General and complete disarmament

[Matt25]

Statement by H.E. Archbishop Celestino Migliore Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See Before the First Committee of the 60th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on agenda item 98: General and complete disarmament

…Nuclear weapons are becoming a permanent feature of some military doctrines, and there has been a dramatic 20 percent increase in world military spending in the past two years. The combined arms sales of the top 100 arms-producing companies increased 25 percent in a one-year period. Small arms kill at least 500,000 people per year, and the U.N. conferences on this subject have still not produced a legally-binding instrument on small arms transfers. The legal arms trade is once more on the rise, and the illegal flow of arms to the world’s conflict zones is responsible for countless deaths. Terrorist attacks using assault rifles, automatic weapons, hand grenades, land mines, shoulder-launched missiles, and small explosives are mounting.

It is disappointing that the principles and progress of disarmament are being weakened both by the reluctance of some to disarm and by the unwillingness of others publicly to take to task such an attitude. The Holy See re-asserts the importanceof arms control and disarmament, which are fundamental pillars of the architecture for peace.

All members of the United Nations have a duty to keep working on the technical, legal and political elements of the disarmament agenda. This duty becomes more relevant since we all know that security for all is enhanced when disarmament and development steps complement one another. The United Nations pioneered studies which show the integral relationship between disarmament, development and security. We must point up the economic benefits of disarmament measures. Development alternatives to militarism must be the constant work of this Committee*.*

 

[Della]

Oh, I think we ought to disarm, too. As soon as the tyrants and terrorists of the world agree to do so, too.

 

[Matt25]

Della:

Oh, I think we ought to disarm, too. As soon as the tyrants and terrorists of the world agree to do so, too.

Thats like saying I will stop robbing banks if the crooks agree to stop robbing banks first.

 

[abcdefg]

Matt25:

Thats like saying I will stop robbing banks if the crooks agree to stop robbing banks first.

Don’t be so sarcastic. do you think US/UK should disarm first to set examples for North Korea, terrorists etc?

 

[Jeffrey]

I don’t… they’d just wait for us to disarm… or lie… then attack us. That is of course what the anti-Americans want it seems.

abcdefg:

Don’t be so sarcastic. do you think US/UK should disarm first to set examples for North Korea, terrorists etc?

 

[Matt25]

abcdefg:

Don’t be so sarcastic. do you think US/UK should disarm first to set examples for North Korea, terrorists etc?

I agree with the stance of the Holy See. At a Conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Monsignor Pietro Parolin, undersecretary of the Vatican Secretariat of State’s Section for Relations with States put it like this-

WebMD - Better information. Better health.

…A so-called “peace” based on nuclear weapons cannot be the type of peace we seek for the 21st century! The present state of the non-proliferation regime and of nuclear disarmament indicates that many still believe in the use of force and rely on nuclear weapons. This means, unfortunately, that the force and the primacy of law, as well as trust in others and the will to dialogue, have not yet become priorities.

The Holy See wishes to underline on this occasion the fundamental importance of law as a guarantee of international relations aimed at fostering peace between nations. “International law, a path to peace” is the theme which the Pope has recently chosen for the next World Day of Peace. Humanity faces a crucial challenge and more than ever needs to live in a renewed and authentic spirit of international legitimacy. Unless it manages to equip itself with truly effective institutions to avert the scourge of war, there is a risk that the law of force will prevail over the force of law. The only way forward is to resort to law and institutions capable both of assuring that law is respected, so that conflicts may be avoided without recourse to weapons, and of effectively addressing the causes of potential hostilities.

Mr. President, the Holy See welcomes the moratoria on testing, but such unilateral measures cannot take the place of signature and ratification of the Treaty which offers to the global community the prospect of a permanent and legally binding commitment to end nuclear testing.

To conclude, Mr. President, the Holy See wants to speak for many people of good will who strive to make the world a safer place and not to engage in a new arms race which, as in a chain reaction, will encourage [the pursuit of] the nuclear option with the risk of nuclear weapons falling into irresponsible hands. The CTBT invites all of us to have the courage of ambition: to finally free this world of the threat of nuclear weapons. Why should this not be possible?

 

[geezerbob]

A slight modification of the NRA bumper sticker seems appropriate: If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.

 

[Matt25]

A slight modification of the NRA bumper sticker seems appropriate: If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.

