Morality of Using a Nuclear Weapon

[ClemtheCatholic]

I’ve looked into all this a lot. My conclusion is that the Church is generally against the whole concept of nuclear weapons, the arms race, and the usage of weapons of mass destruction.

BUT, my question is whether there is an exception regarding the usage.

Scenario: If a nation starts bombarding (say) the United States with nuclear weapons, is the US justified in responding with equal force? What other options are there?

This is, of course, a worst-case-scenario sort of situation as well as being a situation surrounded by evil where it seems “the lesser of two evils” might be the only viable option.

Thanks,
ClemtheCatholic

 

[devoutchristian]

Nuclear weapons tend to the destruction of civilian targets. They are therefore morally impermissible. Threatening an enemy power’s civilian population is like killing an attacker’s child and claiming self-defense.

 

[dshix]

It is permissible to use nuclear weapons in extreme situations where it is necessary for self-defence, or against an entirely military target (i.e. nuking a small military base on a secluded island in the Pacific, if it represents a serious danger.)

I agree with the poster above me in that nukes should not be used against civilian populations except in very extreme circumstances, but not that they are objectively immoral.

 

[devoutchristian]

I agree with the poster above me in that nukes should not be used against civilian populations except in very extreme circumstances, but not that they are objectively immoral.

It is never permissible to directly target civilian targets. Just like infanticide, mass murder of civilians has no moral rape, incest, or life of the mother exception.

 

[catholictiger]

according to Catholic teaching you must discriminate against combatants and non combatants. So for example lets say you go into a military stronghold which is upheld in a city, mostly soldiers are in the city who want to kill you but you also have a mix of civilians who didn’t want to leave home for what ever reason. You are going through heavy street fighting and house to house fighting. Lets say you run into a house that is giving you lots of problems pinning you down. NExt door connected to the house is a civilian house and there are a few families in that house. You could order a bombing of the block which would kill the soldiers in the one house but also the civilians. Because the non combatants are in harms way you can’t bomb them. When fighting you must discriminate between combatants and non combatants.

Now when you drop a nuclear weapon it makes no discrimination between combatants and non combatants, it wipes out everything no matter what. This is why the Church is against this, it is total destruction with no regard for non combatants.

so it is never moral to use a nuclear weapon for total destruction of any place.

 

[catholictiger]

this is a thing we should all consider read bellow

1. 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 .

1. 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.

1. 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.

I could agree that in extreme cases nuclear war is necessary but I would say these are so unnecessary that it is almost isn’t an option, even just building a nuke is wrong in the eyes of at-least John XXIII, ask yourself is there any good reason outside of war of building a nuke. IF you think its ok to build a nuke because of peace read above. Currently there are so many nukes in the world you could probably wipe out the entire population of earth a couple times over. People shouldn’t have to worry about this and now of days we don’t. I personally think we should never build a nuke and never stock pile them. 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.

so we need to disarm we need to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons, there is almost never a case to use them.

 

[catholictiger]

I’ve looked into all this a lot. My conclusion is that the Church is generally against the whole concept of nuclear weapons, the arms race, and the usage of weapons of mass destruction.

BUT, my question is whether there is an exception regarding the usage.

Scenario: If a nation starts bombarding (say) the United States with nuclear weapons, is the US justified in responding with equal force? What other options are there?

This is, of course, a worst-case-scenario sort of situation as well as being a situation surrounded by evil where it seems “the lesser of two evils” might be the only viable option.

Thanks,
ClemtheCatholic

one more thing sorry to bombard your thread with posts.

but as far as your scenario goes I would say you should do what you can to stop them from dropping nukes on us. You may have to send nukes back at them, or something less serious and target missle silos and stuff like that.

but your scenario is why we should disarm all nations, because in your scenario the only option may end up being nuclear war and it would probably end up being a nuclear war even if it was immoral to do so. We should never have enough weapons that we could destroy the entire human race or even wipe out a third of the human race. We have a duty to protect human life nuclear weapons are a threat to human life they should be destroyed and never be allowed to blow up in a civilian target or even military target.

 

[dshix]

one more thing sorry to bombard your thread with posts.

but as far as your scenario goes I would say you should do what you can to stop them from dropping nukes on us. You may have to send nukes back at them, or something less serious and target missle silos and stuff like that.

but your scenario is why we should disarm all nations, because in your scenario the only option may end up being nuclear war and it would probably end up being a nuclear war even if it was immoral to do so. We should never have enough weapons that we could destroy the entire human race or even wipe out a third of the human race. We have a duty to protect human life nuclear weapons are a threat to human life they should be destroyed and never be allowed to blow up in a civilian target or even military target.

I agree. What’s scary, however, is the fact that the US actually has enough nuclear power to blow up everything on the face of the earth; God forbid a person who is evil enough to do so comes into power.

