Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[o_mlly]

what this discussion boils down to is that one of us chooses to believe the Pope and Holy Scripture while the other chooses a modernist who has no understanding of YHWH’s plan for humanity

Rather I think it boils down to one who is uninformed as to Catholic morality and one who does understand the consistent and constant Traditional teaching of Scripture and the Magisterium.

 

[undead_rat]

If i am uninformed, then so is Pope Francis who has condemned the possession of nuclear weapons.

 

[o_mlly]

If i am uninformed, then so is Pope Francis who has condemned the possession of nuclear weapons.

Not necessarily. The former is confirmed in your previous post.

“Foreseeable effects” are given in our Holy Scriptures.

The latter, still in development, remains to be seen:

In current conditions ‘deterrence’ based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order toensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." (Pope John Paul II, Message to U.N. Special Session on Disarmament, #8, June 1982.)

I leave you in peace.

 

[undead_rat]

With all due respect to John Paul II , his conditional acceptance of the MAD protocol has now been cancelled due to the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament. MAD has been condemned by the Vatican as a “negative peace” which is not based on Christian values. Scripture predicts that the continuation of the MAD system will lead to disaster.

 

[o_mlly]

With all due respect to John Paul II , his conditional acceptance of the MAD protocol has now been cancelled due to the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament.

St. JPII never accepted MAD. He accepted the morality of “deterrence” as an interim position toward a balanced reduction in nuclear armaments. The goal of nuclear weapon elimination and St. JPII’s judgement of the morality of deterrence has not "been cancelled due to the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament". Please stop posting your personal opinions as facts.

Statement from U.S. Bishops’ Chairman of International Justice and Peace Committee on Nuclear Weapons

WASHINGTON—Bishop David J. Malloy of Rockford and Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace, issu...

www.usccb.org

“The United States and Russia have over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. This fact alone calls for our nation to exercise global leadership for mutual, verifiable nuclear disarmament. The extension of New START Treaty with Russia would be a prudent next step” (USCCB Nov 25, 2019).

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...r-weapons/backgrounder-on-nuclear-weapons.cfm

The U.S. and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on April 8, 2010, which was ratified by the Senate on a solid bipartisan vote of 71 to 26. The Holy See has “welcome[d] and recognize[d] the ongoing successful implementation of New START.” The New START Treaty: reduces deployed strategic warheads to 1550, 30 percent below the existing ceiling; limits both nations to no more than 700 delivery vehicles; and includes new verification requirements.

USCCB POSITION: The United States and other nuclear powers must move away from reliance on nuclear weapons for security. USCCB urges the Administration and Congress to view arms control treaties not as ends in themselves but as steps along the way to achieving a mutual, verifiable global ban on nuclear weapons.

The Church opposes the use of nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear threats. The U.S. should commit to never use nuclear weapons first and to reject use of nuclear weapons to deter non-nuclear threats. The Church urges that nuclear deterrence be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations. (USCCB Feb. 2018)

 

[EndTimes]

The Church has declared their use to be immoral. However, the Catholic Church comments on morality, not science.

The Morality of God supersedes the “science” and “laws” of Man.
It is Man’s science which gave us Nukes
Nukes are an extension of fists, stones, clubs, spears, arrows and guns… to a point

Their quantitative difference as say per self-defense
would by necessity incur deaths and damages of innocents and their property

 

[pnewton]

I have always considered this argument to be a false duality. Science is not anti-morality; the Church is not anti-science. There is no “superseding,” any more that the Ten Commandments supersedes the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins. It is nonsensical to me.

 

[EndTimes]

I have always considered this argument to be a false duality. Science is not anti-morality; the Church is not anti-science. There is no “superseding,” any more that the Ten Commandments supersedes the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins. It is nonsensical to me

As you’re allowed to…

Meanwhile Physicsl, Maths, etc. gave us Weapons of Mass Destruction

And God’s Steady Law of Love supersedes man’s arbitrary changeable even disagreeable laws.

