E
Elaine_s_Cross
Guest
Maybe those countries who have previously used nuclear weapons on civilians should be barred from having them?
- Status
G
gilliam
Guest
This is a moral theology issue, not simply a legal issue. Hijacking an airplane full of innocent civilians and ramming it into office buildings murdering thousands of innocent civilians is somehow evivalent to soldiers fighting hostile forces and accedentally killing civilians. One is murder the other isn’t.
Randomly shooting up a bakery, like they did the other day is murder.
Giving murderers nuclear weapons so they can murder millions instead of thousands is, well, not only unjust but a grave act against humanity and God’s natural law.
J
jdnation
Guest
Moral theology should rightly be involved in everything. One ought not to give weapons to anybody they clearly know will do something wrong. However when dealing with politics, everyone believes they have a moral right to acquire them, and they may have them for deterrence or to use when attacked themselves. The instigator is then the one at fault, not necessarily because they are the ones who fire, but are the ones who will provoke unwarranted hostility.
All war is based on deception, misunderstanding or even desperation. It began with rebellion in heaven and it is never going to disappear from the world till Kingdom Come.
G
gilliam
Guest
They would be wrong.
No matter how much you feel you might have a desire for something, that doesn’t make it morally right. Even if you really, really insist on it. Morality is a constant. Giving a nuke to an evil person knowing that person will cause greater evil with it is an evil in itself, period. It doesn’t matter if that evil person by some twisted reasoning thinks they have a right to a nuke or not.
E
Elaine_s_Cross
Guest
Then we (USofA) get to keep our nukes and deny Iran theirs because our govenment, in our minds, is a comparatively lesser evil than the Iranian though our government has nuked innocent civilians and Iran has not? Having done so (nuked civilians) makes us a moral authority to judge Iran’s actions beforehand?
J
jdnation
Guest
The key word as you say is ‘knowing that person will cause’ something bad. Sure we may know some people with the intent… but nobody can know all the time especially when governments are involved. It could be Korea, it could be Russia, it could be the US it could even be the Swiss that are evil… who’s to really know?
S
SImayan
Guest
Syria, then North Korea. Syria is a foolish “nation” which should be dealt with soon. NK will fall easily, and if one of their nukes fly, there will be NOTHING left of their entire country when we’re through. Anyway, thats the view of a young Conservative Republican.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Elaine,
It has nothing to do with moral authority. The United States simply does not want an unmanagable number of countries having nukes–it is really that simple. Political spin says it is about morality–yet the truth is our nation does not feel comfortable with letting the “nuke race” get out of hand to a point where nuclear anilation is inevitable.
It has nothing to do with moral authority. The United States simply does not want an unmanagable number of countries having nukes–it is really that simple. Political spin says it is about morality–yet the truth is our nation does not feel comfortable with letting the “nuke race” get out of hand to a point where nuclear anilation is inevitable.
A
alekzander
Guest
If North Korea even hit the U.S with say three bombs, it would still have a devastating effect on the country because of fallout-I foresee a day where the unimaginable will happen,a nuclear exchange between two countries-this technology and weaponry is falling into the wrong hands-Doesn’t it scare anyone right now knowing that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons?It will be a scary world ten years from now…it’s already getting scary!! Quick! get under the bed!!
- Status