Nun, 83, faces ‘life’ sentence in US after nuclear protest

[pnewton]

An arms race, even if the arms are never used, is still immoral, or at least harmful, and therefore potentially immoral. Money is spent on the military that could be used to relieve poverty and suffering. However, this does not apply to stockpiles which already exist. If they are not used and we are not in a current arms race (we are in a period of reduction actually), then I know of no reason for the nuns to engage in such behavior. Do they want nuclear arms reduction? That is occurring. If it is not occurring fast enough for them, then that is an opinion only. No citizen should act as they did and expect sympathy over their sole opinion.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

JimG;
if Russia had a nuclear deterrent much greater than the U.S., it might have tried to use that nuclear threat to deter the U.S. from taking action in Iraq. And such a threat might have been successful.

You kind of confirm, that the one with the biggest bombs; calls the shots. It is a shame Russia did not have a greater nuclear deterrent, the war might have been avoided.

However, it would not have been likely, since there were a number of nations besides the U.S. which were convinced that action was needed in Iraq

America seemed to be the driving force behind the invasion; and I believe that America has all kinds of coercive powers; to get its own way.

I am very much anti - war, of any kind, there has to be a peaceful solution to conflict.

 

[Holly3278]

While I sympathize with her position on nuclear weapons and also wish they would be abolished, I absolutely cannot condone her protest. Therefore, any punishment that she faces will be just.

 

[markomalley]

You kind of confirm, that the one with the biggest bombs; calls the shots. It is a shame Russia did not have a greater nuclear deterrent, the war might have been avoided.

America seemed to be the driving force behind the invasion; and I believe that America has all kinds of coercive powers; to get its own way.

I am very much anti - war, of any kind, there has to be a peaceful solution to conflict.

Thomas Aquinas would not have agreed with you (see post #120 for relevant Summa Theologica citations)

 

[pnewton]

I am very much anti - war, of any kind, there has to be a peaceful solution to conflict.

There usually is. Because this a peaceful solution is not always an option, the Catholic Church doctrine include the Just War Theory. One could say that being too hawkish is a deviation from church doctrine, but no more than denying the Just War doctrine altogether.

 

[JimG]

Well, Joan of Arc led an army, and she was canonized a saint!

 

[JimG]

You kind of confirm, that the one with the biggest bombs; calls the shots. It is a shame Russia did not have a greater nuclear deterrent, the war might have been avoided.

America seemed to be the driving force behind the invasion; and I believe that America has all kinds of coercive powers; to get its own way.

I am very much anti - war, of any kind, there has to be a peaceful solution to conflict.

Well, Russia does have a pretty large nuclear deterrent, but it did not decide to use it as a threat in that case.

Nuclear deterrence as a policy was invented by President Eisenhower. He knew there were insufficient U.S. and NATO forces in Europe to repel an attack by the USSR against any NATO member. The war would be over before the U.S. could respond. He developed a force of nuclear equipped B-52’s to be on constant alert. He publicly announced a policy that any attack by the USSR on any NATO nation would be considered an attack on the U.S. and would result in “massive retaliation” (nuclear) against the USSR. That was an immoral policy at its core, but it kept the peace.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Thomas Aquinas would not have agreed with you (see post #120 for relevant Summa Theologica citations)

I read the whole of your post 120, it only applies to the biggest and most powerful countries, just because they are biggest, does not mean they represent fairness, justice and morality.

How do smaller and weaker countries defend themselves, they also have a right to security in the same way as America.

Iran and Korea lack the military might to defend and protect themselves from a more powerful foe. They have little hope of doing so, mainly because of American attitudes.

 

[markomalley]

I read the whole of your post 120, it only applies to the biggest and most powerful countries, just because they are biggest, does not mean they represent fairness, justice and morality.

How do smaller and weaker countries defend themselves, they also have a right to security in the same way as America.

Iran and Korea lack the military might to defend and protect themselves from a more powerful foe. They have little hope of doing so, mainly because of American attitudes.

The Summa was written long before there were any superpowers with nuclear weapons. In fact, in Italy, at the time the Summa was written, there were a batch of city states. With few exceptions (think of Venice, for example), the “superpower” bipolar model you think of didn’t even exist until the second half of the 20th Century.

The fact of the matter is that the Summa is saying that you are authorized to retaliate against wrongdoing and that you are obligated to punish evil. It doesn’t address the size of the countries or anything else.

If you recall your history, though, North Korea attacked South Korea, with the assistance of the Chinese and the Russians. South Korea responded with the assistance of the (then) countries of the nascent United Nations. A truce was reached after many thousands of casualties on both sides, both military and civilian.

If you recall your history, though, Iran violated the US Embassy and took our diplomats hostage. That was a clear violation of Article 22, 27, and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It is, in terms of international law, absolutely no different than an invasion of US soil.

