Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cicada_3301
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The magnitude and deadliness of side effects and the indiscriminate nature of nuclear attacks.
 
It is possible that they could be used in space combat, but right now what could be a necessary reason for that?
 
Armored silos, for one. You can’t convince other countries you’ve disarmed when you’re still storing the components in silos where they can be reassembled. We’re also not going to deploy submarines to guard nuclear fuel. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment is being disingenuous when speaking of theft from the poor. The Pope isn’t an engineer, so he doesn’t have a clue about the technical difficulties of what he’s asking. Simply ordering us to get rid of our nuclear arsenals doesn’t address physical limitations.
 
Last edited:
He didn’t say tomorrow.
He’s pointing out that Popes since Pius XXII—yes, since before there WERE any nuclear weapons!—have been raising objections to the use of this extravagant weapon of war as incompatible with St Augustine’s just war theory. That it is financially extravagant to make and keep them only adds another insult to the list of injuries.
Pope John Paul II only softened to the point of holding that nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence could be permissible. That doesn’t mean he thought their use could ever be justified or that ending their existence everywhere wouldn’t be morally preferable.
The point that they could be used far from earth to disrupt electromagnetic communications is a possible legitimate means of using fission in defense without illicit disregard for the lives of non-combatants. It isn’t fission that’s the problem. It is the magnitude and deadly side products of detonation and the prospect of unintended detonation in a device engineered to produce an explosion.
—Still, your point that no one will believe in disarmament without inspections is a fair one. The distrust is high (and earned).
 
Last edited:
Yeah sure, the newborn babies in Hiroshima were combatants as well. This definition of who is a civilian and who is a combatant is not compatible with the Just war doctrine.

Also I have noticed that most arguments in favor of the nuclear bombs are highly consequentialistic (“perhabs more people would have died in an invasion” or “what about Nanking”). That is not how catholic morality works. We may never do evil so that good may come out of it, and the indiscriminate attack of civilians is evil (that includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden). Also we cannot punish civilian people for crimes committed by the army (that would be like saying a child concieved in rape deserves to be aborted for the crime that his or her father committed).
 
Yes, in the end the plain meaning of the Gospel does not propose a code of behavior that excludes the risk of being taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. It pretty much instructs Christians to expect it, if anything. Count the cost…that’s the plain sense of the red letters.
If you’d save your life, you’ll lose it, but if you lose it for the sake of the Gospel, you’ll save it.
Not the way anyone is going to run a military, but it says what it says. Negotiations and adjustments not welcomed…
 
Last edited:
tuffsmurf said:
Also we cannot punish civilian people for crimes committed by the army (that would be like saying a child concieved in rape deserves to be aborted for the crime that his or her father committed).
Click to expand...
“Yeah sure” , I don’t think that statement is respectful nor the statement in whole respectful of the right to life or reasoned. We should not be exploitative of the right to life.

Stopping genocide hardly compares to that.
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose.
Click to expand...
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm

Japan too, was developing weapons of mass destruction as well.

Inflicting famine on people likewise, could have killed many, many more.

This all calls itself to the principle of self-defense as well.

Japan also set up many kamikaze missions, even those manned torpedoes that they used were that way.
 
Last edited:
@Cicado_3301:

The use of nuclear weapons or firebombing of cities with conventional weaponry was gravely immoral.

Peace.
 
Consequentialist /proportionalist. Which is indeed my position. Which is indeed not the position of the RCC.
 
Code: 
 War is immoral! But, Evil is!  Hitler unchecked, we’d  be speaking German & there would be No Jews. Japan, had  immoral treatment of our captured troops. We were losing heavy numbers of troops. Could we win? We’re we losing? It was close, either way. The A bomb was created. Our money was low. This fight for ultimate domain, more land, more ppl to control..... IDK! I feel it had to be used. My husband was saying, it didn’t need to be used b/c the war was staring to turn??? It’s a risk! President Truman prayed. It wasn’t decided lightly. It was a fast destruction. Look at Syria, it is a slow, total destruction.  What aggravated me about Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria, & more is, it’s a Spiritual battle. If, we were not to fight, we’d be overran & be Muslims or dead. Would the martyrdom, eventually, have converted the enemy??? There’d be slaughter? I couldn’t let that many innocents die. There are Muslims & Jews converting to Christianity. They’re on You Tube. It’s wonderful listening to their stories. 
 In Tblisi, Republic of Georgia, Tamarand & Islamic forces invaded. 100,000 were martyred for their Faith. The river ran red w their blood 
You saw the Christian persecution in Syria. We went into Kosovo to save Muslims but we dragged feet to save Christians in Syria. Beheaded, crucified, Children buried alive in front of parents. Hardly, any refugees were Christian. Most are Muslims. One of our first churches was in Damascus, SIGH.  
  Are nuclear meds immoral? There are never easy answers to this horror. The same evil in Hitler, is passed on to the next dictator or egotistical maniac. Our Troops suffer. Children & women used in conflicts. This requires our having to shoot women & children. What causes PTSD? Are we to be the World's policeman? Only God knows. There is a righteous war. May the souls of the troops, fighting to free ppl from suffering,, be protected & blessed.
 
Upon thinking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, we can envision children burned with their skin melting off, believe me, this is something to contemplate to the fullest and that it was a horrible thing.

They additionally as we all know, likewise, did some very terrible things.
 
The children in Hiroshima were not unjust aggressors. Therefore, they could not be willfully killed. Soldiers in the japanese army is another thing. How is this exploitative of the right to life?

Again, japanese civilians were not kamikaze pilots, so it is irrelevant to bring that up when we talk about the killing of CIVILIANS.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
Consequentialist /proportionalist. Which is indeed my position. Which is indeed not the position of the RCC.
Click to expand...
The RCC does, in fact, teach that the morality of human acts is more often than not justified by the foreseen effects or consequences. i.e., the end justifies the means. And, if good and evil effects are foreseen, proportionality is also considered in judging the validity of the act. Only acts that are intrinsically evil are never permitted.

Presuming the intention and the jus ad bellum principles are in order, then the killing of civilians, under jus in bello principles, is a moral act.

Are acts that reduce the unjust aggressor’s ability to do evil ever justified? Yes. Are civilians working in armaments factories non-combatants? Directly, yes. Indirectly, no.
 
If this is an accurate harassment, then certainly, as a teaching of the RCC, all faithful RCs should affirm it, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.
 
GKMotley said:
If this is an accurate harassment, then certainly, as a teaching of the RCC, all faithful RCs should affirm it, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.
Click to expand...
All my harassments are accurate. 😁
 
Last edited:
Oh, dear.

Is it ok if I correct it? Though it was a neat auto-correct. I was in haste to get to lunch.
 
The direct and willfully killing of civilians is an intrinsically evil act. Just as abortion. If a military target is attacked and some civilians are killed, that is not necessarily evil. A whole city, however, cannot be a military target.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top