Nuclear Warfare

[Larowyn]

If America ever has another Catholic president, would he or she be restricted morally from initiating or responding to a nuclear war if it ever became necessary? In a nuclear war the president is all-powerful because related decisions cannot wait for Congress or the Joint Chiefs of Staff to authorize anything.

 

[rpp]

Do not confuse a nuclear missile attack with a war in which nuclear weapons are used. In a missile attack, there is indeed limited time to respond.

Would a Catholic President be morally restricted from responding with nuclear missiles? That would depend on the target. If the targets are military and intent is to stop more missiles from being fired as well as limit collateral damage, then I think it may be remotely possible for a limited nuclear response to be morally justified.

However, I am racking my brain for just the right circumstance when a nuclear weapon might be licitly used and I just cannot come up with one. I do not want to exclude the possibility, but I cannot think of a justifiable situation. The aftereffects are so long term and so **utterly **devastating that I can see no practical application of these monstrous weapons beyond mere intimidation.

 

[JimG]

Also keep in mind that nuclear warfare is not the same as nuclear deterrence. The U.S. has possessed a nuclear deterrent for a long time. It’s purpose is to prevent nuclear attack. During the cold war, and even now, nations with a nuclear force might well be tempted to try a first strike at the U.S. were it not for the existence of our nuclear deterrent force.

During the Cuban missile crisis, (which, by the way, was at least partially caused by having a new, young, and inexperienced president—JFK, whom Khrushchev had sized up as a pushover after an initial meeting), we may have prevailed by the very fact of having a nuclear deterrent force and exhibiting a credible threat to use it.

During the crisis, JFK had his brother RFK summon the USSR Ambassador into the White House for a very intense session, during which RFK pointedly asked the Ambassador to seriously convey to his Premier the question whether he wanted to be responsible for starting a nuclear war. It was a threat. RFK’s job was to make it real and make it credible by the fact that it was conveyed by the President’s brother, and by the USSR’s detailed knowledge of the United State’s newly deployed ICBM force, (which they were already in the process of copying.)

It worked. The intermediate range nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba, in “exchange” for a rather meaningless removal of obsolete non-nuclear U.S. missiles from Turkey. There was face saving all around.

Had the threat not worked and the nukes remained in Cuba, the U.S. would have been under a threat of nuclear blackmail for the balance of the Cold War, which I suspect we would have lost in a destabilized world increasingly threatened by Communist wars of agression. Five minute nuke delivery time from Cuba beats 20 minute ICBM delivery from the northern U.S.

It is also noteworthy that during the Cold War, the U.S. Bishops Conference issued a statement giving provisional moral approval to the nuclear deterrent, even noting that to be effective as a deterrent; the threat had to be credible.

 

[JimG]

Would a Catholic President be morally restricted from responding with nuclear missiles? That would depend on the target. If the targets are military and intent is to stop more missiles from being fired as well as limit collateral damage, then I think it may be remotely possible for a limited nuclear response to be morally justified.

I think you are right that the response to a limited attack might be morally undertaken against military targets, to prevent further attack.

But that’s probably an unlikely scenario for nuclear war. More likely would be an all out attack, possibly against both command & control, military, and perhaps civilian targets.

A president would be under very intense pressure to “use them or lose them.” We have reduced our deterrent force considerably. The pressure would be on the side of not trying to “ride out” a first strike, as the entire deterrent force might then be lost, meaning instant defeat.

It sounds strange, but I think a larger deterrent force probably makes nuclear war less likely than a smaller deterrent force.

 

[bilop]

However, I am racking my brain for just the right circumstance when a nuclear weapon might be licitly used and I just cannot come up with one. I do not want to exclude the possibility, but I cannot think of a justifiable situation. The aftereffects are so long term and so **utterly **devastating that I can see no practical application of these monstrous weapons beyond mere intimidation.

The scenario could be as follows:

1. An enemy nation possesses a limited number of nuclear weapons.
2. These wepons are housed in hardened shelters that are impervious to conventional bombs.
3. Said enemy intends or threatens to use these weapons against the cities of the U.S. or an ally. (Think N.Korea threatening Seoul or Iran threatening Jerusalem or Baghdad).

