P
Peacemonger
Guest
This is such an ignorant question.
- Status
T
thestickman
Guest
Nope. Not gonna happen, nor should it ever happen.
Actually, it’s quite relevant. You’ve consistently complained about America this and America that as doing/supporting evil but, had America not commited evil as you articulate it, Saddam would still be running his rape rooms, torture chambers and such.
Btw, peace thru strength is never evil. Neither would using nuclear weapons in defense of our nation according to the CCC:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
So are you gonna suggest the CCC is evil next?
P
Peacemonger
Guest
Actually, it’s quite relevant. You’ve consistently complained about America this and America that as doing/supporting evil but, had America not commited evil as you articulate it, Saddam would still be running his rape rooms, torture chambers and such.
Btw, peace thru strength is never evil. Neither would using nuclear weapons in defense of our nation according to the CCC:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
So are you gonna suggest the CCC is evil next?
Nowhere does the CCC condone using NUCLEAR weapons. As I said before, Church leaders have said that nuclear weapons are inherently evil. Using them, even in retaliation, would be immoral. Get a grip.
G
gilliam
Guest
I agree with you that we shouldn’t use them, but I don’t see how a tool can be inherently evil. If a nuke can be used to move an asteroid away from the earth, that could be a just use of a nuke, so a nuke can’t be inherently evil. Just a moral theology ‘nit’.
P
Peacemonger
Guest
OOOOOOOOK.
M
Michael_C
Guest
So you’re in agrrement that we should act quickly on destroying Irans nuclear weapon program? Good man!
G
gilliam
Guest
U.S. told of Iranian effort to create nuclear warheadRecent intelligence shows Iran has been working to produce a missile re-entry vehicle containing a small nuclear warhead for its Shahab missiles and has encountered problems developing a reliable centrifuge system for uranium enrichment, U.S. officials said. The officials, who discussed the intelligence on the condition of anonymity, said Iran’s new nuclear warhead program includes what specialists call the basic “physics package” for fitting a nuclear bomb inside the nose cone of a missile.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com …
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com …
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Bill Rusher’s comments on nuclear proliferation:
Over the decades, however, nuclear technology has inevitably spread, in varying degrees, to upward of 20 to 30 nations – some of which have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, others haven’t. The bad news is that the world has now arrived at a point where several of these nations are capable of building nuclear bombs, and a few have actually done so. India and Pakistan, to take the most glaring examples, have both joined the nuclear club, as just one more step in their bitter rivalry.
Worse yet, two of the nations that are believed to have developed nuclear weapons, or to be on the verge of doing so, are aptly described as “rogue states” – relatively small but ugly despotisms that may well use them if they don’t get their way: Iran and North Korea.
The problem has been foreseeable for many years, and has gotten steadily worse. The last president who could afford to stall – Bill Clinton – stalled right through his two terms, and left this miserable dilemma on the doorstep of his successor, George W. Bush, who no longer has the luxury of stalling. Are we going to let Iran and North Korea join the nuclear club, with all that that implies, or not?
North Korea, a leftover communist tyranny, is an economic basket case that might ordinarily be left to collapse in its own sweet time. But its “Dear Leader,” Kim Jong-Il, has survived by selling his nuclear know-how to other countries, as well as by blackmailing the world to give him aid in return for not using his nukes (he is believed to have a few) or building more of them. Putting Kim out of business would require aerial strikes on his nuclear installations, but he warns that, if that happens, he has the will and the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea or Japan first, with the bombs he has on hand.
Iran is believed to be within a year or two of having nuclear weapons, which it would probably aim at Israel as a contribution to the Arab cause. That, to be sure, gives Israel a good reason to launch aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities (if they can be found), as it did to Iraq’s two decades ago. But this might well precipitate an Iranian military invasion of Iraq, where America’s forces have their hands full already.
What, then, is Bush to do? Getting into another war with either North Korea or Iran is probably not Karl Rove’s favorite idea for enhancing Bush’s popularity. But the alternative may be to see these two rogue states take their seats in the nuclear club and spend the next couple of decades blackmailing us for anything that strikes their fancy. If you have suggestions, the White House would no doubt welcome it.
