Nuclear Weapons ever moral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maintaining even a limited nuclear stockpile against insane leaders of “rogue” nations,
Countries build nukes, and their leaders may well be sane and moderate at the time. The nukes remain in that country, but leaders come and go, the sanity of any future leader; in any country with nukes; is not guaranteed.
 
Hi. In St. Faustina’s Diary, Jesus is reported to have said that “…there will have to be wars”.

In the apparitions of Fatima, the world was warned that no change, and there would be war.

War has to happen because we have to defend ourselves as nations against unjust aggressors - we live in a world sometimes largely bent on destruction.

If there are no nuclear arms on the side of relatively peaceful nations, in contrast to some others that do not express such states of ‘equilibrium’, then there exists an immediate imbalance of power.

When the Popes state that nuclear war is not a good way to settle differences, they are not suggesting that ‘peaceful’ nations cave to unjust aggressors by giving up all their nuclear arms; they are, I would surmise, speaking a general message to the whole world - peaceful nations and violent ones alike - as a message of peace for the world to listen to and work towards.

Certain acts of war are considered to be ‘acts of God’. To purposefully place a nation under the yoke of tyranny is to do an injustice.

Prayer and repentance, as advised at Fatima, is the way towards changing the hearts of those who have their fingers poised close to the trigger button. Decrease in reliance on nuclear warfare, then, surely comes by diplomatic process, through which, empowered by the prayers of the faithful, understanding and peaceful accord can be reached between nations, and as the more aggressive countries begin to rid themselves of their nuclear warhead-making facilities and armament, so it is that peaceful nations can get rid of theirs.

Whether this can or will happen in a world always seemingly at war with itself throughout history, is debatable, but nevertheless, must be worked towards. To avoid doing so, would be neglectful.
 
Last edited:
Land and resources are the primary drivers. Plus a propensity to do wrong. Yes, peace is the goal but sometimes those who can’t or won’t control themselves have to be fended off. What ‘national interest’ does the US have in Syria?
 
What ‘national interest’ does the US have in Syria?
The elimination of Syria-based groups whose members are intent on destroying U.S. national interests. But this doesn’t have anything to do with the morality of nuclear weapons.

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top