Pope condemns possession of nuclear weapons

[undead_rat]

Ok then, which is the real “fear-mongering?” Is it the Russia wants to enslave the USA ? Or is it that our failure to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to a global nuclear war ?

The prophets have predicted a great disaster for the earth, a disaster which will not be an “act of God,” but seems to be co-incidental which an occurrence known as “The Great Day of YHWH.” Jeremiah, for instance, says that the dead will be scattered across the world with no one left to bury them. Isaiah says that the Judgement will be by fire and that the victims will be many. Rabbi Yeshu says, “I have come to bring fire to the earth . . .”

Isaiah 3:17-34 is a perfect description for conditions for Jewish women on WW II slave labor camps. It includes the term “That day” which is a reference to the above mention Great Day of YHWH.
My conclusion is that we are now in the time period of the Great Day of YHWH, and that it’s conclusion will be by means of a global nuclear war.

Therefore, the “fear-mongering” is not about WW III, but rather about the idea that Russia wants to enslave the USA and would do so it the USA underwent unilateral nuclear disarmament.

 

[undead_rat]

BTW, when the US Navy was dropping “practice” depth charges on Soviet submarines which were attempting to run the Cuba blockade, only one Russian officer stood in the way of a nuclear torpedo launch against US ships. It was that close. I cannot agree with the idea that we should blindly trust in the wisdom of our leaders. For instance, their decision to go to war in Vietnam was based on what was best for themselves and not was was best for either the US or Vietnamese public.
We have the power to elect the necessary leaders to accomplish our will. Unfortunately, that “will” seems to be almost completely lacking.

 

[edwest211]

If my neighbor has a sword and shield, I get them too. If otherwise peace-loving civilians in a country decide to buy a handgun for self-defense, is that wrong? The US and the former USSR were controlled by humans who had a very, very powerful new weapon - the atom bomb, followed by the even more powerful thermonuclear bomb. Hundreds of missiles would not have to be launched. About 80 would wipe out the US and Canada.

If not the Russians then the Chinese. I have read everything I could find about the period. Yes, the Bible predicts a final, end of the world type war in Megiddo in Israel. I have also read that “the living will envy the dead.”

What is the point of you continuing to post? If you want to influence government leaders or the military, contact them. I’m sure there are other Bible-believing Christians who see this battle as inevitable. It is. But the details are still unclear. What will the trigger event be?

 

[edwest211]

You continue to ignore the fact that Top Secret intelligence exists. The public will never know the whole picture. Russia is not our friend. Once a competing group on a small planet becomes weak, they become a target. Look at World War One and compare it to World War Two. The primary combatants were the same, only the weapons were more deadly.

 

[thistle]

The idea that Russia wants to “wipe us off the map” is not correct. Russia wants to do no such thing. Russia is not an enemy of the USA, and the repetive characterization of Russia as an “enemy” is just plain fear-mongering.

Russia is an enemy not just of the US but Europe too.

 

[edwest211]

That is why the government of Poland purchased an Anti-Ballistic Missile system from the US. That is why the US is storing tanks at an unknown location there.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Think of how many Americans and Japanese would have died if not for the dropping of the bomb twice.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

I am not condoning the use of the bomb, but the Japanese would never had surrendered.

So what is your position on the use of the bomb? It’s not really clear.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Who’s going to believe anyone got rid of them all? I certainly wouldn’t.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

potential to destroy all human life on this planet.

Not gonna happen. Most sure. All, never.

Do you really think that if the Northern Ireland Assembly has failed to legalise abortion by the time Donald Trump’s successor comes to power the United States could drop a nuclear bomb on Belfast? Or threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on Belfast if abortion isn’t legalised by a given date?

Oh goodness. Is this why the Brits decided to murder Irish babies? I thought it was just a hobby of theirs.

So the USA is not a representative democracy after all? The American people have no sayso in defense spending?

No it’s not and no we don’t.

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

potential to destroy all human life on this planet.

Not gonna happen. Most sure. All, never.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the ancient Biblical prophecies which predict a world-wide disaster that will be greater even than the Flood. Or maybe you just don’t believe them.

 

[PetraG]

Not gonna happen. Most sure. All, never.

“Most, sure”?!? Most of the human race?!?!
Wow. How easily that was said!!
There is callousness in that statement–can you hear it, when you say that out loud?

When did such an idea ever become OK? What on this broad Earth, made for us by the All-Just Creator, could ever possibly justify that outcome coming about with even a tint of our tacit approval?!?

…the nation could be entirely wiped off the map and turned into a pool of molten slag. This is the reality…

Just think about that for a moment. Let that sink in.

We aren’t living in a video game. This is reality. These are real people with real lives.

Have we utterly lost our minds?

When nations get rid of their nuclear weapons, the last nation remaining with them, whether by hiding them or re-manufacturing them—will rule the world.

Is who has temporal control of this world when Our Lord comes back really our main concern?
When He charged us to keep watch, because we know not the day nor the hour, what were we meant to be found doing when He returned?

I’m not saying a Christian can’t be a soldier. I’m saying there are limits on what even a Christian soldier will do in “self-defense.” Yes, that could mean coming to the same end that the martyrs came to. We’re expected to rejoice, if we are deemed worthy of that kind of an end.

That is the plain meaning of the New Testament. I didn’t write it. I’m just saying…that is what the Apostles taught. We say we strive to live according to that in everything we do.

Well, do we? Count the cost, friends. Count the cost.

