD was/is that we cannot control whether or not a country uses nuclear weapons against each other but we can control what happens, that being Mutual Assured Destruction, should one country use nuclear weapons against the other.

During the Cuban missle crisis of the 1960s the world almost experienced an all out, armagedon type, nuclear war.

If America is attacked by an enemy using nuclear weapons today, is there presently the possibility that that foe (men, women and children) could recieve a nuclear attack from America?

America still has “cold war” attack submarines armed with multi war head missiles with the capability to engage MAD against any foe.

What are your views if America suffers a 10% 30% 60% or 90% loss of life due to a nuclear attack from a foe? Will that foe be confronted with US nuclear missile capabilities?

Some people on these forums seem to suggest that America now would not now use nuclear weapons, which target civilians as well as military targets, if attacked with nuclear weapons.

Al-Qaida chief asks nuclear experts to join jihad
 
The policy was more formally known as “deterrence.” And it really originated with Pres. Eisenhower’s policy of “massive retalilation.”

The U.S. did not have sufficient military capacity on the ground to repel a determined Soviet ground attack on our European NATO allies. Neither did it have ICBM’s. Thus, Ike’s policy was that any attack by the USSR against any NATO country would be met with “massive retaliation” against the USSR homeland with B-52 bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

While a nuclear strike against the U.S. would be devastating, it is not likely that it would result in anything like 40% or 50% or higher destructio, esepcially if engaged in by terrorists.

Also, nuclear weapons have gotten smaller; there are now, I believe, tactical, not only strategic, nuclear weapons available.

It doesn’t much matter whether one is targeted with one nuclear weapon of 50 kiloton yield, or 50 conventional 1000 lb bombs.

Ironically, the fact that nuclear weapons can now be made less destructive, may make their use more likely.
 
And if someone ever figures out a way to trigger a hydrogen fusion reaction without having to use a fission “trigger,” one could make H-bombs as small or as large as one wished, with no radioactivity.
 
JimG said:
The policy was more formally known as “deterrence.” And it really originated with Pres. Eisenhower’s policy of “massive retalilation.”

The U.S. did not have sufficient military capacity on the ground to repel a determined Soviet ground attack on our European NATO allies. Neither did it have ICBM’s. Thus, Ike’s policy was that any attack by the USSR against any NATO country would be met with “massive retaliation” against the USSR homeland with B-52 bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

While a nuclear strike against the U.S. would be devastating, it is not likely that it would result in anything like 40% or 50% or higher destructio, esepcially if engaged in by terrorists.

Also, nuclear weapons have gotten smaller; there are now, I believe, tactical, not only strategic, nuclear weapons available.

It doesn’t much matter whether one is targeted with one nuclear weapon of 50 kiloton yield, or 50 conventional 1000 lb bombs.

Ironically, the fact that nuclear weapons can now be made less destructive, may make their use more likely.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jim and Dale for your responces.

Hello Jim,

How did that work with the US, Soviet treaty against balistic missiles? When I first heard of the anti balistic missile treaty, I asked a friend, “We all ready have balistic missiles to carry nuclear war heads. What is this treaty about?” When he told me that the treaty was to not build balistic missiles to shoot down incomig nuclear balsitic missiles, I was confused. “Well why wouldn’t we and the Soviets want to shoot down incomig nuclear missiles? This only sounds logical and defensive”, I said. Then he told me that then the US and Soviets would have to build ten, twenty or fifty, fold more nuclear missiles to again insure mutual destruction (MAD) on the other. So in order to protect ourselves, we signed a treaty not to build balistic missiles which would shoot down incoming nuclear missiles which would protect people in the event of a nuclear attack. This only makes sence when looking at it in a MAD kind of way.

Was not the anti-balistic missile treaty to protect MAD? The goal being not nessessarily to protect MAD but to avoid the superpowers from building an atrocious amount of nuclear missiles in order to still “assure” MAD in a senario where a high percentage of nuclear missiles were destroyed by defensive balistic missiles before they hit their target in an all out nuclear war?