A Catholic President could morally use small “bunker buster” nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy weapons before they could be used. These type of weapons are in the several kiloton range (not megatons like city busters) and would yield limited collateral damage. They would be far less destructive than a massive conventional bombing, like during WWII or Vietnam.

God Bless

 

[rpp]

I have read these follow up posts and they certainly give me some food for thought. Do not get me wrong. I think agree that America’s large nuclear arsenal has prevented war.

However, I also have intimate knowledge of how nuclear weapons work (dad talked a bit too much) as well as their effects.

Nuclear weapons are designed to detonate in the air. Depending on the type and yield this can be anywhere from 200 feet (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 600 feet) for fission (two-stage) weapons (2-100 kiloton range) to 2000 feet or greater for thermonuclear (three and four stage) (1 megaton to ???) devices. The air burst maximizes the yield and blast radius, and actually reduces the height fallout is thrown because the concussion bounces back and disrupts the heat circulation.

Generally speaking, one would not want to detonate such a bomb underground like the conventional “bunker-buster”. The reason why surface or shallow detonation is not considered reasonable it is that it lessons the overall yield of the bomb, reduces the effective blast radius, and creates concussive earth tremors that can do damage miles away (think collateral damage). But what is really the problem is that it generate several orders of magnitude more radioactive fallout than an air burst. In addition, because there is no secondary concussion wave to disrpt the expansion core, all the unrestrained concussive force goes up and that carries the fallout higher, and therefore, farther. This fallout is dangerous whether it falls on a city, a desert or the ocean.

It may be possible that if Iran or N. Korea have nuclear production facilities in extremely remote places, using a low yield nuclear device may, under the right circumstances, be morally licit. But I am not sure I want anybody to let that genie from the bottle. How would China or Russia react?

 

[JimG]

It’s true that a ground burst causes more fallout. I’m not familiar with bunker buster bombs with smaller yields and how much fallout they would have.

Normally, a ground burst would target something like a hardened missile silo or a hardened command and control facility; an air burst would be unable to destroy those.

I think that if terrorists were to obtain nukes, they probably would not be thinking in terms of deterrence or blackmail, although blackmail is a possibility. Rather, they would probably just want to use one against their enemies, regardless of deterrent, or tactical, or political considerations.

 

[rpp]

It’s true that a ground burst causes more fallout. I’m not familiar with bunker buster bombs with smaller yields and how much fallout they would have.

Normally, a ground burst would target something like a hardened missile silo or a hardened command and control facility; an air burst would be unable to destroy those.

I think that if terrorists were to obtain nukes, they probably would not be thinking in terms of deterrence or blackmail, although blackmail is a possibility. Rather, they would probably just want to use one against their enemies, regardless of deterrent, or tactical, or political considerations.

The fact that a terrorist ground burst would create an environmental disaster even worse than an air burst might be appealing to a terrorist. But I think they just might go for an air burst deployment. All they would need to that is a Cessna 172 or 182, which nearly any pilot ca rent, and a pilot whose landing skills were not his strong suit. Remind you of anyone?

 

[7_Sorrows]

all i can say is that i hope i don’t have to witness any of these types of bombs first hand in my city or country.

 

[rpp]

all i can say is that i hope i don’t have to witness any of these types of bombs first hand in my city or country.

Or anywhere on Earth ever again.

I heard a story, I do not know if it is true, that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, three were two separate incidents, on in the USSR and one in the USA. They were not coordinated but were spontaneous expression by the aides to Kennedy and Khrushchev. In both cases, aides showed these leader photographs from the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The damage, the hideous injuries and so one. The obvious message was, “Do you want to repeat this?”

A sensible person will be moved by this. Unfortunately, I think that quality is absent in the leadership of least one nuclear power, N. Korea, and from a very worrisome nuclear wannabe, Iran. It goes without saying that a beastly terrorist has no conscience at all.

I pray that the human race forgets how to make these awful things. Until that time, only the threat of American and NATO nuclear retaliation will, hopefully, continue to keep these weapons from being used.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i can remember during the Cuban missile crisis having to design a bomb shelter for our basement for a 5th grade project.

it seemed pretty matter of fact to me. now that i am a parent, i look back as to what my reaction would have been if when my son was a 5th grader he would have had a project like that.

of course, at 10 or 11 i didn’t realize how serious the threat was, but it must have been very serious.

yes, i hope we never see anything like that again.

