Hiroshima Mayor Calls on All Countries "Including U.S." to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

[smackdaddy]

**A large anti-nuclear rally in New York calls for global nuclear disarmament ahead of a United Nations meeting to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We speak with the mayor of Hiroshima - where 60 years ago the U.S. dropped one of two atomic bombs. **

democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1348206

 

[David_Paul]

Democracy Now? Interesting interviews by them on the legacy of Pope John Paul II here. Scroll down for the part on abortion, liberation theology and women priests.

Democracy Now is less in favor of the new Pope:

Democracy Now! Pope Benedict XVI: Anti-War, Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice, Anti-Reform

The U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization promoted the NYC anti-nuke rally.

The KGB used to be the primary source of funds for the anti-nuke movement in Western Europe and the USA. Who funds it now? Soros? Iran? North Korea?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

**A large anti-nuclear rally in New York calls for global nuclear disarmament ahead of a United Nations meeting to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We speak with the mayor of Hiroshima - where 60 years ago the U.S. dropped one of two atomic bombs. **

democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1348206

Sure, as soon as Iran and North Korean give up theirs AND bin Laden and la Zarqawi turn themselves in.

 

[Genesis315]

If you outlaw nukes, only the outlaw countries will have nukes.

 

[smackdaddy]

Genesis315:

If you outlaw nukes, only the outlaw countries will have nukes.

I personally don’t see how a Christian can support the use of or even having nuclear weapons. Their potential for mass murder makes them intrinsically evil.

 

[Genesis315]

smackdaddy:

I personally don’t see how a Christian can support the use of or even having nuclear weapons. Their potential for mass murder makes them intrinsically evil.

Maybe. But, the other nation is less likely to launch them if they think they might get a return fire.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

smackdaddy:

I personally don’t see how a Christian can support the use of or even having nuclear weapons. Their potential for mass murder makes them intrinsically evil.

It is called deterence. Potential threat is a strong deterence to violence. That is why states that have lax laws on concealed weapons have the lowest crime rates. If all the “christian” countries give up their nukes, what is left to stop madmen like bin Laden or al Zarqawi, Iran or North Korea from getting them and using them on us?

 

[smackdaddy]

Scott_Lafrance:

It is called deterence. Potential threat is a strong deterence to violence. That is why states that have lax laws on concealed weapons have the lowest crime rates. If all the “christian” countries give up their nukes, what is left to stop madmen like bin Laden or al Zarqawi, Iran or North Korea from getting them and using them on us?

Do you think it’s possible that the reason these other countries, North Korea, Iran, have or are pursuing nukes is because the U.S. has them? And not only does the U.S. have them but have used them. And now are threatening to use them again.

 

[quijote]

**A large anti-nuclear rally in New York calls for global nuclear disarmament ahead of a United Nations meeting to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We speak with the mayor of Hiroshima - where 60 years ago the U.S. dropped one of two atomic bombs. **

democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1348206

From the April 30th edition of The Economist:

“The numbers of nuclear eapons in the stockpiles of the five officially recognised nuclear powers -America, Russia, China, Britain and France- are collectively at their lowest in decades and set to drop further…Critics of the dawdling disarmers have a point: the official five, and especially America and Russia, still have too many nuclear weapons…where some of the critics are dangerously wrong, however, in in using attacks on the pace of planned reductions as cover for doing next to notihng about a far bigger threat to the Non -Proliferation Treaty: the proliferation of weapons-useable technologies to countries bent on breaking or bending its rules.” (pp12)

Why people protest America’s nuclear arsenal is beyond me. Obvioulsy, the US would not use it unless it was the last resort…it is the “renegade” countries that should be protested against…then again, those countries would probably incarcerate and torture anyone who protests in their land…

cheers

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

smackdaddy:

Do you think it’s possible that the reason these other countries, North Korea, Iran, have or are pursuing nukes is because the U.S. has them? And not only does the U.S. have them but have used them. And now are threatening to use them again.

No, Iran wants nuke so they can evaporate Tel Aviv. The only way that weapons act as a deterent is if their is plausible threat of their use.

 

[space_ghost]

…so what is the goal here? We shouldn’t get rid of our nuclear stockpile, because we want to be able to obliterate the planet last? That way we are the last to die? I know somewhere in there is some logic…

 

[stumbler]

smackdaddy:

I personally don’t see how a Christian can support the use of or even having nuclear weapons. Their potential for mass murder makes them intrinsically evil.

I see our proto-pope is back in business.

