UPDATE 1-U.S. nuclear bomb facility shut after security breach

[Corki]

“Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation” and that is vandalism, not trespassing. they climbed over the fence,that is trespass.

They cut the fence - vandalism; painted slogans on the buildings - more **vandalism **and threw blood onto the building - still more vandalism. The trespassing was just the way the gained access to their point of vandalism.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If an 82 year old woman could infiltrate the perimeter, and then walk 2 hours to reach the building and have time to paint slogans on the building, I’d say there’s some danger to the uranium processed and stored there. What if this had been a trained and armed terrorist group? Secondly, because of our stockpile, other countries ‘race’ to maintain a balance, while some are just beginning to obtain the same type weapons.

Many times during protests and demonstrations, arrests are made. Some anticipated by the protesters/demonstrators.

Trespass is very similar to unlawful assemblies, or purposefully blocking access to buildings. This instance did not have the appearance of being violent.

These people actually do engage others. There’s another thread discussing their arrest. Someone provided a link to a speech the sister gave. As for the messages, seems many of the news media has given them platform to get their message across.

Two points: first, the security breach was not as bad as it sounds. Doubtless several important people are getting yelled at over this, but she could not have stolen uranium to make a bomb (and was detected on the way to the building). Buildings at Y12 are not your standard home depot brand shed; getting to one does not imply that she could have gotten inside. So our weapons are still not posing an immediate threat. And whatever you think about arms races, they are not an immediate danger in the same way having your baby murdered is immediate.

Second, you cannot do bad to do good. Let’s assume that they’re right (I disagree, but leaving that aside for now). Talking to people is fine. Getting the message out is fine. Continuing to try to get the message out in a reasonable manner should the government try to stop you is fine. Breaking unjust laws to make a point is fine.

This is not what they did. The government does not prevent them from protesting, not even right outside the gates. The government does not say they can’t spread their ideas.

The government says they can’t go into the secure area where the dangerous stuff is stored. This is just. The government says they can’t deface buildings they don’t own. This is also just. Therefore they should not have broke the laws.

 

[pete_29]

What ever are you replying to? You’re talking about eliminating nuclear weapons and I was replying to your suggestion that those protestors go to Iran et al to protest.

What are you replying to? all I’m saying is its kind of useless to protest the US when there are more dangerous countries that have nuclear weapons. The US will never use them again, our population would never allow it. Iran will use them if they get the chance. Protesting the US is a waste of time.

 

[Corki]

What are you replying to? all I’m saying is its kind of useless to protest the US when there are more dangerous countries that have nuclear weapons. The US will never use them again, our population would never allow it. Iran will use them if they get the chance. Protesting the US is a waste of time.

Two threads were merged - at April’s suggestion and my request (as OP of the second thread). It will take a bit to sort out who is replying to whom.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Two points: first, the security breach was not as bad as it sounds. Doubtless several important people are getting yelled at over this, but she could not have stolen uranium to make a bomb (and was detected on the way to the building). Buildings at Y12 are not your standard home depot brand shed; getting to one does not imply that she could have gotten inside. So our weapons are still not posing an immediate threat.

Maybe I’m not being clear. I don’t think this group had any intention of trying to ‘breach’ the building itself; however, what could have happened if this had been a well trained and armed group of terrorists?

It took an 82 year old 2 hours to get from the fence to the building, and then they had time to paint slogans on the building. A group of well trained and armed terrorists could have made the trek much quicker, I assume. Then the question is, how fast could they have breached the building?

I have a question. What is everyone’s feelings toward US WMD? It seems to be the dividing point in this discussion. Can anyone show me somewhere that Christ would have endorsed such armament?

 

[april32010]

I have a question. What is everyone’s feelings toward US WMD? It seems to be the dividing point in this discussion. Can anyone show me somewhere that Christ would have endorsed such armament?

i do not believe my feelings have anything to do with the discussion, i have to think as the Church thinks
.Catechism of the Catholic Church pargraph2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes."