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41734
Over the decades, however, nuclear technology has inevitably spread, in varying degrees, to upward of 20 to 30 nations – some of which have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, others haven’t. The bad news is that the world has now arrived at a point where several of these nations are capable of building nuclear bombs, and a few have actually done so. India and Pakistan, to take the most glaring examples, have both joined the nuclear club, as just one more step in their bitter rivalry.
Worse yet, two of the nations that are believed to have developed nuclear weapons, or to be on the verge of doing so, are aptly described as “rogue states” – relatively small but ugly despotisms that may well use them if they don’t get their way: Iran and North Korea.
The problem has been foreseeable for many years, and has gotten steadily worse. The last president who could afford to stall – Bill Clinton – stalled right through his two terms, and left this miserable dilemma on the doorstep of his successor, George W. Bush, who no longer has the luxury of stalling. Are we going to let Iran and North Korea join the nuclear club, with all that that implies, or not?
North Korea, a leftover communist tyranny, is an economic basket case that might ordinarily be left to collapse in its own sweet time. But its “Dear Leader,” Kim Jong-Il, has survived by selling his nuclear know-how to other countries, as well as by blackmailing the world to give him aid in return for not using his nukes (he is believed to have a few) or building more of them. Putting Kim out of business would require aerial strikes on his nuclear installations, but he warns that, if that happens, he has the will and the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea or Japan first, with the bombs he has on hand.
Iran is believed to be within a year or two of having nuclear weapons, which it would probably aim at Israel as a contribution to the Arab cause. That, to be sure, gives Israel a good reason to launch aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities (if they can be found), as it did to Iraq’s two decades ago. But this might well precipitate an Iranian military invasion of Iraq, where America’s forces have their hands full already.
What, then, is Bush to do? Getting into another war with either North Korea or Iran is probably not Karl Rove’s favorite idea for enhancing Bush’s popularity. But the alternative may be to see these two rogue states take their seats in the nuclear club and spend the next couple of decades blackmailing us for anything that strikes their fancy. If you have suggestions, the White House would no doubt welcome it.
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41734
B
Brad
Guest
Where have they declared nuclear weapons themselves (in an unused state) to be evil? Provide the document please.
B
Brad
Guest
I suspect you are making things up to support your personal position, not the position of the Church. Please provide a document that says unused nuclear weapons are themselves evil.
P
Peacemonger
Guest
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Plese note on the quoted material from the OP:
An Evaluation by Pax Christi Bishops in the United States, June 1998 The who and when say a great deal.
T
thestickman
Guest
So some Church leaders have come out against even the manufacture of nukes. Okie Dokie…I can live with that. Free speech is a good thing as we all know. However, my original point, via the CCC stands as valid
P
Peacemonger
Guest
In your own mind…So some Church leaders have come out against even the manufacture of nukes. Okie Dokie…I can live with that. Free speech is a good thing as we all know. However, my original point, via the CCC stands as valid
The CCC does not justify the intentional killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, which are what nukes are designed to do.
T
thestickman
Guest
LOL!!! I wasn’t suggesting any use of nukes to kill civilians indiscriminately was okay. If you’ll read the CCC you’ll see more of the truth: “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. (CCC 2314)
So it’s not actually in my own mind, eh? Again, peace thru strength is never evil and is always in our nation’s best interest.
P
Peacemonger
Guest
I’m just curious…If, God forbid, a nuclear/chem/bio weapon is detonated on American soil, what should our response be?
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
I’m curious - what would you recommend?
P
Peacemonger
Guest
Well…it depends. If the strike was carried out by a terrorist cell or cells then our special forces/CIA should seek out and destroy or capture those involved.
If it was carried out by a country such as Iran, which, BTW, would NEVER happen, then I would hope our response would be to attack and destroy their military through air and naval power as well as targeted sanctions and complete diplomatic isolation, i.e. seal our borders to nationals from the country involved as well as a round up and deportation of their nationals who may be in the US.
But I would not support a WMD retaliation.
T
thestickman
Guest
Depends on who did the deed. If it’s determined to be a jihadist terrorist group I would give 48 notice that Mecca is about to be turned into glass. I would offer every assistance to help vacate the area. Then I would turn it into glass at the end of the 48 hours.
P
Peacemonger
Guest
And what would that solve? Besides killing tons of people.
- Status