 

[triumphguy]

I agree with the Church’s position as stated above. This is an interesting read:

Blessing the Bombs: The Hiroshima Bombers’ Chaplain Faces Christ

Sixty years ago, as a Catholic Air Force chaplain, Father George Zabelka blessed the men who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Years later, he left this message for the world…

oldarchive.godspy.com/reviews/Blessing-the-Bombs-by-George-Zabelka.cfm.html

Also this is pertinent:

catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20050505.htm

U.N. nuncio calls for re-examining strategy of nuclear deterrence

UNITED NATIONS (CNS) – The Vatican nuncio to the United Nations called May 4 for the international community to “re-examine the whole strategy of nuclear deterrence.” “When the Holy See expressed its limited acceptance of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War, it was with the clearly stated condition that deterrence was only a step on the way toward progressive nuclear disarmament,” said Archbishop Celestino Migliore. “The Holy See has never countenanced nuclear deterrence as a permanent measure, nor does it today when it is evident that nuclear deterrence drives the development of ever newer nuclear arms, thus preventing genuine nuclear disarmament,” he said. The nuncio made his appeal in an address to a conference being held at U.N. headquarters in New York May 2-27 to review implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve looked into all this a lot. My conclusion is that the Church is generally against the whole concept of nuclear weapons, the arms race, and the usage of weapons of mass destruction.

BUT, my question is whether there is an exception regarding the usage.

Scenario: If a nation starts bombarding (say) the United States with nuclear weapons, is the US justified in responding with equal force? What other options are there?

This is, of course, a worst-case-scenario sort of situation as well as being a situation surrounded by evil where it seems “the lesser of two evils” might be the only viable option.

Thanks,
ClemtheCatholic

The Catechism discusses these issues in para # 2314. The treatment is general and applies to all weapons of mass destriction. It is difficult to see how they could ever be justified in their present configuration. So if the U.S. were attacked we could not respond indiscriminately and with equal force. Revenge is the Lord’s. Linus2nd

 

[edwest2]

I’ve looked into all this a lot. My conclusion is that the Church is generally against the whole concept of nuclear weapons, the arms race, and the usage of weapons of mass destruction.

BUT, my question is whether there is an exception regarding the usage.

Scenario: If a nation starts bombarding (say) the United States with nuclear weapons, is the US justified in responding with equal force? What other options are there?

This is, of course, a worst-case-scenario sort of situation as well as being a situation surrounded by evil where it seems “the lesser of two evils” might be the only viable option.

Thanks,
ClemtheCatholic

I lived through the entire Cold War. The first Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles were deployed by the Russians and the United States in 1959. Then the Russians put medium-range nuclear missiles on Cuba in 1962. President John F. Kennedy told the country that an attack by the Russians against any of our Allies meant a full response from the United Sates against the USSR. This was called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Depending on where you lived in the US, you had a maximum of 20 to 30 minutes to find shelter. We knew what the effects were. We knew what the blast radius was. As time passed, we and the Russians figured out how to put more than one warhead on one missile. By the 1970s, we had the capacity to destroy the world four times over.

And you know what? We did not lose a second of sleep worrying about it. Not one. We had a great time.

Yes, the Church is against such weapons. Today, precision guided munitions provide three critical incentives to the military: (1) you can hit the target with one bomb, not dozens or hundreds as in the past, (2) It is now possible to shoot down a cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle with a laser, (3) civilian casualties are avoided or minimal.

It’s not moral to use nuclear weapons, but, God forbid, something may occur that requires their use. An attack on the US, our Allies and territories and possessions require defense and even the threat by the US of a nuclear strike can prevent the potential attacker from attacking.

Peace,
Ed

 

[dshix]

I lived through the entire Cold War. The first Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles were deployed by the Russians and the United States in 1959. Then the Russians put medium-range nuclear missiles on Cuba in 1962. President John F. Kennedy told the country that an attack by the Russians against any of our Allies meant a full response from the United Sates against the USSR. This was called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Depending on where you lived in the US, you had a maximum of 20 to 30 minutes to find shelter. We knew what the effects were. We knew what the blast radius was. As time passed, we and the Russians figured out how to put more than one warhead on one missile. By the 1970s, we had the capacity to destroy the world four times over.

And you know what? We did not lose a second of sleep worrying about it. Not one. We had a great time.

Yes, the Church is against such weapons. Today, precision guided munitions provide three critical incentives to the military: (1) you can hit the target with one bomb, not dozens or hundreds as in the past, (2) It is now possible to shoot down a cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle with a laser, (3) civilian casualties are avoided or minimal.

It’s not moral to use nuclear weapons, but, God forbid, something may occur that requires their use. An attack on the US, our Allies and territories and possessions require defense and even the threat by the US of a nuclear strike can prevent the potential attacker from attacking.

Peace,
Ed

I agree with this post; this is my stand on the issue as well.

 

[Samuel63]

If we can stop an un-just agressor such a the former USSR with the threat of a nuclear response, we should do so. More souls will go to heaven with us present than the alternative of world domination by an evil empire.

Moreover, if we did not have a nuclear arsenal, is there any doubt what language we would be speaking today?