Are you infallibly declaring objects to be “intrinsically evil” now? (They could use your help over on the Spork thread. )

Again, the fallacy of your position arises from the enduring primacy of pacifism (which is NOT the Catholic position) in your world view. Start with Catholicism and reason from there, my friend.

Peace,

 

[smackdaddy]

quijote:

Why people protest America’s nuclear arsenal is beyond me. Obvioulsy, the US would not use it unless it was the last resort…it is the “renegade” countries that should be protested against…then again, those countries would probably incarcerate and torture anyone who protests in their land…

cheers

How a Christian can support the use of or the maintenance of America’s nuclear arsenal is beyond me. The part I have highlighted above is a real howler…I guess you think the U.S. dropped their A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a last resort, huh??

 

[stumbler]

smackdaddy:

I guess you think the U.S. dropped their A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a last resort, huh??

If you look at the run-up to those events, it can be argued that the alternative was far worse militarily.

 

[smackdaddy]

stumbler:

If you look at the run-up to those events, it can be argued that the alternative was far worse militarily.

By the time August 1945 rolled around, the Japanese were a defeated nation. The A-Bombs were dropped not as a last resort, but to expedite the war’s end in order to keep the Russians out.

 

[gnjsdad]

Scott_Lafrance:

It is called deterence. Potential threat is a strong deterence to violence. That is why states that have lax laws on concealed weapons have the lowest crime rates. If all the “christian” countries give up their nukes, what is left to stop madmen like bin Laden or al Zarqawi, Iran or North Korea from getting them and using them on us?

Deterrence as you’re describing it made sense against a state like the USSR, which had thousands of nukes aimed at us and which had a vested interest in its own survival.

It doesn’t make sense against someone like Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Suppose they were able to smuggle a dirty bomb into this country and detonate it. Who do we launch our nukes against? Who do we retaliate against? How many thousands of innocent people do we kill in doing so?

Now, if Bush were really serious about stopping the threat of a suitcase nuke coming through, say, Mexico, he’d make securing the border his number one priority.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Getting rid of the nukes is a nice thought but is no where near practical or feasable, and will never happen so why do people beat themselves up over this? We get rid of our deterence and we will all be dead tomorrow.

 

[atsheeran]

I would be interested in reading someone’s defense of the use of nuclear weapons (in self-defense) using the Catholic just war principles. I tend to doubt that it would be possible for two reasons.

First, one of the ius in bello principles of the just war theory is that a use of force has to be proportionate. The use of a nuclear weapon is never proportionate, even in response to a nuclear weapon attack. It can’t be proportionate because the effect of a nuclear weapon is not predictable. We can’t measure the damage from the heat, blast, and subsequent radiation. If a government/military launches a nuclear weapon at another State, it is not proportionate to respond to that attack by the destruction of their civilian population. Just because the aggressor failed to apply just war principles in starting the war, doesn’t mean the self-defending State isn’t morally obligated to apply those principles in conducting the war.

Second, another of the ius in bello just war principles is that the use of force must be conducted in a way that discriminates between civilians and non-civilians. Nuclear weapons totally fail in this regard.

 

[quijote]

smackdaddy:

How a Christian can support the use of or the maintenance of America’s nuclear arsenal is beyond me. The part I have highlighted above is a real howler…I guess you think the U.S. dropped their A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a last resort, huh??

As to the US dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we could argue whether it would have been better to try to invade Japan itself and have our soldiers and Marines fighting Japanese civilians would have been a lesser evil or not. I would agree that having the benefit of hindsight (and today’s sensibilities towards civilian casualties) it would have been better for the US to drop the bomb in an inhabited area of Japan just to show the power of the bomb and then warn that if Japan does not surrender a city gets it next.

As to “how a Christian can support the use or the maintenance of a nuclear arsenal…”, here I guess we will have to disagree. I believe that it was because of the size of the nuclear weapons arsenal of both the US and the USSR that prevented both countries from using them. Both countries new that using the bombs would lead to total destruction of humanity so they were never used. Today, the US and Russia (and other countries) keep a much, much smaller arsenal that works as deterrant for other rogue countries thinking of using a nuclear/biological/chemical weapon on the US. I see and value the importance of deterrance.

cheers

 

[quijote]

gnjsdad:

Now, if Bush were really serious about stopping the threat of a suitcase nuke coming through, say, Mexico, he’d make securing the border his number one priority.

:bowdown2: :clapping:

What good is it that I own a gun to protect myself and my family if I don’t close the front door at night?

cheers