The Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine Condemned

[JimG]

And Hell makes going to hell less likely.

Yes, the existence of hell ought to be a deterrent. However, to be effective, a deterrent must be known to exist and to be credible. There are those who do not believe in hell, and they are not deterred.

 

[undead_rat]

The idea that nuclear deterrence is a good thing does not seem to be supported by the Holy See.
From the article that is linked:
"Nuclear weapons provide a false sense of security, as do efforts to secure a negative peace through a balance of (nuclear) power.
" . . .a positive conception of peace is required . . ."
Archbishop Janusz Urbenczyky, Holy See representative.

From his January World Day message:
" . . .peaceful coexistence cannot be based on nuclear deterrence or the threat of mutually assured destruction."
Pope Francis

Posters on this thread seem to think that a global nuclear war is very unlikely. I must disagree with you, my friends. This disaster is not only likely, it is carved in stone!
Certain Old Testament prophecies were specifically made for our modern world. Isaiah 3:17-24 is a very clear example of that premise.

Isaiah 66:15-16 has not yet been fulfilled nor has Jeremiah 25:32-33. YHWH said that He would never again curse the earth and destroy mankind (Genesis 8:21).
Therefore, the fire of judgment must be originating from man’s works (Psalm 9:15-16). and that can only be our nuclear weapons.

I am surprised that no one sees this disaster coming. It seems as clear as a runaway freight train to me, unstoppable.

 

[JimG]

I have to agree that nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee against nuclear war. Today it seems to me, especially among the younger generations today, that people generally view nuclear war as unlikely simply because no sane nation would want it. Ironically, to the extent that nuclear war is viewed as unlikely or impossible, it becomes by that very fact more probable.

The problem is that in decreasing reliance on nuclear weapons, nuclear powers must have confidence that as they reduce their stockpiles, other nuclear powers are also doing so, because imbalance can also be dangerous, as can actual threats of nuclear war, such as are coming from North Korea.

 

[M-Dent]

I have to agree that nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee against nuclear war. Today it seems to me, especially among the younger generations today, that people generally view nuclear war as unlikely simply because no sane nation would want it. Ironically, to the extent that nuclear war is viewed as unlikely or impossible, it becomes by that very fact more probable.

The problem is that in decreasing reliance on nuclear weapons, nuclear powers must have confidence that as they reduce their stockpiles, other nuclear powers are also doing so, because imbalance can also be dangerous, as can actual threats of nuclear war, such as are coming from North Korea.

I’d suggest what makes nuclear war more or less probable is military strategic doctrine - not public polling.

The only current possibility of a global nuclear war would be an unintended mishap and escalation.

There is always the possibility of a mishap/incident with a nuclear weapon in Pakistan or North Korea yet that still would most likely remain localize, not a global event. And in many of our lifetimes we will probably witness such an incident.

IMO, the “triad” concept may be obsolete since a portion of the older technology sitting is silos may fail to achieve what it was design to accomplish. The air and sea delivery systems are more than capable to defend the US. This is one way to reduce the stockpile. Also missile defense systems have altered the nuclear matrix. In addition, the conventional deterrence of the US military is sufficient to maintain her security.

 

[Crusaderbear]

When those holding nukes where nations, MAD worked. When a madman and his band of followers holds one, it’s nice t going to work. Now it must be keeping the nukes out of the hands of nuts.

 

[abucs]

Unfortunately I don’t think the Vatican has said anything new here.

Virtually no one likes the idea of using nuclear weapons and virtually everyone thinks the world will be a better place if we all learned to get along.

btw The arsenal of weapons that can kill in the hundreds of millions is not limited to nuclear weapons.

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately I don’t think the Vatican has said anything new here.

Virtually no one likes the idea of using nuclear weapons and virtually everyone thinks the world will be a better place if we all learned to get along.

btw The arsenal of weapons that can kill in the hundreds of millions is not limited to nuclear weapons.

The last line is sad but true.

Ed

 

[mrdrifter]

That is revealed by the fact that both countries are now actively seeking to gain a first strike capability, one that will destroy all of the other country’s nuclear retaliatory force.

This is not a fact.

 

[undead_rat]

This is not a fact.

