R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Is the possession of nuclear weapons ever moral? Can a nation justify possession as a deterrent? Is the use of nuclear weapons against a military target ever justified?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This is an area of prudential judgment, at least in part.
I believe that possession as a deterrent is moral when the people you are deterring also possess them.
As to their use, that’s more difficult. It is intrinsically evil to use them against civilian targets, and since it is almost impossible to use a nuclear weapon without impacting the environment and civilian lives (either through direct impact, or through fallout / destruction of homes / etc.), I cannot really say I think their use is ever justified.
The only exception I can think of is if another nation is preparing to fire their own nuclear armaments, and the only way we have to stop them is to destroy their launch facilities…
I believe that possession as a deterrent is moral when the people you are deterring also possess them.
As to their use, that’s more difficult. It is intrinsically evil to use them against civilian targets, and since it is almost impossible to use a nuclear weapon without impacting the environment and civilian lives (either through direct impact, or through fallout / destruction of homes / etc.), I cannot really say I think their use is ever justified.
The only exception I can think of is if another nation is preparing to fire their own nuclear armaments, and the only way we have to stop them is to destroy their launch facilities…
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
As written in the catechism, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about using a nuclear torpedo, for example, to knock out an enemy warship. Or using a tactical nuke on a battalion of enemy tanks.
What IS condemned is indiscriminate targeting of civilians,
So as your question is phrased, the answer would be, no, the possession is not immoral. Rather, like most inanimate objects, it is the intended USE that is either moral or immoral.
What IS condemned is indiscriminate targeting of civilians,
So as your question is phrased, the answer would be, no, the possession is not immoral. Rather, like most inanimate objects, it is the intended USE that is either moral or immoral.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope Francis condemns use and possession of nuclear weapons. But I don’t think his assertions on this topic are a definitive judgment of the magisterium. His words do indicate, though, that the subject is not so simple.Pope Francis: “Nor can we fail to be genuinely concerned by the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices. If we also take into account the risk of an accidental detonation as a result of error of any kind, the threat of their use, as well as their very possession, is to be firmly condemned. For they exist in the service of a mentality of fear that affects not only the parties in conflict but the entire human race. International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security.”
To Participants in the International Symposium "Prospects for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament" (10 November 2017) | Francis
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
What percentage of ordinary bombs kill civilians? My guess it is pretty high. The U.S dropped about twenty thousand last year.As to their use, that’s more difficult. It is intrinsically evil to use them against civilian targets,
The Fathers of the Second Council of the Vatican taught , " The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread devastation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.
" All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude. The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.
" With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration.
" Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.
" The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race."
" All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude. The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.
" With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration.
" Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.
" The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race."
D
DaveBj
Guest
The possession of nuclear weapons by the United States has prevented a number of local wars from going global during the past 63 years. That would seem to me to be a moral outcome.
D
D
2
2towers
Guest
Two questions for you Deacon Jeff, where does this doctrine stand in response to the MAD policy do you think? If a country holds nukes as a deterrent, combined with a policy or oath not to use nukes in a first strike, is their presence in keeping with this Catholic doctrine?
One more might be the question of tactical nukes. A good example might be the mountain bunkers in North Korea, near the DMZ. There is probably only one realistic way to take those bunkers out, and that is tactical nukes.
Bunker busters [MOAB] require the use of slow heavy bombers. Chinese /NK air defenses would most likely would would make quick work of heavy bombers. [not including the newer stealth nuke bombers] In reaction to a breakout of war on the Korean peninsula, and the heavy bombardment of Soul, would tactical nukes be justified?
One more might be the question of tactical nukes. A good example might be the mountain bunkers in North Korea, near the DMZ. There is probably only one realistic way to take those bunkers out, and that is tactical nukes.