As for the two countries not being able to defend themselves…depending upon who they would need to defend themselves against, you may be right. In which case, it would behoove both countries to play nice in the international arena. Acts like selling missiles (N. Korea) and sponsoring terrorists like Hezbollah (Iran) are not playing nice.

If either country decides to REALLY not play nice, then, well…

If North Korea decides to invade South Korea (again), then South Korea has every right in the world and, in fact, is morally obliged, not only to defend itself but to punish the wrongdoers (So says Thomas Aquinas). And that includes invoking mutual defense treaties they may have in place.

If Iran decides to attack Israel (either directly or through proxy), then Israel has every right in the world and, in fact, is morally obliged, not only to defend itself but to punish the wrongdoers (So says Thomas Aquinas). And that includes invoking mutual defense treaties that they may have in place.

If either was to be insane enough to attack the US then the US has every right in the world to defend itself and, in fact, is morally obliged, not only to defend itself but to punish the wrongdoers (so says Thomas Aquinas).

Oh, by the way, for the record, I’m no war monger. I think the grounds for the Spanish-American war were specious at best. I absolutely do not think we had any business getting involved in World War I. And I really think we should have stayed neutral in Saudi Arabia, rather than establishing Elf One back in 1979…the precursor to the Gulf War in 1990 (had those things not happened, the wars that you probably object to probably would never have even been thought about)

 

[ishii]

Iran and Korea lack the military might to defend and protect themselves from a more powerful foe. They have little hope of doing so, mainly because of American attitudes.

Could you elaborate on that statement? Particularly about Korea? (I assume that you’re referring to North Korea?). How do American attitudes keep North Korea from defending itself? And what is it defending itself from?

Ishii

 

[Eric_Hyom]

markomalley;

As for the two countries not being able to defend themselves…

The same weapons that can be stockpiled for defence, can also be used to attack, in theory, the country with the best defence system in the world, could also have the best attack capability too. A kitchen knife is intended to prepare food, it can equally be used to stab someone to death.

Leaders of countries come and go, they have a certain amount of power over the military hardware, they have inherited from the last government.

We pray constantly for peace in the world, but somehow, our actions have to reflect our prayer intentions. Ghandi said that he could have fought the British with guns, but any peace, would then have to be defended with guns. Ghandi chose another way to fight the British. Peace can only happen through peaceful solutions.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Originally Posted by Eric Hyom View Post
Iran and Korea lack the military might to defend and protect themselves from a more powerful foe. They have little hope of doing so, mainly because of American attitudes.

Could you elaborate on that statement? Particularly about Korea? (I assume that you’re referring to North Korea?). How do American attitudes keep North Korea from defending itself? And what is it defending itself from?

Ishii

In theory, we all have the right to defend ourselves, this works well for the most powerful countries in the world. But how do small countries defend themselves, they have the right, they just lack the power and wealth.

I may be wrong, but it seems to be America leading the way, by saying who can, and who cannot have nuclear weapons for defence.

Logic tells me that nuclear weapons are NOT defensive weapons, they cannot be used against an invading army, they can only be aimed at a city.

Supposing Iraq had a few nuclear weapons when Britain and America invaded them, who would Iraq fire them at? after all they are supposed to be a defensive measure.

The world is playing games with these weapons, we all know we can’t get this wrong.

 

[markomalley]

The same weapons that can be stockpiled for defence, can also be used to attack, in theory, the country with the best defence system in the world, could also have the best attack capability too. A kitchen knife is intended to prepare food, it can equally be used to stab someone to death.

Leaders of countries come and go, they have a certain amount of power over the military hardware, they have inherited from the last government.

We pray constantly for peace in the world, but somehow, our actions have to reflect our prayer intentions. Ghandi said that he could have fought the British with guns, but any peace, would then have to be defended with guns. Ghandi chose another way to fight the British. Peace can only happen through peaceful solutions.

First, it would serve those countries to not bluster.

Second, it would serve those countries to form alliances in the event that they are threatened.

You mention Ghandi.

India has a military with 1.129 million people on active duty and 960 thousand people in the reserves. They have two aircraft carriers with a third under construction and a fourth on the drawing board. India has thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs).

In theory, we all have the right to defend ourselves, this works well for the most powerful countries in the world. But how do small countries defend themselves, they have the right, they just lack the power and wealth.

I may be wrong, but it seems to be America leading the way, by saying who can, and who cannot have nuclear weapons for defence.

Logic tells me that nuclear weapons are NOT defensive weapons, they cannot be used against an invading army, they can only be aimed at a city.

Supposing Iraq had a few nuclear weapons when Britain and America invaded them, who would Iraq fire them at? after all they are supposed to be a defensive measure.

The world is playing games with these weapons, we all know we can’t get this wrong.

There are battlefield nuclear weapons, including artillery shells (such as the W-79 shell, which had a variable yield from 0.1 to 1.1 KT).