With the Soviet nuclear threat gone, as I understand it, we are presetly breaking the anti-balistic missile treaty, which protected MAD, and we are now building balistic missiles to shoot down incoming nuclear war head missiles to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack.

Are you sure that MAD was only a concept of the Eisenhower administration (1950s)? I am thinking that MAD played a major role right up to the ninties and, in fact, MAD is something American foes should consider even today.

As I understand it, we still have ten or so US nuclear attack submarines presently on patrol in the depths of the world’s oceans. Each US nuclear attack submarine carrying 24 nuclear missiles, each missile carrying 16 seperately guided individual war heads, each war head packing 1000 times more punch than Hiroshima. (These are rough statistics, it has been a while since I saw “brut force” on TV). US nuclear attack submarine fire power seems to me to have only one purpose, that being MAD on any foe who kills a significant amount of Americans with nuclear weapons.

What do you think?
 
Steve, Jim and Dale:

Present situations and some things to place on you prayer lists:

North Korea in VERY BAD SHAPE - has maybe 6 to 8 nuclear bombs along with 100,000 pieces of artillery (most in bunkars) pointed across DMZ at South Korean cites with 25 miles (pop. 6 million down from 12 million due to move over last 2 years). N. Korea government has had to use army to keep pop. from leaving & to put down revolts. Finances are in a shambles. Fall predicted within months with Mother of all Huminaterian Crises. It’s during the next few months most analysts believe N. Korea will sell it’s bombs and missiles to Iran or terrorists for delivery to Israel/USA.

Iran has ONLY ONE CYCLATRON. 7 or 8 are the minimum most experts believe are needed for production of nuclear bombs. BUT Ahmadinejad believes he is Forerunner of 12th Imam, the Madhi, Shia Islam’s equivalent of Guess Who, and that, to bring him “out of hiding or “occultation”, Ahmedinejad needs to “Prepare the Way” by NUKING ISRAEL” and riding the Middle East of the Jews (some of whom are my friends - Most of my few friends live in Israel). He needs at least 4 NUKES to do the job. Ahmadinejad believes both the Palestinians and the Iranians will go straight to Paradise as Shahada when they are NUKED in this exchange of terrible weapons.

Ahmadinejad trained and sent 10,000’s of CHIDREN between the ages of 10-12 into MINEFIELDS to clear them by blowing themselves up on the mines. 10,000’s of children ran into the mines rejoicing at their fate as Shahada after seeing their friends blown to bits because Ahmadinejad had so thoroughly brainwaished them.

He’s now done the same to a large section of Iran.

Pakistan has 40-80 Nuclear Bombs. Although Musharrif is an “ally” of the USA in the War against Islamist Extremism, his hold on power is tenuous at best. He recently felt compelled to make an agreement with tribes loyal to Bin Ladin and Al-Queda, and he’s barely survived no less than 4 assassination attempts in the last 3 years, and those are the ones where he almost got killed (We haven’t been told about the ones that were foiled before they could become life threatening). Pakistans NUKES most certainly go to the Islmist in the event of a successful coup by them against Musharrif.

Israel has 290-400 nuclear bombs varying in size from “MIcronuke” bunkar busters to 3 MT city destroyers. Because the Israel’s Government is Democratically elected, and because that government considers itself responsible for the survival of Jews worldwide, any successfull nuclear attack on Israel would get a MADD response, The same holds true for any successful Biological or Chemical attack. In March, 2004, a team of Palestinian terrorists tried to detonate several Bromine storage tanks at the Ashdod Port Storage Facilities. If their attack had succeeded, a Huge Bromide Gas Plume would have killed everyone within a 1.5 mile radius (like Bhopal, India) and Israel probably would have responded with a nucleat weapon.

And, 9/11 demonstrated that nations don’t need missiles or aircraft or fancy delivery systems to massively harm their fellowman. All that’s needed are people who are willing to die, and a van, or a small plane, or even a backpack and a strong man with the lightest ones. Nuclear bombs no longer weigh 12,000 lbs. Now, the lightest ones weigh less than 100 lbs, and most come in at 500-1,000 lbs.

