Pope condemns possession of nuclear weapons

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The U.S. Used to have 1,000 Minuteman ICBM’s in hardened silo’s mostly in northern states. But now there are only 450 and that may be further decreased. They are no longer MIRV’d. On the other hand, Russia is deploying a new generation of ICBM’s, which may make our deterrent less effective.
 
You don’t know that. Hypersonic weapons research is going on right now. The three major powers do not want to destroy the world. The US realized the H-Bomb was useless in the 1950s.
 
The Pope is a man of God. He wants peace. Defense contractors want to stay in business.
 
bobperk said:
No nuclear weapons? It doesn’t really sound holy, or wise; it just sounds naive.
Click to expand...
Right(?). So many Roman Catholic teachings sound naive (?).
Abortion is wrong. Why should it be when the fetus is just a part of the woman’s body.
Contraception is wrong. Why should that be when so many Catholics are using contraception anyways.
Premarital sex is wrong. Maybe that was true in the middle ages, but we are now in the 21st century. And everyone is doing it.
Same sex marriage and homosexual activity is wrong. But the Bible is so old fashioned and we don’t take the Bible literally any more. After all, it is two consenting adults. Why should that be wrong?
All these Catholic teachings are naive? Yes say the secularists, the atheists, the agnostics and many heathens. But Catholics should say No.These Catholic moral teachings are not wrong and they are not naive. They are the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. It is time to support the moral teachings of our Pope on the moral issues of the day including the immorality of the possession of nuclear weapons.
 
@undead_rat

Can you please direct me to the scriptures that predict nuclear war? Thanks and God bless you.
 
The problem with your response is that abortion, contraception, premarital sex, homosexual acts, etc., have always been condemned in the Church and in the Bible.

But countries and nations have a right to defend themselves. How many battles and wars are described in the Old Testament? There was also a time when we were not ashamed of the Crusades, since there is great mercy in defending the truth.

I would agree with the Pope condemning the actual, first-strike offensive use of nuclear weapons. But the mere possession of them is a reality of today’s world.
 
commenter said:
Would I want someone like Obama to have a nuclear arsenal as a backup, when “persuading” countries to accept abortion?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting that the POTUS could one day use nuclear weapons to force a foreign country to legalise abortion? Surely you can see that that sounds pretty crazy. You could be talking about, for example, Northern Ireland. 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?
 
njlisa said:
@undead_rat

Can you please direct me to the scriptures that predict nuclear war? Thanks and God bless you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for asking. Start with Isaiah 2:19 which directs us to take shelter underground and mentions “brilliance.” Nothing is more brilliant than a nuclear detonation; 1000 times more light than the sun, and the only shelter from that explosion is deep underground.

Isaiah 66:15-16 cites “chariots like the tempest.” Chariots are vehicles of war, and, in modern terms, could be taken to refer to ICBMs which make a sound like a “tempest.” The verse goes on to mention judgement by fire, and a nuclear bomb is, essentially, a weapon of intense heat.

Jeremiah 25:32-33 states that the “disaster” will “spread from nation to nation,” and that “a mighty tempest” will " rise from the far ends of the earth." This I find to be a valid description of the start of a global nuclear war. Note that the word “tempest” is mentioned again. This verse goes on to describe the aftermath: the dead will be scattered across the world with no one left to bury them.

The prophets of the OT all mention some kind of world-wide disaster which will afflict mankind and be an even greater catastrophe than the Deluge. But in Genesis 8:21 we note that YHWH promised that He would never again be the cause of such an event (not to be confused with the stipulation in chapter 9 in which YHWH states that He will never again send a flood.) That leaves an apparent contradiction in scripture between Genesis 8:21 and the predictions of world-wide disaster in both the OT and NT. This contradiction is resolved by mankind’s deployment of devices which are capable of destroying all human life on the face of the planet. This time we wipe out our ownselves. See psalm 9:15-16:

The nations have fallen into the pit that they dug;
they are caught by the feet in the snare they set themselves.
YHWH has given judgement, has made Himself known.
He has trapped the wicked through the work of their own hands.
 
Last edited:
bobperk said:
But countries and nations have a right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that most nuclear weapons are not, strictly speaking, defensive in nature. Rather, they are retaliatory, and retaliation is forbidden in both OT and NT teachings. Only a city wall or an ICBM anti-missile are defensive systems.

That is why nuclear weapons are condemned by the Church. The MAD protocol results in a “negative peace” that is based on fear rather than on Christian values.
 
The psychology behind nuclear weapons is a reality. When India tested its first nuclear device, a spokesman said, “Perhaps the world will take us more seriously.” What? Again, what? What kind of strange, twisted thinking is that?

No one here is in charge of any weapon system anywhere. The Pope’s message was clearly directed to those who are. To the decision-makers. And I don’t mean politicians. The military is out to ensure its own survival as well. Protecting the United States from all threats means weapons will continue to be built, others will be tested, and new technologies fielded. Hopefully, among those technologies will be a defensive umbrella that will not only defeat threats but be deployed in overwhelming numbers. Rapid strike, not first strike, is the goal. Anyone with any interest should read about Desert Storm. Most, not all, of the tactics are mentioned. It could be said that overwhelming enemy defenses is the key.
 
Nuclear weapons are mostly outdated. Kinetic weapons launched from space are far more devastating and nothing can stop such an attack. There is also the advantage that they don’t need constant maintenance on nuclear materials and there is no nuclear radiation fallout.
 
edwest211 said:
The psychology behind nuclear weapons is a reality. When India tested its first nuclear device, a spokesman said, “Perhaps the world will take us more seriously.” What? Again, what? What kind of strange, twisted thinking is that?
Click to expand...
Yes it is twisted. And it is also why it is not a good idea to leave those that think that way the only ones with nuclear weapons.
 
Not true. Kinetic weapons are designed for a particular target under particular circumstances.
 
designed for a particular target under particular circumstances.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
From what I have read about the physics of kinetic weapons it would be equal to or greater than a 100megaton bomb. If it was fired into the center of a city the destruction would be similar but without the radiation threat. A projectile entering the atmosphere at 15,000 to 30,000 miles per hour would be sudden and unstoppable. Look at most of the meteorite impacts.
 
Meteorite impacts are usually far less dramatic. Example: A man found a hole in the trunk of his car. When he opened it, there was a meteor on the floor. Any object entering the earth’s atmosphere at those speeds would quickly disintegrate. This type of weapon operates at Mach 10 or about 7,600+ miles per hour. Any faster and it would burn up. It is designed to penetrate certain types of terrain to destroy underground facilities.

There is no such thing as a 100 megaton bomb. The worst the United States did was detonate a 15 megaton device in 1954. It was never deployed.
 
If the impact did take place it would be greater than 100 megatons. I’m not saying that they have a bomb like that.
The projectile would have an ablative heat shield that allows the projectile to reach its target. It would be launched from 2000 mile orbit. Probably already exists. It is an old concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top