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which virtually all nuclear weapon-capable countries have signed) seeks to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons. 189 countries (both nuclear and non-nuclear) have signed the treaty. Iran is a signatory of that treaty (and that is the basis for the inspections in that country). North Korea was a signatory but has withdrawn. India (since we mentioned India above) is not.

I can respect, and as a retired member of the military, appreciate … people wanting to maintain peace. After all, the life you save would have been my own .

And, though I fervently disagree with a pacifistic attitude (where one favors unilateral disarmament and depends solely upon the good will of other countries for national security), I can respect it.

But you really need to get your facts straight.

 

[ringil]

Well, sister did the crime so she’s gotta do the time- just how it is in a nation of laws.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

We pray constantly for peace in the world, but somehow, our actions have to reflect our prayer intentions. Ghandi said that he could have fought the British with guns, but any peace, would then have to be defended with guns. Ghandi chose another way to fight the British. Peace can only happen through peaceful solutions.

The reason why Ghandi won was not his peaceful methods; it was the fact that India’s colonizers were a civilized nation. If India’s colonizers had been, say, the Soviets, the outcome would have been quite different.

 

[ishii]

We pray constantly for peace in the world, but somehow, our actions have to reflect our prayer intentions. Ghandi said that he could have fought the British with guns, but any peace, would then have to be defended with guns. Ghandi chose another way to fight the British. Peace can only happen through peaceful solutions.

Eric, threatening to commit suicide by a hunger strike is not “non-violent”. I have never understood why Gandhi is considered a non-violent protester.

In theory, we all have the right to defend ourselves, this works well for the most powerful countries in the world. But how do small countries defend themselves, they have the right, they just lack the power and wealth.

I may be wrong, but it seems to be America leading the way, by saying who can, and who cannot have nuclear weapons for defence.

Logic tells me that nuclear weapons are NOT defensive weapons, they cannot be used against an invading army, they can only be aimed at a city.

Supposing Iraq had a few nuclear weapons when Britain and America invaded them, who would Iraq fire them at? after all they are supposed to be a defensive measure.

The world is playing games with these weapons, we all know we can’t get this wrong.

Eric, the reason why North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons is not to defend themselves, but so that they can continue to act agressively and not worry about any consequences. I mean, have you even looked at the history of the two countries? Iran has been a state supporter of terrorism for decades. North Korea invaded South Korea and has been saber rattling ever since. Let me try to explain it this way: would you have wanted Nazi Germany to have had a nuclear weapon?

The peacenik/nuclear freeze movement always considers America to be the “bad guys” because they have nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they also underestimate the evil regimes – which is what you seem to be doing with Iran and North Korea. I would suggest that you take a closer look at what Iran and North Korea have been doing in the past 40 plus years before you complain about the rest of the world led by America denying them membership in the nuclear club.

Ishii

 

[Eric_Hyom]

ishii;

Eric, threatening to commit suicide by a hunger strike is not “non-violent”. I have never understood why Gandhi is considered a non-violent protester.

Why did Christ die on the cross for us, he knew in advance this would happen, he could have walked away?

The way towards justice and peace; seems to make little sense, it often involves sacrifice of some kind. As I understand, Ghandi had tried for a long time to bring about a peaceful resolution, when he felt his efforts were failing, he went on a hunger strike, he would not eat until peace was happening.

Various people understood, that the death of Ghandi would bring about a greater violence, so they were forced to try harder for a peaceful solution, whilst Ghandi still lived.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The reason why Ghandi won was not his peaceful methods; it was the fact that India’s colonizers were a civilized nation. If India’s colonizers had been, say, the Soviets, the outcome would have been quite different.

Britain had no right to own India as a colony, they just wanted to syphon off its wealth, they made exploitation look civilised.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric Hyom
Supposing Iraq had a few nuclear weapons when Britain and America invaded them, who would Iraq fire them at?

These are just random thoughts but, if Iraq had weapons that could flatten cities, and if America and Britain knew about these weapons; they would probably not have invaded Iraq. I am guessing Saddam would have used them, had he had them; the consequences would be devastating.

This leads me to think American intelligence; knew that Iraq did not have anything too powerful.

 

[markomalley]

These are just random thoughts but, if Iraq had weapons that could flatten cities, and if America and Britain knew about these weapons; they would probably not have invaded Iraq. I am guessing Saddam would have used them, had he had them; the consequences would be devastating.

This leads me to think American intelligence; knew that Iraq did not have anything too powerful.

You obviously forgot when Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear power plant back in the 1980s. You also obviously forgot about the 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium that were found. It was removed from Iraq in 2008.(yellowcake is uranium that has been refined to remove the impurities but hasn’t yet been concentrated and formed into rods or separated into fissile material that can then be used in bombs)

As I said above, while I can respect a diversity of perspectives, it would really be helpful if you boned up on your history so that you could make fact-based arguments to bolster your opinions.