Sorry that I no longer have the link to the article. Recent news is that the US Navy’s SSBNs have installed on the Polaris ICBM an ungraded fusing device that enables the missile to destroy a Russian ICBM silo.
This is significant because a submarine launched missile has a much shorter time of fight to its target and, therefore, negates any “launch on warning” capability.
So, conceivably, a US SSBN attack could destroy Russia’s ICBMs in a first strike.
Russia has developed its own first strike capability with its Kh-102 stealth cruise missile that may be launched from its Kilo class silent electric submarines.

What makes “deterrence” such an unwise protocol is the fact that whoever strikes first in a nuclear war gains the advantage, perhaps an overwhelming one.
If one country becomes convinced that its potential adversary is about to launch a nuclear first strike, it may feel the necessity of launching its own first strike.
This is not idle speculation. The scenario has come close to playing out more than once.

 

[edwest2]

Having lived through the Cold War ICBM period, I have studied it in depth. First, nuclear weapons can never be used. No advantage is gained by anybody. Some small country might try but surveillance has improved greatly. This was not the case in 1959 when the US and USSR simultaneously deployed ICBMs. Second, after the Bikini tests, a trained observer wrote a book titled No Place to Hide. It was published in 1948 and is by Dr. David Bradley, a “radiological monitor.” In clear terms, war with nuclear weapons would leave no winners. By 1953, the US decided a nuclear war was not in its best interests. The scale of destruction would be massive. Submarines? More sophisticated sensing equipment is watching those as well.

However, work continued to keep up with improvements in accuracy, engines and guidance systems. Some things continue to remain a mystery and questions will likely never be answered, but men know they must be armed as well or better than a potential enemy. The global Intelligence Community is very large but it can’t be talked about.

So, aside from being condemned, it has been decided it’s not practical - at all. The fear that some “nut” might do something is factored in. And should that happen, someone in a position to know said, “We will intercept.”

Ed

 

[johnnyc176]

And should that happen, someone in a position to know said, “We will intercept.”

And then?

 

[undead_rat]

. . . men know they must be armed as well or better than a potential enemy.
So, aside from being condemned, it has been decided it’s not practical - at all.

Sorry, Ed, but these statements seem contradictory to me. The first mandates nuclear deterrence while the second says that such is “not practical-at all.”

 

[edwest2]

The USSR tested its first atomic bomb in 1949. China tested their first atomic bomb in 1964. India in 1974, and Pakistan in 1998. Not counting Britain and France, and perhaps, Israel, nuclear proliferation is another part of the problem. So, as time passes, a country or two becomes nuclear capable. Nuclear blackmail was and is a concern.

Let’s use World War II as an example. Who had the best weapons and tactics? Regardless of the answer, the war in Europe was not our concern according to the President at the time, until the attack on Pearl Harbor. It may interest you to know that newspapers published photos showing greater destruction than what actually occurred. The uncensored version of one photo was released in the early 2000s.

So, if we go back in time, it goes roughly like this. If my neighbor has sharp sticks and spears, then I have them also. The knights in shining armor were no longer a good idea when their armor could be penetrated with a bow and arrow. During the Civil War, a unique type of warship appeared, the Ironclads. Strangely, both sides fielded their quite similar versions at roughly the same time. So, if the enemy blocked a harbor to prevent supplies from reaching you, you sent out your Ironclad and had at it. Not to mention a submarine.

Nuclear weapons are not clean explosives. They cause atomic fission or fusion, meaning they irradiate everything in range and leave behind deadly fallout that will drift with the wind. Who will enter the fight if an off course, or purposely directed, missile hit Japan? Then what? I don’t think a slap on the wrist will be the reply.

I heard the very volatile threats made by the Soviet Union. “We will bury you!” Then I watched on TV as armored vehicles peppered a building with uranium tipped rounds years later. The Soviet Union fell, but their silos and other nuclear weapons had to manage the transition as well.

So, a burglar enters your home or someone attacks your country or an ally with a nuclear weapon. The Defense Department has planned scenarios for decades. Nothing is going unnoticed, including cell phone chatter. Aircraft fitted with a specialized sensor were used during World War II to detect nuclear particles in the air. Agents were dressed in local clothing and set out on a rowboat with fishing lines and a thermos. The thermos was used to collect a water sample near a suspected weapons production facility.