 

[underacloud]

according to Catholic teaching you must discriminate against combatants and non combatants. So for example lets say you go into a military stronghold which is upheld in a city, mostly soldiers are in the city who want to kill you but you also have a mix of civilians who didn’t want to leave home for what ever reason. You are going through heavy street fighting and house to house fighting. Lets say you run into a house that is giving you lots of problems pinning you down. NExt door connected to the house is a civilian house and there are a few families in that house. You could order a bombing of the block which would kill the soldiers in the one house but also the civilians. Because the non combatants are in harms way you can’t bomb them. When fighting you must discriminate between combatants and non combatants.

The principle of double effect allows for collateral damage in a just war. Bombing the block in order to kill the enemy combatants may be acceptable, even if non-combatants are killed, if the good effect proportionally outweighs the bad.

This sort of reasoning, however, can’t justify indiscriminate nuclear bombing of civilian areas, where the purpose is to terrorise the enemy into surrender.

 

[edwest2]

Nuclear weapons tend to the destruction of civilian targets. They are therefore morally impermissible. Threatening an enemy power’s civilian population is like killing an attacker’s child and claiming self-defense.

There is nothing in Cold War era military literature to suggest there was ever such a policy.

The prime targets were:

1. Aircraft and military bases.
2. Large-scale manufacturers of military hardware.
3. Nuclear missile silos that had not yet launched their missiles. This would require an airburst at a specific height and distance from the silo.
4. The targeting of large-scale steel mills.
5. The destruction of NORAD’s base inside the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker.

Destroying a nation’s ability to wage war was job one. The Russians would then send in occupation forces to areas outside the zones of destruction and fallout and occupy the United States. The US would cease to exist and become a Russian satellite country.

Keep in mind that during the period, the US had a massive early warning system and a large B-52 bomber fleet that kept getting upgraded. Even if the US was attacked in a first strike, we had antiaircraft and automated “terminal” defenses that could cause the warhead to be knocked out of the sky, be destroyed, or detonate at the “wrong” place.

Even if a handful of B-52s got through to the USSR, they would face antiaircraft fire and Russian jets. And their priority targets would primarily be Russian missile bases, with secondary targets being entirely military as above.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Thanks guys!! This helps a lot.

 

[DexUK]

Nuclear weapons are useful as morally legitimate tools only so long as there is the understanding on both sides that an act of aggression would result in Mutually Assured Destruction.

The problem comes with rogue states, such as North Korea, who may just be mad enough to despatch a limited nuclear strike (on the basis that they have only a few actual nukes to use) and expect that the other side would not have the gumption to return like with like.

In that situation, what do you do? Despite there being two or three nuclear attacks against you, do you refrain from responding in kind because you know the aggressor doesn’t actually have much if anything left in its nuclear arsenal at that immediate moment, or do you respond directly with your own overwhelming nuclear force to ensure that the aggressor is left in absolutely no state to ever repeat the aggression?

A political outlook would suggest the latter: it would be a pragmatic response to prevent a later repeat of a calamity that had already occurred and would, given the aggressor’s character and behaviour, be guaranteed to happen again at some time.

I really can’t imagine that a nuclear strike by North Korea would go unpunished, and if they actually managed to successfully deploy a nuclear warhead against South Korea or the USA, I simply wouldn’t expect anything other than overwhelming response: literally - a response designed to completely overwhelm and defeat the enemy in as short a time as possible. I can imagine a scenario where the US like to fling every conventional weapon at its disposal at such an aggressor, however that would presuppose these resources being ready and able to do so immediately. Given that such an overwhelming military build up would take some time to organise and deploy, it seems highly likely to me that a nuclear response would have to be met with an immediate nuclear retaliation, albeit at a tactical level, if only to guarantee a response within an acceptable time frame.

The morals of it? Well, one would expect the response would have to be carefully targeted to reduce as much as possible the collateral damage. It would be unlikely that the original aggression would have been so careful, so in terms of being a proportionate response, I would suggest that the US and S Korea would be very careful not to be seen to be over-reacting, but such situations depend on the exigencies of the situation itself. In the event of a nuclear strike by N Korea, I don’t see the USA and S Korea hanging around for an international conference on the issue or waiting for UN authorisation to continue - a State of War already exists, don’t forget, and has done for 50 - 60 years…

 

[aspirant]

It’s not moral to use nuclear weapons, but, God forbid, something may occur that requires their use.

This is self-contradictory. If a thing is immoral, it can never be “required.”

 

[edwest2]

This is self-contradictory. If a thing is immoral, it can never be “required.”

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

 

[aspirant]

aspirant:

This is self-contradictory. If a thing is immoral, it can never be “required.”

I suggest you read up on the Church’s teaching about just war.

The circumstances that cannot justify an intrinsically evil act include war:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”

If an act is immoral, it is not justifiable and therefore cannot-- as I said-- be “required.” This is a very explicit teaching throughout Church history. Here is but one example of many:
Veritatis Splendor:

the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids…

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator”.

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.

In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

According to the Church, intrinsically evil acts include “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants” (Gaudium et Spes, Catechism of the Catholic Church 2314).

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.