_

 

[AlNg]

Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral creations. They murder women and children in addition to the handful of targets you’re actually trying to hit. They aren’t war machines. They’re extermination machines.
Their increased proliferation decreases the probability of long-term human survival because, eventually, some zeal-eyed moron will use them

Yes of course you are right. Perhaps this “zeal-eyed moron” will say that he is using a couple of hydrogen bombs and a few atomic bombs to shorten the war and to save lives.

Can a nuke ever be justified in this day and age?

I would say No because it would involve killing too many innocent people.

We just didn’t have to do it.

The use of atomic weapons set a bad precedent.

 

[o_mlly]

My conclusion is that under no circumstances may any nation resort to the use of a nuclear weapon.

How about chemical weaponry? What about weaponized viruses? I think the naming and banning of a particular weapon does not provide the principle necessary.

It seems the principle already in place serves us well: the use of any weapon in a just war that kills indiscriminately and disproportionately is immoral.

 

[EndTimes]

America is talking about moving Nukes from Germany to Poland…

 

[o_mlly]

The difference is that nuclear weapons have the potential to exterminate the human race.
And the problem is that a “dial-down” smart nuclear bomb such as the B61-12 would not kill either “indiscriminately” or “disproportionately” when used in, say, an attack on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

An attack of this kind is what Israel and the USA have both been threatening. But once this happens, then other nations (Pakistan, India, N. Korea) will feel that they too may use their own nukes in so-called “pre-emptive” strikes. As i have pointed out, the use of any type of weapon tends to escalate in a war.

So far in this thread, the discussion has been the use of nuclear weapons in a just war, i.e., a defensive war. The moral issue regarding the use of any weapon in a preemptive strike is not part of this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

This is the opening line of this thread. “Just war” was not specified.

The use of any weapon in an unjust war is immoral.

 

[EndTimes]

Any future use of nukes would probably be Armageddon…

 

[Strawberry_Shortcake]

Immoral. Most definitely. Since it’s not a weapon you can control. It would mostly kill noncombatants.

 

[anon91549587]

Is this kinda like the death penalty?

 

[vz71]

Since it’s not a weapon you can control. It would mostly kill noncombatants.

I suppose that depends upon the size of the weapon. Big does not necessitate being out of control.

 

[EndTimes]

We know from several areas of Prophecy
that there shall be extremely serious warring before our Lord Returns

1. “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
2. 22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

 

[JerryZ]

A weapon any weapon should exist in order to defend oneself either personally or as a nation.
Any weapon used to conduct an offense against another nation is typically considered immoral.
The way nuclear weapons were considered back in the days of the cold war was that they assured the “enemy” mutual destruction therefore their use would have been absurd.
Theaters of war do change as well as circumstances. As well as the weapons themselves.
The bombs used in WWII have zero equivalent to today’s arsenals.
There could be a scenario in the future when a nuclear warhead was warranted, we don’t know. but… The question is
Should we unilaterally disarm?
Unfortunately and as we see, a few countries are still in a race to build a bomb.
Things to ponder.
Peace!

 

[JanR]

This question haunted President Truman about dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had he not done so to finally end World War II in the Pacific, that war could have drawn on and on for many more years, killing many more thousands, even millions of young people on both sides, and we might not have been victorious. The Japanese weren’t going to surrender any other way. We might still be fighting them today if Truman hadn’t ended it once and for all.

As horrific as the outcome was for the populations of those cities, not having done so could have been much more horrific in the long run, for everyone concerned. Sometimes, we find ourselves in a corner where the only choices we have are terrible choices, and all we can do is choose the least terrible of them all.

That said, today’s nuclear technology could very well wipe out the entire human race, and I don’t think any power on earth is willing to do that when it comes right down to it, as it would mean their own annihilation, as well. Some put on blustery shows to frighten and intimidate their enemies, but if push came to shove, I doubt anyone would really go through with it.

I could be wrong, and if proven so, it won’t matter to any of us, anymore.