M
Maximian
Guest
Hos responsibility is to defend his country which means never revealing to the enemy if he would or would not use them
What is President-elect Biden's responsibility as a Catholic in relation to the nuclear weapons in his control after January?
- Status
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Is this approach consistent with Catholic morality? Letting your opponent think you would do something immoral? And preparing for it in a way that would allow your successor to actually do so?
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
The last I heard, all of the land based nuclear missiles in the U.S., while on constant alert, are targeted at remote areas of the Pacific Ocean. I think that this was due to the START treaty with Russia. If there were an accidental launch, the warhead is going into the ocean. Rapid retargeting, is, of course, possible.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to keep your enemy, who would conquer or destroy you if he had the chance, guessing as to what your morality would allow you to do, and what it would not allow you to do. You don’t owe him a catechism lesson. If he knows about you — and any intelligence agency worth its salt, knows the ideology, religion, morality, and beliefs of all its adversaries — he knows what you consider to be evil or sinful. Let them figure it out.HomeschoolDad:
Is this approach consistent with Catholic morality? Letting your opponent think you would do something immoral? And preparing for it in a way that would allow your successor to actually do so?
Sometimes you have to use just a little bit of perceived crazy to keep your enemies off guard and afraid of you, and thus on their best behavior.
Or to put it in a slightly different way, does anyone ever put a sign in their front yard saying “we are unarmed in this house, we’re a peaceful sort, we don’t have the means at our disposal to defend ourselves from bandits and thieves, if you come here with harm on your minds, be assured we’ll either call 911 or just give you a good talking-to while you rob and kill us”?
I didn’t think so. We are not Amish.
That’s about how I heard it, but wouldn’t that play hob with the marine ecosystem?
It’d probably be a lot worse than the plastic gyres you now have in the Pacific.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
No doubt, but better than landing on Moscow and killing hundreds of thousands of people in a “whoopsie.”
J
JimG
Guest
It wouldn’t be good for the ocean, assuming that there was a nuclear blast. But I think the whole thing is sort of pointless. Accidental launch is highly unlikely, especially at the level of those who actually control the weapons on a daily basis. Mistakes are more likely to be made higher up in the chain of command.
B
Beryllos
Guest
That brings to mind the Catholic teaching about telling the truth, which includes this from the Catechism:
This suggests a third way, as I wrote earlier, not to say we will or we won’t, but to say something else which is true. Examples:
- We wish to avoid the use of nuclear weapons.
- We would deeply regret using nuclear weapons.
- We see no need for them at present.
- We are keeping them ready just in case…
Last edited:
B
Beryllos
Guest
I’ve also been thinking about this line from CCC 2488:
I wonder if there is an extension of this in regard to nuclear war. I’m thinking probably not. Mutually Assured Destruction is two wrongs that don’t make a right.
And what if they don’t? In the case of telling the truth, it means we can withhold the truth. In the case of killing, it means we can defend our lives.
I wonder if there is an extension of this in regard to nuclear war. I’m thinking probably not. Mutually Assured Destruction is two wrongs that don’t make a right.
M
Maelstrom1
Guest
Now we see the danger inherent in a leader, any leader, who espouses any religion at all as part of his practice of office. There is a reason for the separation of church and state. It also prevents a desire of those twho would promote religious utopian viewpoints, separate from world affairs by nature of a broad naïveté, to drive public policy. They may comment just as any group in a free society should. But using the Gospel as a means for driving policies is unacceptable. And this is because the Gospel is frequently misused. If Mr. Biden is first a Catholic and second our President he then becomes unworthy of the office.
R
Raxus
Guest
If you think those aren’t, I’ve got some waterfront territory in Arizona for you to look at…
R
Raxus
Guest
Popes have already said that owning a nuclear deterrent is morally acceptable while EVERYONE moves towards nuclear disarmament.
You’re creating a problem where none exists.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Okay I’ll be sure to build a bunker. Bowing out of this thread.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
The equivalent in this case would be a sign saying: “if you attack, or threaten to attack my home and family I have means, against which you have no defence, to obliterate your home and those of your neighbours, causing many deaths”.
R
Raxus
Guest
More like:
I know you have the means to obliterate my home with no defense and those of my neighbors. I have a big stick too, so that’s a road you don’t want to go down.
And in any event, I’d rather have @HomeschoolDad’s sign in my yard instead of your proposed equivalent.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Thank you for editing your post. It’s appreciated. I am relying for my question on the Church documents reference in my post #17 above. If you can find something in there or in another official document strong text that is still current, i.e. has not been updated by more recent teachingstrong text I would like to see it.
I would point out also that my question is not about ownership of weapons but about the willingness to use them. It seems to me that a Catholic cannot be willing to use nuclear weapons while following the teaching of the Church.
R
Raxus
Guest
To be fair, the mods got to it first, but I accept their correction and apologize. I should have thought that through.
Well, after looking, I didn’t realize that Pope Francis plans on adding the changes to the Catechism. This changes my thinking a bit. I’ll have to research more now.
I agree there. I don’t think Biden is willing to use them currently, however.
Last edited:
B
Beryllos
Guest
I’m beginning to think that you’re right. It goes against worldly thinking, but it would be a perfectly Christian response to receive a nuclear first strike and not retaliate.
B
BT3241
Guest
I don’t think there is anything to worry about - Biden will be a one term President and will not be able to get his policies through especially if the senate is controlled by the republicans. May as well call him a lame duck President now - its the Next president that will decide that path of the USA.
B
Beryllos
Guest
@BT3241, the topic is morality and Catholic teaching, not politics. What do you think?
Last edited:
- Status