I think that’s enough disturbing information.

It might be a good time to do whatever it was the Church did before and during the Battle of Lopanto.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Steven_Merten said:
Was not the anti-balistic missile treaty to protect MAD?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it was. It was also to prevent the two superpowers of the time from both going into bankruptcy.

There were a LOT of ICBM’s on alert then. And the ICBM’s were MIRVED, which means they carried more than one warhead. Not only that, but every Re-entry Vehicle was equipped with “penetration aids.” If you watched an ICBM test from the target zone, it would not look like 1 warhead incoming; it would look like thousands coming over the horizon. The flak-fake ones would burn up on re-entry, but this meant that even if you had an ABM, it couldn’t be launched till the last minute.

Bottom line was that the number of ABM’s needed to protect the ICBM arsenal would have been cost prohibitive on both sides.

Now, North Korea doesn’t possess thousands of ICBM’s, so an ABM defense would be more feasible. The real danger is that North Korean or Iranian nukes could start a new escalating arms race in the region, with everyone, beginning with Japan, wanting to get nuclear weapons.
Are you sure that MAD was only a concept of the Eisenhower administration (1950s)? I am thinking that MAD played a major role right up to the ninties and, in fact, MAD is something American foes should consider even today.
Click to expand...
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that MAD was only an Eisenhower concept. That was just the start of the idea. In fact, under Eisenhower, the only assured destruction would have been to the Soviets, since they did not have the capacity to retaliate.

Later, Kennedy used as a campaign issue, an alleged “missile gap” between the US and the Soviets. After we built up our ICBM force, it turned out there really hadn’t been a gap. In fact the Soviets pretty much used the US plans for the Minuteman system to build their own ICBM system. If you compare the US launch control centers to the Soviets, it looks like they used the same plans! And the probably did.

I think we destroyed most of our land based ICBM’s, but we still have some, as well as the submarine based nukes. There is not a shortage. But as you pointed out, most of these weapons are so powerful that there is (thankfully) a disincentive to use them in the normal course of international relations.
 
BROTHERS AND SISTERS:

A Note about MADD: The “Doctrine” we refer to as MADD reneded to rely on the shared knowledge that the leaders and people of the USA and USSR both wanted to live. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR and Cuba both had opportunities to start a nuclear war, and when Khrushchev had information that Castro was planning to keep some Tactical Nuclear Missiles and use them in a first strike, he ordered their removal before Castro could react.

If you read the correspondence between Khrushchev and Kennady, you’ll find out that Khrushchev had misjudged Kennady as weak, but when it became obvious that misjudgment could lead to nuclear war, Khrushchev tried to find a way out.

As Imperialistic as the Societs were in reality, they did not want to have the world end in a nuclear conflagration.

OTOH, Kim Jung Il not only is a Megalomaniac, he’s also a Sociopath, which means that not only does he have delusions of greatness, of the world handed to him on a string, he’s totally incapable of of any kind of human sympathy for other people. This is why he has had no problems starving over 2 million of his own people to death and executing another 2 million N. Koreans over the past 9 years.

Worse still is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who during the Iran-Iraq War cleared Iraqi Minefields by havning 10,000’s of children run into them, clearing the mines byblowing them, and themselves, up. Ahmadinejad has stated repeatedly that the Holocaust never happened and that it’s a fiction divised by Zionist to Kow-Tow guilty Europeans and to oppress Muslims, and that the only solution is the destuction of the “Zionist Occupier” in the Middle East and the annihilation of the Jews in the Middle East. He says this is mainly necessary so that the 12th Imam, the Madhi, or “the Righteous One” may come out of hiding and reveal himself and the world woud enter an era of Justice and peace with the Madhi taking ruling the world.