The Catechism states clearly-

• 2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.*

This being so can it ever be moral to use nuclear weapons in combat? Can it ever be moral to threaten “*the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”? *Can it be acceptable to possess weapons who’s use would be immoral in all circumstances?

 

[geezerbob]

Matt25:

Can it be acceptable to possess weapons who’s use would be immoral in all circumstances?

It kept the world from another global conflict from the end of WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union. It was called detente. We shouldn’t use them but I see nothing wrong with having them if doing so prevents someone else from using one.

 

[Matt25]

geezerbob:

It kept the world from another global conflict from the end of WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union. It was called detente. We shouldn’t use them but I see nothing wrong with having them if doing so prevents someone else from using one.

If it is wrong to use them how can it be right to threaten to use them?

 

[abcdefg]

Matt25:

If it is wrong to use them how can it be right to threaten to use them?

Do you think North Korea and Iran will hesitate to use them in time of war? well, we(US/UK) have nukes so they will have to think again.

Now answer my question:

1. Who will disarm first? US/UK or North Korea/Iran/China?
2. How can you make sure terrorists don’t have nukes?
3. What to do if a hostile country uses nukes after US/UK have been disarmed?

 

[geezerbob]

Having nukes is neutral and no threat is usually necessary, just the general knowledge that you have them. The threat may be perceived even though not made. Eye of the beholder and all that.

Imagine that teens were vandalizing your neighborhood. You can sit on your front porch holding a shotgun and effectively protect your property without pointing it or threatening anyone with it. Just sitting there holding it is enough. The vandals will probably perceive a threat even though you do not make one. Same thing applies to nuclear weapons.

While world peace is a most desirable goal, rolling over and playing dead is not the way to achieve it. Neither is fighting. And, certainly not appearing so weak that your enemies will not hesitate to take you on. Nukes are the big stick of today. Worked for Teddy Roosevelt, why will it not work today?

 

[abcdefg]

Matt25, another question for you: please find a phrase in CCC that directly/explicitly states having nukes(or “such weapons” to make it easier for you) is immoral

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Matt25:

If it is wrong to use them how can it be right to threaten to use them?

Are you suggesting that it is not right to threaten to use them?

 

[Brendan]

Matt25:

If it is wrong to use them how can it be right to threaten to use them?

Well, first of all, the CCC only addresses the use of such weapons against cities with civilian inhabitants.

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God

It does not exclude, for example, the use of nuclear weapons against army divisions in the field, or remote air or navy bases.

Therefore, the possestion, and even use of such weapons against military targets would not be ruled out by Church teaching.

 

[Topher]

It is interesting that this article says that small arms kill people. I really thought that it was the person using the small arm that was responsible for the death and not the weapon itself. Blaming the weapon and not the person is like blaming some one’s fork for making them fat. Give me a break. We all know that the church teaches that each state (country) has the right to defend itself and sometimes weapons are necessary for this;.

 

[Brendan]

Topher:

. We all know that the church teaches that each state (country) has the right to defend itself and sometimes weapons are necessary for this;.

I wonder, does this Vatican official think that armies are not supposed to have small arms as well.

And what about those resisting an oppressive regime? Are they not allowed to defend their lives and those of their family against injustice?

 

[Topher]

Brendan:

I wonder, does this Vatican official think that armies are not supposed to have small arms as well.

And what about those resisting an oppressive regime? Are they not allowed to defend their lives and those of their family against injustice?

Of couse the Vatican does not think that. The Church is not pascifist. In fact, pacifism is heresy.

 

[manualman]

As usual, truth takes fire from both sides.

Unilateral disarmament has always been a suicidal idea. It is based on an ideology that says that man is fundamentally good, but forgets that he is also FALLEN!

Similarly, it is folly to suggest that the enormous supply of assualt rifles to be found in third world countries in conflict in inevitable and not a problem. I mean COME ON! Ever wonder how come nations that trouble coming up with enough grain to feed their own people seems to have a Kalashnikov in every other home? Ever price a semi-automatic rifle??

Something stinky IS going on in the so-called legitimate arms market. Something VERY stinky.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

manualman:

Something stinky IS going on in the so-called legitimate arms market. Something VERY stinky.

And in the underground arms market. And in narcoterrorism.