 

[PetraG]

If my neighbor has a sword and shield, I get them too. If otherwise peace-loving civilians in a country decide to buy a handgun for self-defense, is that wrong?

Um, well…explain where that fits into this:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles." Matt. 5:38-41

How does it fit into the entire Sermon on the Mount, for that matter? Do we take the red letters seriously?

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.

Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

If those with no faith put their faith in weapons, who can be surprised?
Why should that describe us, though?
Where are our priorities?

I will not criticize the Pope for preaching the plain meaning of the Gospel.

 

[Norseman82]

I have not read the entire 360 posts on this thread, so I don’t know if this point has been made.

Nuclear weapons may at some time in the future be necessary to counter asteroids or meteors that may threaten Earth in the future. So, I would not get rid of them all just yet.

 

[PetraG]

Nuclear weapons may at some time in the future be necessary to counter asteroids or meteors that may threaten Earth in the future.

This is a legitimate use of such an invention, absolutely.

 

[JimG]

Well, nuclear weapons can be made with high yields or low yields. Their destructive power can be quite variable. The two bombs exploded at Hiroshim and Nagasaki had yields of 15 kilotons and 21 kilotons. The yield can range from several megatons all the way down to .01 kilotons.

 

[PetraG]

Well, nuclear weapons can be made with high yields or low yields. Their destructive power can be quite variable. The two bombs exploded at Hiroshim and Nagasaki had yields of 15 kilotons and 21 kilotons. The yield can range from several megatons all the way down to .01 kilotons.

We seeem to have skipped beyond this question: When did attacking non-combatants become a permissible part of a just war of defense?

Dismissing the destruction of presumably innocent non-combatants, including children, as somehow being unavoidable collateral damage seems to me to be when the art of war jumped over a very stark moral line with regards to Christian morality. I am not talking about taking a chance that there will be unfortunate collateral damage. I’m talking about choosing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians who have done nothing wrong and have no way to flee the war.

With nuclear weapons, there is also of course the matter of long-term radioactive poisoning of the landscape and long-term increase in cancer risks of survivors. I don’t know that this was appreciated in World War II, but it is appreciated now. With regards to the larger weapons, this poisoning would foreseeably cover an extremely large area. (It is even reasonable to ask what kinds of environmental damage have already been done by weapons testing.)

You are right that smaller bombs translate into smaller risks. I think the realized effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about a 10% increase in cancer risk for those present for the bombings, so I don’t mean to overstate the situation there. Still, it is an effect of war that foreseeably shortens the lives of non-combatants, and compared to the firepower we have now, those were small bombs.

 

[JimG]

Yes, we probably crossed that line sometime after the middle ages. Today, such groups aus ISIS often hide out in populated areas with families and children in order to avoid being attacked. I don’t do war planning but in the U.S. and likely in Russia as well, ICBM installations are hardened and dispersed, for example in the farmlands of North and South Dakota. If someone were trying to target them with an ICBM, they would have to target very precisely the hardened silo with a ground burst. Not much population there. If one were trying to destroy another nation’s retaliatory capability, it wouldn’t make much sense to target cities.

 

[PetraG]

Yes, we probably crossed that line sometime after the middle ages. Today, such groups aus ISIS often hide out in populated areas with families and children in order to avoid being attacked. I don’t do war planning but in the U.S. and likely in Russia as well, ICBM installations are hardened and dispersed, for example in the farmlands of North and South Dakota. If someone were trying to target them with an ICBM, they would have to target very precisely the hardened silo with a ground burst. Not much population there. If one were trying to destroy another nation’s retaliatory capability, it wouldn’t make much sense to target cities.

I think attacking the populace also became more of a “thing” when the support of the populace became more and more necessary for perpetuating a war and when terrorization of the populace became a means of holding on to power in a region.

From what I gather, that was Sherman’s take on it–not that I’m saying there was a defense for that on just war grounds.

“I attach more importance to these deep incisions into the enemy’s country, because this war differs from European wars in this particular: we are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies.”
–Letter of William T. Sherman to Henry Halleck, December 24, 1864
https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/items/show/144

I think there is a lot of rationalization in that concept that ignores the presence of the innocent. The use of nuclear weapons takes that willingness to directly attack the populace to the nth degree. (I also note that his use of the “hard hand of war” depersonalizes the source of the violence. Had he chosen to write “the hard hand of our armies,” the callousness of the sentiment would have been far more naked. Instead, he makes it sound as if the civilians of the Confederacy were being hit by a hurricane…)

 

[edwest211]

Now you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. No one is talking about revenge but national defense. Do you understand the term “national defense”?

Pope Francis is telling the world and those who possess nuclear weapons to not possess them. I have every reason to believe that the only reason they have not been used since 1945 is purely practical. In fact, after the test of the hydrogen bomb with an explosive force of millions of tons of TNT, the military leaders in the United States, at least, realized that they would be a bit of a problem should actual war break out. A problem for the entire planet, not just the target. That was in the 1950s.

Beam weapons are being deployed right now. The US is deploying hypersonic weapons right now. That means it will be possible to destroy missiles near or just above their launch point. There are problems with launching such missiles under less than ideal conditions as well. Space launches are cancelled or delayed due to bad weather.

 

[AlNg]

Have we utterly lost our minds?

I think so. At the present time Saudi Arabia does not have nuclear weapons, but it has been collaborating with China on a nuclear energy program. There have been reports that Saudi Arabia was planning to share nuclear weapons projects with Pakistan. It could be a disaster if Israel, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were to have and to use nuclear weapons in the mideast.