Ahmadinejad even set up an entire city to receive the Madhi while he was Mayor. Unlike Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat who found Islam when they went to war, Ahmadinejad is a true believer. He really believes in this stuff - That’s why he was able to convince the children to joyfully run into the minefilds after they had seen their friends blown to bits. Because of that, and because of Islamism’s obsession with death, he will have no problem with getting 10,000’s of Palestinians to become Shahada (“Martyrs”) or getting millions of Iranians to do the same after the Iranian Nukes have killed 3 or 4 million Israeli Jews.

Mutually Assured Death and Destruction will defintely not work with someone such as Mahmod Ahmadinejad, because he and those who follow him (take a look at Hezbollah and the rest of the Islamist terrorists) don’t care about living.

That’s what scares the living daylights out of me, and why I said that we should be praying as fervently as Catholics were before and during the Battle of Lopanto (Sorry for the Mistake - I confused it with a WW II Naval Battle with which I’m familiar).

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on the basic assumption that the leadership of the nuclear nations was basically rational and sane. If you have a nuclear nation led by an individual or clique that is not rational, then you have no detterant at all.

The answer, therefore is to modify MAD to prevent nuclear proliferation. It takes a long time to develop nuclear weapons, and sanity may set in in the process.

The best approach to modifying MAD is to announce that a nuclear attack by any nation on any other nation, for any reason will be regarded as a nuclear attack on the United States. (We could probably get Britain and Russia to join us here.)

This would have the following effect:
  1. It would devalue nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons (which really aren’t weapons at all) are primarily for blackmail – nuclear nations can bluff and threaten non-nuclear nations. With this policy in place, non-nuclear nations would have full protection from their nuclear neighbors.
  2. It would reduce the perceived value of nuclear nations – why go to the expense of developing them, if they no longer have a blackmail potential.
  3. It might even lead many nuclear nations to abandon them – trade them off for various concessions.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on the basic assumption that the leadership of the nuclear nations was basically rational and sane. If you have a nuclear nation led by an individual or clique that is not rational, then you have no detterant at all.
Click to expand...
That’s true; the threat of nuclear destruction may be essentially meaningless to the current leaders of North Korea and Iran.

But if they are truly irrational, even a pact among other nations such as you suggest might not be enough to deter them. Especially if they believe that their victory is assured by the deity.
 
JimG said:
That’s true; the threat of nuclear destruction may be essentially meaningless to the current leaders of North Korea and Iran.

But if they are truly irrational, even a pact among other nations such as you suggest might not be enough to deter them. Especially if they believe that their victory is assured by the deity.
Click to expand...
The question is, who is “they?” The development of nuclear weapons takes a long time, and a lot of people. Not all of them are likely to be truly irrational.

When faced with imminent destruction for their acts, the rational ones may well overthrow the irrational. We have a historical precedent in Hitler’s order to burn Paris in WWII – his senior commanders simply would not carry out the order.
 
It seems the stage is set, lets hope the actors don’t “break a leg” 😦
 
Steven Merten:

Yes, if those in power and the means come to feel nothing has worth.

Andy
 
Hello Michael (Traditional Ang),

You scare me! I am sure you are right on target (excuse the pun), but your information is some scary stuff.

On another thread of mine, it seems as if, at least some, Vatican Catholic leaders have chosen to back away from confronting this horrible, mad, world destruction delema that the Muslim world has presetented the world with.

An Anabaptist freind of mine told me once how he really liked Pope John Paul II due to his constant call for peace. He said that in such a world of violence and deadly perils we need a guy like Pope John Paul II to give us hope. Then I explained similiar perils to what you explain. My Anabaptist friend said yes, he agreed with all I said. He said that you cannot literally do the things that the Pope is calling us to do. He said, but it is just nice to have someone like Pope John Paul II to talk about peace.

Do you think that Vatican leaders would ever accept and spell out our present world destruction perils with us and what we should do to preserve the human race? Is it only the “secular world” who is going to be honest with us in our present moral dilema and present solutions as to how we might preserve the human race? MAD is, in reallity, something that a Pope religiously politically cannot embrace nomatter how important it might be to survival of the human race.