So, regardless of what anyone says, and regardless of near occasions of war, we decide to engage or not. Not engaging is the only sane option unless the enemy has placed nuclear missiles close to your country and construction and “advisors” are spotted on the ground to confirm this.

History tells us that most wars were fought to gain land, resources and manpower. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy told the Soviet Union and the American public, that any attack against the US or Western Europe which, in that case, was considered to be on the same level as a direct attack on the US, would be met by a swift response.

Years later, two unidentified CIA agents who hadn’t seen each other for a while had a little talk. “Were you at that meeting where they talked about blowing up the world?” “Yeah. I was there.”

Ed

 

[GKC]

The USSR tested its first atomic bomb in 1949. China tested their first atomic bomb in 1964. India in 1974, and Pakistan in 1998. Not counting Britain and France, and perhaps, Israel, nuclear proliferation is another part of the problem. So, as time passes, a country or two becomes nuclear capable. Nuclear blackmail was and is a concern.

Let’s use World War II as an example. Who had the best weapons and tactics? Regardless of the answer, the war in Europe was not our concern according to the President at the time, until the attack on Pearl Harbor. It may interest you to know that newspapers published photos showing greater destruction than what actually occurred. The uncensored version of one photo was released in the early 2000s.

So, if we go back in time, it goes roughly like this. If my neighbor has sharp sticks and spears, then I have them also. The knights in shining armor were no longer a good idea when their armor could be penetrated with a bow and arrow. During the Civil War, a unique type of warship appeared, the Ironclads. Strangely, both sides fielded their quite similar versions at roughly the same time. So, if the enemy blocked a harbor to prevent supplies from reaching you, you sent out your Ironclad and had at it. Not to mention a submarine.

Nuclear weapons are not clean explosives. They cause atomic fission or fusion, meaning they irradiate everything in range and leave behind deadly fallout that will drift with the wind. Who will enter the fight if an off course, or purposely directed, missile hit Japan? Then what? I don’t think a slap on the wrist will be the reply.

I heard the very volatile threats made by the Soviet Union. “We will bury you!” Then I watched on TV as armored vehicles peppered a building with uranium tipped rounds years later. The Soviet Union fell, but their silos and other nuclear weapons had to manage the transition as well.

So, a burglar enters your home or someone attacks your country or an ally with a nuclear weapon. The Defense Department has planned scenarios for decades. Nothing is going unnoticed, including cell phone chatter. Aircraft fitted with a specialized sensor were used during World War II to detect nuclear particles in the air. Agents were dressed in local clothing and set out on a rowboat with fishing lines and a thermos. The thermos was used to collect a water sample near a suspected weapons production facility.

So, regardless of what anyone says, and regardless of near occasions of war, we decide to engage or not. Not engaging is the only sane option unless the enemy has placed nuclear missiles close to your country and construction and “advisors” are spotted on the ground to confirm this.

History tells us that most wars were fought to gain land, resources and manpower. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy told the Soviet Union and the American public, that any attack against the US or Western Europe which, in that case, was considered to be on the same level as a direct attack on the US, would be met by a swift response.

Years later, two unidentified CIA agents who hadn’t seen each other for a while had a little talk. “Were you at that meeting where they talked about blowing up the world?” “Yeah. I was there.”

Ed

Overall, no exception to this. But the then President, post 1939, pre 1941, was highly concerned about the European situation. And looked to see us in it, when the country and Congress was of the same mind.

 

[edwest2]

“And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said before, but I shall say it again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”.
-President Roosevelt

Yes, this was a great opportunity on many levels but regardless of any concerns, the public heard the above.

Ed

 

[DaveBj]

“And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said before, but I shall say it again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”.
-President Roosevelt

Yes, this was a great opportunity on many levels but regardless of any concerns, the public heard the above.

Ed

That quote is a perfect example of the old adage that one should not write assurances with his mouth that outside circumstances will not allow him to cash.

(This is a little reworded from the original, but you get the idea.)