 

[Corki]

i do not believe my feelings have any thing to do with the discussion, i have to think as the Church thinks
.Catechism of the Catholic Church pargraph2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes."

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Maybe I’m not being clear. I don’t think this group had any intention of trying to ‘breach’ the building itself; however, what could have happened if this had been a well trained and armed group of terrorists?

It took an 82 year old 2 hours to get from the fence to the building, and then they had time to paint slogans on the building. A group of well trained and armed terrorists could have made the trek much quicker, I assume. Then the question is, how fast could they have breached the building?

I am unsure if a terrorist team would have been able to or not. If they would have been, then there was a security flaw that needs to be corrected. This hardly changes things though. I mentioned this point originally to highlight differences between pro-lifers and these guys, with that difference being that prolifers are often trying to prevent specific acts of murder that are happening immediately, and these guys aren’t. Testing Y12 security really isn’t the same.

But even if it were, it would not change the morality of vandalism.

I have a question. What is everyone’s feelings toward US WMD? It seems to be the dividing point in this discussion.

The technology exists. Therefore the weapons will exist. Powerful states will have them. If the “reasonable” states (ie US, UK, France etc) don’t have them, then when unreasonable states (Iran etc) get them, there would be a problem.

Can anyone show me somewhere that Christ would have endorsed such armament?

Being objects, they are not evil in themselves. Using them in bad ways certainly would be evil, but keeping a pile of them doesn’t count I don’t think.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

i do not believe my feelings have any thing to do with the discussion, i have to think as the Church thinks
.Catechism of the Catholic Church pargraph2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes."

I agree with you, and the Church. WMD kill indiscriminately; men, women and children, who are not part of the combatants of war.

However, it seems the dividing point of this discussion is what this group was protesting. I have to wonder if the reactions would have been the same if this had been an abortion clinic?

 

[pete_29]

Two threads were merged - at April’s suggestion and my request (as OP of the second thread). It will take a bit to sort out who is replying to whom.

Thank you for the info as I was very

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The technology exists. Therefore the weapons will exist. Powerful states will have them. If the “reasonable” states (ie US, UK, France etc) don’t have them, then when unreasonable states (Iran etc) get them, there would be a problem.

Being objects, they are not evil in themselves. Using them in bad ways certainly would be evil, but keeping a pile of them doesn’t count I don’t think.

You forgot to include Pakistan and North Korea. Of course we’ll agree on whether they are reasonable or not.

Using them in a bad way? Can you give an example of a good way?

BTW, off topic, but where is the picture of your dog, in your signature?

 

[asia53]

Maybe I’m not being clear. I don’t think this group had any intention of trying to ‘breach’ the building itself; however, what could have happened if this had been a well trained and armed group of terrorists?

It took an 82 year old 2 hours to get from the fence to the building, and then they had time to paint slogans on the building. A group of well trained and armed terrorists could have made the trek much quicker, I assume. Then the question is, how fast could they have breached the building?

Nuclear material buildings would have the most protection, security checkpoints, and be at the interior of the most protected area. It’s like peeling an onion, layer by layer, each interior layer, more protected than the previous outer layer.

Y12 is a huge complex, lots of acreage. She walked for 2 hours. I’m guessing, she reached one of the outer buildings. We’ll never know for sure which building she reached, we’ll never be told.

Iron Donkey is correct several people are getting reamed for the breach. However, our government has a hand in this fiasco. Since 2008, the guard force at all nuclear weapons facilities have been severely reduced.

Before anyone starts, I worked at a nuclear weapons facility for 25 years. The basic security plan is used at all the complexes.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You forgot to include Pakistan and North Korea. Of course we’ll agree on whether they are reasonable or not.

Using them in a bad way? Can you give an example of a good way?

BTW, off topic, but where is the picture of your dog, in your signature?