Bunker busters [MOAB] require the use of slow heavy bombers. Chinese /NK air defenses would most likely would would make quick work of heavy bombers. [not including the newer stealth nuke bombers] In reaction to a breakout of war on the Korean peninsula, and the heavy bombardment of Soul, would tactical nukes be justified?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
That should settle it since he is the Vicar of Christ. I agree with Pope Francis because the use of these weapons of mass destruction would inevitably result in the murder of thousands of innocent children and other civilians.Pope Francis condemns use and possession of nuclear weapons.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Unfortunately it follows a string of human immorality that brought them into existence. Whether it’s WWII and the justification of both that the Nazis might be developing them or the fighting tenacity of the Japanese. The argument that too many American solders might lose their lives may or may not hold water; but one must remember the rampant anti-Japanese racism of the time. Post war posturing by the “Allies” and Russia. Knowingly false claims by American politicians that we were “behind”. There are probably more, but our failings as humans have left us to needing to point weapons, that could obliterate life on earth as we know it, at each other to maintain peace. Our only way out might be that the life span of the existing weapons expires and the financial incentive to develop more (or at least as many) lowers the stakes.
A
AlNg
Guest
Americans seem to be addicted to waging war. The Iraq war, the war in NW Pakistan, the war in Somalia, war in Libya, war in Uganda, Yemen civil war, war in Afghanistan, war in Kosovo, intervention in Haiti, Bosnian war, invasion of Panama, invasion of Grenada, Lebanese civil war, war in Zaire, Cambodian civil war, Dominican civil war, Vietnam war, etc. When will it end ? IMHO it is better to use diplomacy to solve issues rather than war which invariably results in the bloody deaths of small children and their families. Why not give diplomacy a chance and take the lives of children into account before going to war?What percentage of ordinary bombs kill civilians? My guess it is pretty high. The U.S dropped about twenty thousand last year.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Americans are not addicted to war, Defense Contractors are. Our civilians become soldiers to help defend this country against believed outside threats. So, there’s no money in peace. Maintaining even a limited nuclear stockpile against insane leaders of “rogue” nations, or the former Soviet Union, means nuclear weapons will remain. I won’t describe how hardened, so-called ‘bunker buster’ weapons work but they do work.
The Circular Error Probable of a bomb dropped from a B-17 during World War II was 3,300 feet. That’s the better part of a mile. Today, precision guided weapons, including those with laser, and real-time cameras, means you will hit your target. Drones, using guided munitions, can target a single building or vehicle, with no to little loss of civilian life. Even “dumb bombs” can be fitted with a guidance package which I won’t describe beyond saying they can be steered on the way down.
Drones will become more and more part of the mix in future ‘low-intensity conflicts.’ The military leaderships of all the major powers know what nuclear weapons can do. The US realized in 1953 that nuclear weapons were not practical - except in all-out war. But that never happened. I lived through the entire ICBM/USSR period. There is talk of low yield - in the low kilotons - nuclear weapons, but once detonated, the result would be ‘area denial’ of the area to both sides. It was considered during the Vietnam War to disrupt the flow of equipment and supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was determined that, depending on the weapon used, it would result in a denial of use for a maximum of six weeks but more likely, four.
Again, defense is needed, but nuclear weapons are not practical - especially today.
The Circular Error Probable of a bomb dropped from a B-17 during World War II was 3,300 feet. That’s the better part of a mile. Today, precision guided weapons, including those with laser, and real-time cameras, means you will hit your target. Drones, using guided munitions, can target a single building or vehicle, with no to little loss of civilian life. Even “dumb bombs” can be fitted with a guidance package which I won’t describe beyond saying they can be steered on the way down.
Drones will become more and more part of the mix in future ‘low-intensity conflicts.’ The military leaderships of all the major powers know what nuclear weapons can do. The US realized in 1953 that nuclear weapons were not practical - except in all-out war. But that never happened. I lived through the entire ICBM/USSR period. There is talk of low yield - in the low kilotons - nuclear weapons, but once detonated, the result would be ‘area denial’ of the area to both sides. It was considered during the Vietnam War to disrupt the flow of equipment and supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was determined that, depending on the weapon used, it would result in a denial of use for a maximum of six weeks but more likely, four.
Again, defense is needed, but nuclear weapons are not practical - especially today.