 

[GKC]

“And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said before, but I shall say it again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”.
-President Roosevelt

Yes, this was a great opportunity on many levels but regardless of any concerns, the public heard the above.

Ed

Which Roosevelt uttered, as a political necessity, at that time. His intent was to support the British efforts by all means politically possible, aiming eventually at some means of actively entering the war. Which the Japanese, on 7 De and the Germans, on 11 Dec, provided him/

 

[mrdrifter]

Sorry that I no longer have the link to the article. Recent news is that the US Navy’s SSBNs have installed on the Polaris ICBM an ungraded fusing device that enables the missile to destroy a Russian ICBM silo.
This is significant because a submarine launched missile has a much shorter time of fight to its target and, therefore, negates any “launch on warning” capability.
So, conceivably, a US SSBN attack could destroy Russia’s ICBMs in a first strike.
Russia has developed its own first strike capability with its Kh-102 stealth cruise missile that may be launched from its Kilo class silent electric submarines.

What makes “deterrence” such an unwise protocol is the fact that whoever strikes first in a nuclear war gains the advantage, perhaps an overwhelming one.
If one country becomes convinced that its potential adversary is about to launch a nuclear first strike, it may feel the necessity of launching its own first strike.
This is not idle speculation. The scenario has come close to playing out more than once.

The Polaris missile was an SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile), not an ICBM. It was produced in the late 1950s and retired from the US Navy in the early 1980s to comply with the SALT II Treaty. British Royal Navy versions were retired or replaced by the Trident missile in the 1990s. Other’s may have a different opinion, but my view has always been that one should be familiar with some basic facts before posing as an expert.

 

[undead_rat]

The Polaris missile was an SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile), not an ICBM. It was produced in the late 1950s and retired from the US Navy in the early 1980s to comply with the SALT II Treaty. British Royal Navy versions were retired or replaced by the Trident missile in the 1990s. Other’s may have a different opinion, but my view has always been that one should be familiar with some basic facts before posing as an expert.

Thank you for these corrections and thanks to everyone for your participation.
I most certainly am no expert (never claimed to be one, really.) The only thing that I have to offer is a different perspective.
In Catechism 696 the “fire” of Luke 12:49 is defined as the fire of the Holy Spirit. Not being brought up Catholic, I never had this particular instruction and always thought of the fire of 12:49 as the fire of judgment.
When I asked my priest for clarification, he agreed that in the Episcopal Church the fire of Luke was thought to be the same as the fire of Isaiah 66:15-16.
But, according to Genesis 8:21, this fire of judgment cannot be an act of God since He said that:
Never again will I curse the earth because of man, because his heart contrives evil from his infancy. Never again will I strike down every living thing as I have done.

In the 20th century we notice that mankind has gained the capacity to cause a world wide destruction by fire through his building of fleets of nuclear armed ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft.
The idea that mankind has created his own destruction is consistent with what David predicts in Psalm 9:15-16
The nations have sunk into a pit of their own making,
they are caught by the feet in the snare they set themselves.
YHWH has made Himself known, has given judgment,
He has trapped the wicked in the work of their own hands.

The hypothesis that the fire of judgment is the conflagration of global nuclear war is consistent with some other Scripture as well. Isaiah 2:19 advises us to retreat deep underground which is the only defense from a nuclear attack.
Jeremiah 25:32 speaks of a disaster which spreads from nation to nation and a mighty tempest which rises from the far ends of the world. Isaiah says that the chariots (vehicles of war) are like the tempest.
I find these passages to be descriptive of the beginnings of a global nuclear war which starts between minor players and then involves the superpowers.
“Chariots like the tempest” rising “from the far ends of the earth” could be an ancient description of the mass launching of ICBMs and SLBMs.
The Holy See describes the MAD and “deterrence” protocols as instruments of a “negative peace,” which is a precarious one. It can give way as circumstances change. Our Holy Scripture predicts that it will do so.
I know that unilateral disarmament is an unpopular idea. Posters express the fear of 'nuclear blackmail" quite often. But, really, what choice do we have given the inevitable alternative of global nuclear war?

I have come to bring a fire to the earth, and how I wish that it were already blazing!
Luke 12:49