I don’t think the world would need to retaliate with a nuclear response conventionally we could take them out and minimize the impact of the radiation - we really don’t want to try to add to it. The whole world would suffer the consequences. We don’t need to follow them down the same path we are capable of handling it without a nuclear response - I just hope there are some level headed people in charge if it does happen.I suggest you read up on the Church’s teaching about just war. To bring that into perspective, your home is invaded by two men who threaten your life and the lives of your family. They are obviously not very “mentally balanced” on top of that. Do you use deadly force or not? After all, based on recent reports of home invasions and the testimony of a survivor, the gunmen tried to kill everybody even when they got whatever they asked for. We live with a few rogue states like Iran and South Korea. Do we sit by and not tell them we will use deadly force if we detect they are about to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead?
War is not moral, but self-defense is necessary in some cases.
Peace,
Ed
I disagree they have anti-missile equipment which has been very successful and theres a very good chance the missiles would be destroyed before hitting the target - they have been refining this technology with great success since the gulf wars and how many n-bombs do the north have - probably could be counted on one hand.Everything is in place for an attack defense wise - if it isn’t then the people in charge are idiots.The problem is, if N Korea set off a nuclear warhead in an act of aggression, there wouldn’t be time to ramp up the necessary response to answer that aggression with overwhelming conventional weaponry. These things take time to move into place. With a million foot soldiers swarming over the DMZ, time would be of the essence and a nuclear strike would almost certainly have introduced a significant disarray into the defence efforts. Considering that significantly bolstering the defences of S Korea right now might actually precipitate the conflict anyway, in order to stay on top of the situation a nuclear response - even if only tactical or lower yield weapons - would almost certainly be forthcoming simply to stop the N Korean war machine in its tracks.
Personally I don’t think the N Koreans are quite that bonkers to get themselves into the situation though. I rather think (and hope!) that it’s a great big show of bombast for the purposes of shoring up an inexperienced leader and allowing him to portray himself to his people as seeing off the ‘threat’ of the USA ‘aggression’ - i.e. this furore is more for home propaganda purposes than for actual consumption by the world.
I didn’t say that there was no defence against the missile(s). You’re probably right, Patriot missile technology and its successors would probably do the trick. I was talking about the response if a nuclear missile actually got through and exploded, with all the casualty and fall out implications of a nuclear detonation that that entails.I disagree they have anti-missile equipment which has been very successful and theres a very good chance the missiles would be destroyed before hitting the target - they have been refining this technology with great success since the gulf wars and how many n-bombs do the north have - probably could be counted on one hand.Everything is in place for an attack defense wise - if it isn’t then the people in charge are idiots.
Except that nuclear weapons used against hardened targets are detonated on the ground, which results in massive production of nuclear fallout, which the wind will then carry over to populated areas. Or food production areas.There is nothing in Cold War era military literature to suggest there was ever such a policy. [of targetting civilian population]
Both the US and former Soviet Union maintained supplies of tactical nuclear naval ordinance, generally in the kiloton range. Based on the CCC, it would seem that the use of a nuclear tipped torpedo to sink an enemy carrier would not be an intrinsically immoral act, as it dies not involve the indiscriminate destruction of civilian populationsThe circumstances that cannot justify an intrinsically evil act include war:
If you believe there are some uses of nuclear weapons that are not immoral, you’re welcome to make that argument. But you may not, according to Church teaching, claim that an intrinsically immoral action can be justified or required.
I would have to disagree on this one - the environmental impact of the radiation released and the radioactive particles left over would certainly affect the civilian population leading to death of people indirectly.Both the US and former Soviet Union maintained supplies of tactical nuclear naval ordinance, generally in the kiloton range. Based on the CCC, it would seem that the use of a nuclear tipped torpedo to sink an enemy carrier would not be an intrinsically immoral act, as it dies not involve the indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations
But your point is not supported by anything in the CCC. At mist, it would then be remote material evil, not intrinsic evil. No civilians are targeted, the standard of CCC 2314 is not met.I would have to disagree on this one - the environmental impact of the radiation released and the radioactive particles left over would certainly affect the civilian population leading to death of people indirectly.
Yes, he probably would stop beating up other kids out of fear of being beaten up himself! It’s called deterrence.. . . . DIscussion between nations is the best way to reduce violence in the world not a threat of more violence to keep violence down. That is like saying to a bully at school who is beating up alot of kids, “billy if you don’t start beating up kids I’m going to do the same to you just alot worse, so if you don’t want to get beaten you will stop beating kids.” he may stop but he would stop in fear.
Ok with the analogy while yes it’s a good deter acne but if you beat your child it’s child abuse. Taking things away spanking the child depending on age, taking him say from friends is also a deterrence but not child abuseYes, he probably would stop beating up other kids out of fear of being beaten up himself! It’s called deterrence.
Nuclear deterrence works the same way. .