I suppose they could be actually used if the target was pretty much entirely military. Perhaps dropped on a fleet of warships in the ocean? But really I was considering the use we’re putting them to now: keeping a pile that we don’t intend to use on civilians so that the nations that think we’re evil scumbags who would won’t use theirs on us.

(And the dog I’m referring to is my avatar. She’s actually quiet nice, once you get past the whole inside out blender thing she has going on.)

 

[april32010]

Two threads were merged - at April’s suggestion and my request (as OP of the second thread). It will take a bit to sort out who is replying to whom.

way, way off topic. i don’t why this is starting to bother me, i mean my two favorite shirts are pink,but my first name is stewart not april, i’m a guy.my username is the date of my baptism and confirmation into Holy Mother Church.Easter Vigil 2010.the most important date of my life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(And the dog I’m referring to is my avatar. She’s actually quiet nice, once you get past the whole inside out blender thing she has going on.)

That’s cuddling? Wouldn’t want to see her mad.

 

[Corki]

way, way off topic. i don’t why this is starting to bother me, i mean my two favorite shirts are pink,but my first name is stewart not april, i’m a guy.my username is the date of my baptism and confirmation into Holy Mother Church.Easter Vigil 2010.the most important date of my life.

oops. Sorry about that. I should be more consientious since people always think I’m a guy when I am a middled aged mom.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

way, way off topic. i don’t why this is starting to bother me, i mean my two favorite shirts are pink,but my first name is stewart not april, i’m a guy.my username is the date of my baptism and confirmation into Holy Mother Church.Easter Vigil 2010.the most important date of my life.

I have to admit, I made the same mistake…Stewart.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

oops. Sorry about that. I should be more consientious since people always think I’m a guy when I am a middled aged mom.

Ok, another one I have to admit, I made a mistake on.

 

[april32010]

oops. Sorry about that. I should be more consientious since people always think I’m a guy when I am a middled aged mom.

nothing to apologize for,understandable mistake.i guess now that i’m a regular member i can put it in a sig line. a’la LemonAndLime

 

[JimG]

I suppose they could be actually used if the target was pretty much entirely military. Perhaps dropped on a fleet of warships in the ocean? But really I was considering the use we’re putting them to now: keeping a pile that we don’t intend to use on civilians so that the nations that think we’re evil scumbags who would won’t use theirs on us.

(And the dog I’m referring to is my avatar. She’s actually quiet nice, once you get past the whole inside out blender thing she has going on.)

What could be a valid use of nuclear weapons? Well, they were used as a deterrent for all the decades of the cold war, and we won the cold war. Deterrence worked. The question even arose during that period whether the Church should oppose nuclear deterrence in principle. But it did not. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops at the time–the predecessor to the USCCB–issued a statement saying that nuclear deterrence could be accepted as a means of preventing war.

It did prevent war, particulary nuclear war. It did not prevent smaller wars. Yet the threat of nuclear war was specifically used by Bobby Kennedy when he met with Andrei Gromyko during the Cuban missile crisis. Khrushchev decided it was not worth the risk. (Actually the placing of the weapons in Cuba had not been particularly well thought out from a strategic and diplomatic standpoint.) He pulled the missiles out of Cuba, without even informing Castro beforehand, which infuriated Castro.

One can make very large–high-yield–conventional weapons. One can also make very small, low yield, nuclear weapons.

The U.S. used to have 1150 minuteman nuclear missiles on full alert; now we have 450. That’s a lot less. My worry is that it is also a less effective as a deterrent. And to the extent that deterrence is less effective, it makes war more, not less, likely.

There was a news story a long time ago wherein a married (Catholic) launch control officer refused to serve in a minuteman missile alert facility with a woman, because of the moral considerations. (These are two-person crews in an underground facility for 24 hours at a time, which can only be opened from the inside.) He was married. He didn’t want to be subject to temptation. His local parish priest and his bishop backed his position. But neither of them questioned that he was in charge of launching nuclear weapons if necessary.