How do you, and others following this thread, see any Church leader response to using MAD to confront the use of nuclear weapons?

Catholic leaders shun the thought of a “Secular West” first strike at North Korea or Iran in order to preserve the world from Muslim fanaticals who have/are developing nuclear weapons and lust for the end of the world to come. I have seen no logical package from Catholic Church leaders as to how to protect us from the senarios that you describe.

Do you see Catholic Church leader speeches, writings and condemnations against the “Secular West” war and military actions as something with substinace or simply a feel good, look good, insure my papal canonization, distraction from the reallity of what the world are up against and may need to do to protect the existance of humanity?

Since the creation of nuclear weapons the only detterant to their use, including religious beliefs, has been MAD or a first strike against those trying to create the weapons. We have found no other defence to nuclear weapons in the last fifty years. The Church (Church leaders) did not protect us from WWII nor does it seem that the Church is going to protect us from the Muslim religion related nuclear threat.

How do you see the reality of our need to protect ourselves and the world from the Muslim world nuclear bomb threat related to how Catholic Church leaders are using their Christ give authority to impact how we deal with the Muslime nuclear bomb world anhiolation threat?

Has the Church redirected the Pope’s speech to be an attack on America not Islam?
Link: BenedictXVI: ‘I am deeply sorry’

"a careful reading would show that the pope had offered to Islam “an outstretched hand” in the battle against a secular global culture." said Cardinal Paul Poupard…

"the pope’s talk focused primarily on the religious shortcomings of the West."?
 
Steve Martin:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and the questions you asked in your post linked here:

Re: Can “Mutual Assured (nuclear) Destruction” MAD still happen today? Post #14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1550135&postcount=14

I’ll admit that what I’ve found out scares me as well, and it sometimes tests my trust in God and His contol over human events. Most of the friends I have I have are Israel, so I’m very concerned for them. And, Their safety is part of my daily prayers.

It’s late, so I’ll give you something to read that I think more accurately reflects the Vaticans discussions about Islam:

Focus on ISLAM - A selection of articles from www.chiesa
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=21409&eng=y

The articles reflect the good, the bad and the ugly, including what the Jesuits who are among the Pope’s advisers felt was a terrible failure to speak out against the atrocity against the children of Beslan.

Your questions raise some issues that require some thought, and I hope you don’t mind if I sleep on them so I can give hopefully better and more thoughtful replies than I can do right now.

Please pray for the Church, and for the political leaders who have to deal with the menaces you, others and I have listed here and elsewhere.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Steve Martin:

Your questions raise some issues that require some thought, and I hope you don’t mind if I sleep on them so I can give hopefully better and more thoughtful replies than I can do right now.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
Hello Michael,

Thank you for your incites and responses. Please take the time you need to prepare these well thought out, great responces.

I am reading your suggested links. This link is a good one.
Why Benedict XVI Did not Want to Fall Silent or Backpedal

The above link talks about the effects of the martyrdom of sister Leonella. When the bad guys kill innocent people to blackmail the Pope, this has a gaging effect on Church leaders. It is one thing for a Pope to accept martyrdom for himself; It is quite another thing for the Pope to accept martyrdom of many other people for his actions of not remaining silent to injustice or failig to bias the truth in favor of the bad guy.

I believe that the case of sister Leonella is a modern example of how Hitler silenced Pope Pious XII in WWII. In that era it was not the Muslims but the Christians who were the driving, killing machine, behind Hitler’s war machine bent on world destruction. 80 million dead and yet I hear of very little that the Pope condemned of Hitler’s evil unjust war. No doubt, at that time, like now, there was probubly far more critisizm from Church leaders against just Allied countrys than against evil Hitler and evil Musolini. This due to the Church leader gaging effects of evil leaders killing the innocent to gag/blackmail Church leaders to control their responces.

Fifty percent of those polled (24 total) believe that the Pope’s speech was addressing the evils of the “secular West” and not the relation of violence to Islam. Does this not seem a bit odd?
Has the Church redirected the Pope’s speech to be an attack on America not Islam?