As to the morality of use, the only difference I see between nuclear and conventional weapons is the size of the explosive yield. Nukes can now be made pretty much as big or as small as you like when it comes to yield, so the only difference is radiation. I don’t think that would be a major factor in deciding the morality of using a tactical nuke. And if a fusion bomb is ever invented which does not require a fission trigger, radiation would not be an issue.
**The Cuban Missile Crisis was not one singular event. It was merely one of many.Ok with the analogy while yes it’s a good deter acne but if you beat your child it’s child abuse. Taking things away spanking the child depending on age, taking him say from friends is also a deterrence but not child abuse
Anyway forget about that analogy lets talk about deterrence on the scal of war. Now I didn’t live during the Cuban missal crisis but I inspect that people daily lived in fear that at any moment a nuclear bomb could wipe out thousands of lives maybe millions in a split second. Why should we put people through this fear and risk destroying life on earth just to have so called peace through race of arms. The Catholic Church believes that disarmament is the moral way to approach peace, having so many arms that you scare the other country out of attacking is morally illicit in the eyes of the church. (See pacem et terris) the only true peace is through solidarity between nations ( see pacem et Terris) not some false notion of threat of destruction or war or force will bring peace. If all countries who can build up arms all it takes is one mad man in power in a rich developed country on high power to set up a horrible chain reaction of destruction and death.
- On the other hand, We are deeply distressed to see the enormous stocks of armaments that have been, and continue to be, manufactured in the economically more developed countries. This policy is involving a vast outlay of intellectual and material resources, with the result that the people of these countries are saddled with a great burden, while other countries lack the help they need for their economic and social development .
- There is a common belief that under modern conditions peace cannot be assured except on the basis of an equal balance of armaments and that this factor is the probable cause of this stockpiling of armaments. Thus, if one country increases its military strength, others are immediately roused by a competitive spirit to augment their own supply of armaments. And if one country is equipped with atomic weapons, others consider themselves justified in producing such weapons themselves, equal in destructive force.
- Consequently people are living in the grip of constant fear. They are afraid that at any moment the impending storm may break upon them with horrific violence. And they have good reasons for their fear, for there is certainly no lack of such weapons. While it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare to assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstance. Moreover, even though the monstrous power of modern weapons does indeed act as a deterrent, there is reason to fear that the very testing of nuclear devices for war purposes can, if continued, lead to serious danger for various forms of life on earth.
Need for Disarmament
- Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. In the words of Pope Pius XII: “The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time.” (59)
please read
- Everyone, however, must realize that, unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reach men’s very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or—and this is the main thing—ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men’s minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today’s world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.
I may be wrong about fear during the crisis but I trust the words of John XXIII. But this is exactly what I’m talking about you think that looking as strong as possible looking like we should be this big bully that if anyone comes with us we will wipe them off the face of the earth. While ok that will bring deterrence I don’t disagree but its a false notion of peace. You don’t have true peace when you have to threaten other countries with nuclear weapons to keep so called “peace”I did live through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and no one went around in constant fear. In fact it is weakness or the perception of weakness that can lead to war. After reading subsequent accounts from the Soviet side this is apparent. When Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev first met with JFK at the Vienna summit, he sized up the new U.S. president, telling a associate later that in his view Kennedy was weak.
I know the story mostlyKhrushchev judged that if he installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, Kennedy would protest, threaten, and rant, but do nothing. It was a miscalculation. When confronted with the missiles, JFK decided against his Joint Chief’s advice to bomb the nuke sites. Instead he blockaded Cuba, which is an act of war, so he called it a quarantine. He called the the U.S. Soviet ambassador Gromyko to a meeting with Robert Kennedy, wherein RFK essentially threatened the ambassador with nuclear war if the missiles were not removed. He speeded up the availability of the first Minuteman ICBM’s to make that threat more credible.
The blockade worked. A Soviet sub was also forced to surface. The missiles were all removed with the USSR not even giving notice to Castro.
Had Kennedy not acted decisively we might now still be living with nuclear Russian missiles aimed at us from 90 miles away.
look it worked but that doesn’t mean we should keep up a nuclear arsenal and have enough nukes to blow up the world a couple of times.Our nuclear deterrent did in fact prevent nuclear war for decades. I always thought the SAC motto “Peace is Our Profession” was a little ironic for a nuclear force, but it worked.
the less nukes we have the better, I understand national security and its important but nuclear weapons can never be used morally because all they do is total destruction and don’t discriminate against combatants and non combatants. I understand the principle of double effect may apply but I just have a feeling the first time a nuke goes off against a target with people it will set off a chain reaction that will cause the loss of millions of lives innocent lives. Even if a country gets who has no nukes the retaliation from the united states would be swift and quick, because the only countries would drop a nuke would probably be unstable Muslim country like Iran.Now, the U.S.has undergone a rather drastic decline in the number of its land based ICBM’s in recent decades. That reduces the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and consequently makes war more likely. Nations which perceive the U.S. to be unwilling or unable to use its power are more willing to risk war. They do not necessarily think about these matters in the same way as U.S. analysts. Because our nuclear deterrent is being degraded we are at greater threat of war now.