Last edited:
2
2towers
Guest
Surprise surprise surprise! As Gomer Pyle might say. I agree. We spend way to much money and American lives defending other people and countries rather that our own. I must also admit that sometimes you could throw in American strategic motives into the bargain, but in case you haven’t noticed, the tide is changing on that.When will it end ?
Europe and the rest of the world has been put on notice that unless US interests are directly threatened, there won’t be anymore cowboys riding up in a cloud of dust! Have you not heard, the NATO alliance has been told to pay up their fair share, along with the UN. One of the few things I like about Trump. All of Europe has been told to kindly beef up their military spending and presence, and that is OK with most Americans I know, and have read about. No Virginia there’s not a Santa Clause.
What has been the response to all of this? Shaming. Europe says "we can no long count on the US to lead. Ostensibly, that is about climate control and migration, but really, I think it is complaining from the EU about having to increase their own military budgets.
With all of this in mind, it would be OK by me to cut US military spending. After all, if we don’t have to be the world’s police department any more,… well where’s the fire? Maybe in a strange way, if all these countries have to defend themselves, maybe there really will be some true diplomacy out there.
Careful about what you wish for! Respectfully 2t.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...vernment-not-to-renew-trident-weapons-system/Is the possession of nuclear weapons ever moral?
E
EvangelistVictor
Guest
The ultimate nuke will come at the second coming. All our weapons will be like bb guns compared to whats coming.
2 Peter 3:8-10 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,[a] not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
2 Peter 3:8-10 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,[a] not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Also known as JDAM.Even “dumb bombs” can be fitted with a guidance package which I won’t describe beyond saying they can be steered on the way down.
D
A
AlNg
Guest
I heard that but I also heard that Merkel said in response that Germany already pays enough. IOW, I don’t see too much positive reaction in Europe to the request that they pay more for NATO. I am all for the US getting out of NATO and letting the Europeans defend themselves. Considering the tariffs that Europeans place on many American goods, and the sanctions put on Russia, sometimes I wonder if the Europeans are appreciative of the sacrifices made by Americans and Russians in WWII.Have you not heard, the NATO alliance has been told to pay up their fair share,
2
2towers
Guest
Well I suppose no one wants to pony up more money even if the situation requires it. I think I my response was a bit heavy handed though. Unkind maybe. Putting Trump aside, the poster I responded to was right in a sense, we have been in far too many conflicts. Hindsight is 20/20.
The fact remains though that our allies have been contributing to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That would be us. Half the world depends on our military might to maintain a balance, and we just don’t have the money for it. I love a strong America, but our military budget is just outrageous. We outspend most of the world combined. It makes no sense. We throw money at problems and at lobbyists and their patrons.
People are afraid that the Chinese and the Russians will fill some void that we might leave behind. No they wont. They don’t want to spend the money anymore that anyone else does. Of course we still have to send the occasional destroyer through the South China Sea to keep them from annexing that whole portion of the hemisphere, things like that, but that is it.
The question of nukes being moral, well that cat is already out of the bag. President Reagan had the right idea. Make them obsolete. One day we might do that, we certainly are working on it. So is everyone else. When that happens, maybe we can rid ourselves of them.
The fact remains though that our allies have been contributing to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That would be us. Half the world depends on our military might to maintain a balance, and we just don’t have the money for it. I love a strong America, but our military budget is just outrageous. We outspend most of the world combined. It makes no sense. We throw money at problems and at lobbyists and their patrons.
People are afraid that the Chinese and the Russians will fill some void that we might leave behind. No they wont. They don’t want to spend the money anymore that anyone else does. Of course we still have to send the occasional destroyer through the South China Sea to keep them from annexing that whole portion of the hemisphere, things like that, but that is it.
The question of nukes being moral, well that cat is already out of the bag. President Reagan had the right idea. Make them obsolete. One day we might do that, we certainly are working on it. So is everyone else. When that happens, maybe we can rid ourselves of them.
B
brian_custer
Guest
where in your post is the “issue” of nuclear weapons for self-defense addressed?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.