Should the Pope now address the nuclear holocaust nightmares brought on through the Muslim religion that you describe above? I think that, like Hitler’s gag/blackmail silencing of the Church while his evil war, powered by Christian soldiers, killed 80 million people, the Muslims will also succeed in silencing or biasing Papal condemnations in their favor. I do not think that the Pope will straight forward discuss the imence, Muslim religion related, horors that you discus above.

When Church leaders talk about the “secular West” and MAD and a possible first strike to take out Iranian or North Korean nuclear bomb capabilities, I think we have to take into consideration their tendancy to bias their condemnations due to Muslim gag/blackmail retaliation against the Church.

What do you think?
 
Steve:

I’ll see if I can start to answer Re: Can “Mutual Assured (nuclear) Destruction” MAD still happen today? Posts #14 &16:

Regarding WW II, Hitler replaced Christianity with a Neo-Pagan Aryan religion which worshipped the German People and Culture and the Fuhrer. Because of that, and because of the change from Christian (mainly Lutheran) Judeophobia to Secular (Mainly Liberal-Socialist) Judeophobia, it’s hard to say that what the Germans did they did as Christians as they had given up at least some of their religion at the alter of Hitlerism and Nazism. Hitler even said,
“First the Saturday people, then the Sunday People.”

I believe a case can be made that much of the industrial slaughter and genocide of the 20th Century was made possible by a general apostacy in the Churches in Europe and elsewhere.

Some Muslim leaders said the riots, killings, etc. in response to the “Danish” Cartoons were an attempt to make sure no one printed or broadcast images of the Prophet that were blashemous or offensive to Muslims.

It sems to have worked. The same papers and media outlets which widely published photos and video of exhibits which were manifestly offensive to Christians, and in some cases, downright Blasphemous, refused to print the mildest Cartoons or articles about Islam and its “prophet” for fear of having reporters and photographers murdered or even having offices bombed.

I can’t blame Pope Benedict XVI for considering that, esp. as he did what most other Christian leaders and even Pope JP II didn’t do when Muslims killed Christians when he put a spotlight on the murder of Sister Leonella Sgorbati in Somalia by outraged Muslims.

Islam’s Unreasonable War Against Benedict XVI
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=84185&eng=y

Why Benedict XVI Did not Want to Fall Silent or Backpedal
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=85302&eng=y

Please compare that to this response by Pope John Paul II to the atrocity at Beslan:

Beslan, the September 11 of the Christian Children. But the Church Doesn’t See
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7912&eng=y

TimesOnLine - How the Beslan terrorists set their death trap
By Julian Evans in Moscow
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,3-1252132,00.html

From Wikipedia - Comprehensive Account Extremely Hard to Find
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

The first link was in the packet of Vatican Links (Which seem to be going to the Italian articles - There are English Translations), but I would say to read of all these (including the Vatican Link) first.

I don’t believe Pope Benedict XVI was criticizing America, esp. as he appears to support the attempt to democratize iraq and the rest of the Arab- Muslim world…

Islam and Democracy, a Secret Meeting at Castel Gandolfo
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=45084&eng=y

The Pope’s experts on Islam say that Islam can only accept Democracy with many years of reform. The Pope and several others know we don’t have that much time and that the best way to compress the time is to DEMOCRATIZE an Islamic Country and to use that as a lynchpin to bring about reform.

If it works, Islamist Jihadism will be discredited, and Islam will reform, and at least one of the major concerns I listed will be handled. If it fails, I things will get a lot worse quickly, and we’ll lose the War Against Islamist Extremism.

The Pope also knows that a Secularized Western Society with Abortions, Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality, Businesses cheating their workers, Irreligious Blasphemy as a way of life, Irresponsible Free Speech with NO Limits, etc. has little if anything to offer Muslims looking at us the Western world for an alternative to their crazy form of religious extremism. Meanwhile, a fully lived out form of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does have something to offer Muslims as its “the Power of God unto Salvation.” And that, would allow us to not only to preserve our culture, but to preach the Gospel to Muslims as well.