 

[rpp]

Thankfully, I am just barely too young to have a personal memory of that time. I do remember the undercurrent of social unease at the prospect of nuclear annihilation.

By the way, 7 sorrows, your PM box is full. If you want to save your PMs, there is an option to download them. Just put a check by the ones you want to download then at the bottom of the list, you will see a little drop down which gives you the choice of deleting or downloading. I generally download then delete. Remember you have to do this with sent and received messages separately.

Okay, back to the thread.

 

[7_Sorrows]

thanks, i got the e-mail notification. taken care of!

 

[JimG]

The fact that a terrorist ground burst would create an environmental disaster even worse than an air burst might be appealing to a terrorist. But I think they just might go for an air burst deployment. All they would need to that is a Cessna 172 or 182, which nearly any pilot ca rent, and a pilot whose landing skills were not his strong suit. Remind you of anyone?

Yes, I agree. For a terrorist nearly any kind of deployment would work. Sophistication not required, and a uranium bomb is much easier to build than a plutonium bomb.

During the Cuban missile crisis I was not too concerned, believeing that both the US and USSR were too sane to actually get to the point of a nuclear exchange. But what I have read after the fact makes me think that we were closer to nuclear war than I had supposed. The Russian commanders in Cuba apparently already had tactical nukes and the authority to use them in case of invasion. And the U.S. military had drawn up invasion plan contingencies. The U.S. used the implied nuclear threat in the face-off with Russia.

Given that Kruschev was not a particularly equable personality, it could have gotten out of control. Paradoxically, had Kennedy assumed a more hawkish and confrontational stance at his first meeting with K., the missile placement might never have been attempted.

 

[Larowyn]

Speaking of the Cuban Missile Crisis, has anyone else heard of Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who saved the world from an accidental nuclear war in the 1980s?

 

[JimG]

Speaking of the Cuban Missile Crisis, has anyone else heard of Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who saved the world from an accidental nuclear war in the 1980s?

Yes, the story is that he was in command of a USSR monitoring station, when the computer screen showed what appeared to be a massive incoming ICBM attack from the U.S. He did not believe the data, and so delayed in reporting it to his superiors. Had he reported it immediately according to directives, it’s possible or likely the USSR would have given the order for an immediate counterstrike.

In fact, it really was a computer malfunction.

Here’s the story:
brightstarsound.com/world_hero/article.html

 

[JimG]

A somewhat similar but less dangerour incident is said to have occurred to the final days of the Nixon administration.

U.S. missile crews on alert at the time were accustomed to receiving a variety of SAC messages instructing them to take different actions, up to and including inserting keys into launch consoles. These actions are backed down when the security situation steps down.

There was said to have been evidence of a Soviet missile launch against the U.S., perhaps two. That’s an unlikely way to start a war, so the alert was raised and held in a high alert status. But the president had left orders not to be disturbed. So the alert situation remained for a lengthy period of time before finally being stepped down.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this, but a former missile officer has written a fictionalized account of it.

 

[Oakleaf]

People who seek “power” assume great moral burdens. Kind of an occupational hazard, you might say. Is there such a thing as killing a human being with no spiritual consequences?

 

[JimG]

People who seek “power” assume great moral burdens. Kind of an occupational hazard, you might say. Is there such a thing as killing a human being with no spiritual consequences?

I doubt it. Wars leave spiritual wounds, even justified wars. All killing leaves wounds, even accidental killing. I have lately become convinced that the widespread disregard of human life in our present culture, especially as evidenced in our almost casual abortion culture, makes nuclear war more likely. The means are available, the disregard for life is everywhere apparent. It’s a dangerous time.

 

[Oakleaf]

I doubt it. Wars leave spiritual wounds, even justified wars. All killing leaves wounds, even accidental killing. I have lately become convinced that the widespread disregard of human life in our present culture, especially as evidenced in our almost casual abortion culture, makes nuclear war more likely. The means are available, the disregard for life is everywhere apparent. It’s a dangerous time.

We’ll see. Human beings are full of surprises, and compassion is one of them. Sometimes we just need our spiritual natures "kick started’ by challenges.