Cardinal calls for disarmament in Papal visit year (Scottish Catholic Observer)

[O_Duirnin]

scottishcatholicobserver.org.uk/news5.htm

CARDINAL Keith O’Brien has reiterated his opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system and called on the British Government to use the occasion of the forthcoming Papal visit to dispense with their nuclear deterrent.

As part of the Hexham debates series at St Mary’s Church the cardinal said it was time for Britain to ‘redouble its efforts to give a new impetus to the wider process towards disarmament.’

“It would not be difficult, and indeed, it would be prophetic and courageous,” he said. “To disarm now, unilaterally, and to scrap the plans for a new Trident system, would be truly great leadership. Indeed, it would lead the way towards that goal of wider disarmament that Prime Minister Gordon Brown voted for at the UN, and what can be so wrong about that?”

 

[St_Francis]

This is sooooo 1980’s…

 

[wabrams]

“Walk softly but carry a big stick.”

 

[curlycool89]

I agree with the Cardinal. There are exactly 0 scenarios where the use of a nuclear weapon would be moral. It will always have more effect than intended. Unless you launch it into an uninhabited area it will harm non-combatants (and by “harm” I mean things like radiation poisoning and diseases related to radiation like cancers), and that is a direct effect, not a secondary one (a conventional weapon would not have the same effects so there’s no way you can say that double effect applies here). Plus, any larger scale nuclear weapon will have the effect of making the area uninhabitable for a certain amount of time, destroying people’s livelihoods (especially if they are farmers or hunters) and forcibly evicting them.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with the Cardinal. There are exactly 0 scenarios where the use of a nuclear weapon would be moral. It will always have more effect than intended. Unless you launch it into an uninhabited area it will harm non-combatants (and by “harm” I mean things like radiation poisoning and diseases related to radiation like cancers), and that is a direct effect, not a secondary one (a conventional weapon would not have the same effects so there’s no way you can say that double effect applies here). Plus, any larger scale nuclear weapon will have the effect of making the area uninhabitable for a certain amount of time, destroying people’s livelihoods (especially if they are farmers or hunters) and forcibly evicting them.

On the other hand, I think that we have to admit that people do exist who would not follow this moral line of thinking and attack us (or England or the Continent) with nuclear weapons if we didn’t have any.

 

[curlycool89]

On the other hand, I think that we have to admit that people do exist who would not follow this moral line of thinking and attack us (or England or the Continent) with nuclear weapons if we didn’t have any.

But what do you do then? Do you answer evil with more evil?

I certainly don’t trust the politicians to make the moral choice in that case if they have access to nuclear weapons.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Can someone tell me what is “soooo 80’s” about Britian’s senoir RC churchman saying that we should get rid of the abomination of nuclear weapons. The weapons system he is talking about is American made and would be American controlled. The deterrence factor these days in the UK is much diminished, if not null and void. Most people agree that the biggest threat comes from terrorism, not other countries. If you try to answer terrorism with nuclear weapons then who do you hit? I would much rather spend my taxes on social care (I know… bad words on this forum and I’ll probably go to the bad fire! lol) than on a means of destruction that will never be used - unless a foreign government wants it used.

Pat