Pope Benedict XVI is trying to tell us this is a SPIRITUAL War and that it will be won on our knees.

If our Political leaders won’t tell us who they are, then we are in real trouble.

Your Brorther in Chist, Michael
 
Steve:

The problems I enumerated are physical manifestations of a couple of spiritual problems; the Church has “lost it’s saltiness”, it’s ability to witness for the truth and to stand up against evil, and the Devil has somehow been allowed some “Freedom of Movement.” and, The Evil One has taken advantage of the situation.

The fruits of these have been too tragically evident, and the future will be worse unless we, as a Church, regain our “saltiness” and begin to "assault the gates of hell. This means the Church’s prolonged flirtation with modernism, multiculturalism and the wrong form of ecumenism along with the rejection of Traditional Catholic Doctrines by many Catholics has to be stopped. The Church needs to “Call a Fast” and to repent.

Once that’s been done, and once sound doctrine is being preached in our dioceses, parishes and schools, we can begin to “Assault the Gates of Hell”. Jesus never said the Church would withstand all the assaults of Hell. He said Hell would never withstand the onslaughts of the Church.

I believe that once we get that right and act on it and put our lives on the line as the Early Christians did, The headlines in the newspapers will begin to change.

The only question is, Are we willing to to it? Are we to repent of our our lack of submission to the Law of God and to the Holy Spirit and then to remove the demonic influence that has oppressed and dragged down our Church? And, Are we willing to live and to die for the Gospel rather than a 3 bedroom home in the 'burbs and 2 cars in the garage?

If we are, the Kingdom of God is at hand! If we aren’t, my first post wwas about the beginning of Birth Pangs, and this world will not be returned to health until the day our Lord Jesus comes in the clouds of glory.

The choice is ours, as we are the people who bear God’s name.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Traditional_Ang said:
The choice is ours, as we are the people who bear God’s name.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
Hello Michael,

I agree with you on this. The flood, Sodom and an end of the world MAD complete distruction, all come about by the same thing, that being a failure of God’s Church to produce the fruit of the Kingdom of God. It really does not matter what the world is doing outside the Church because it is the Church that God is focused on. It is not what the “secular West” is doing that Church leaders should be focused on. What is God’s Church doing? Is the Church producing the fruit that God expects of Her. What can the Pope and other Church leaders do to cultivate the Church to produce the fruit that God desires of Her. When the Church no longer has any significant value to God, complete MAD nuclear bomb distruction of the world will occur as has happened when the Church has failed in the past.

Please visit Moving Mountains
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Steve:

I’ll see if I can start to answer Re: Can “Mutual Assured (nuclear) Destruction” MAD still happen today? Posts #14 &16:

Regarding WW II, Hitler replaced Christianity with a Neo-Pagan Aryan religion which worshipped the German People and Culture and the Fuhrer. Because of that, and because of the change from Christian (mainly Lutheran) Judeophobia to Secular (Mainly Liberal-Socialist) Judeophobia, it’s hard to say that what the Germans did they did as Christians as they had given up at least some of their religion at the alter of Hitlerism and Nazism. Hitler even said,
“First the Saturday people, then the Sunday People.”

IThe Pope also knows that a Secularized Western Society with Abortions, Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality, Businesses cheating their workers, Irreligious Blasphemy as a way of life, Irresponsible Free Speech with NO Limits, etc. has little if anything to offer Muslims looking at us the Western world for an alternative to their crazy form of religious extremism. Meanwhile, a fully lived out form of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does have something to offer Muslims as its “the Power of God unto Salvation.” And that, would allow us to not only to preserve our culture, but to preach the Gospel to Muslims as well.

Your Brorther in Chist, Michael
Click to expand...
Hello Michael,

This is interesting. I started a new, more appropreate thread to discuss this issue.

Please visit and discuss at Do Popes see evil nations Christians as no longer part of the Church?

Thanks!

Steven
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top