What is wrong with the One World Order?

[tootle_toot]

Well, we have a choice. Rely on MAD and suffer the consequences of a global nuclear war, or take our chances under the Russian nuclear umbrella. It really is that simple, and it is carved in stone that MAD will fail with the result being a nuclear holocaust.
On the other hand it is not proven that our nuclear disarmament will lead to our enslavement by the Russians. I personally do not believe that the Russians are really interested in doing that.

 

[Usagi]

C’mon, Jim. How many denominations are there? Even Catholics represent only about 16% of the world’s population. What about the other 84%?

Oh, I assumed he meant literally Jesus, not just some body of Christians or other.

As I always say when the topic of a “Catholic monarchy” comes up on these boards, I do hope to live in one someday – but by that I mean Heaven, because it has the only king that won’t screw it all up.

 

[Socrates92]

it is carved in stone that MAD will fail with the result being a nuclear holocaust.

How so?

On the other hand it is not proven that our nuclear disarmament will lead to our enslavement by the Russians. I personally do not believe that the Russians are really interested in doing that.

You don’t see any risk involved in the concentration of nukes in the hands of one ruler?
It didn’t turn out great for the Japanese when the US were the only ones with the nukes.

 

[tootle_toot]

A global nuclear war is predicted by most of the Jewish prophets. Take Jeremiah 25:32-33 for instance.

See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying in the surface like dung.

Many other passages also make predictions that are consistent with this great disaster being caused by a global nuclear war. The timeline according to Fr. Arnold Wion (Lignum Vitae, Liber Secundus, pg 311, 1595) is the first half of the 21st century.

 

[tootle_toot]

PS, the USA’s nukes in fact made absolutely no difference as to how WW II in the pacific turned out for Japan.

 

[Socrates92]

Ok, so why do you think MAD is more likely to bring this nuclear holocaust upon us than a nuclear monopoly. I’m not understanding that point. It seems obvious that the opposite would be the case. None of the passages you quoted made any distinction between the two.

 

[Victoria33]

PS, the USA’s nukes in fact made absolutely no difference as to how WW II in the pacific turned out for Japan.

.
Wow.
12345

 

[tootle_toot]

With only one major nuclear armed power, a global nuclear war can’t really occur. There might be a nuclear war between minor players such and India and Pakistan but with Russia;s help, the UN might be able to force these nations to undergo nuclear weapons disarmament.
Of course Russia might engage in nuclear blackmail against the West, but even if that were to happen the consequences for us are very much less severe than those of a nuclear war between the USA and Russia.

 

[Socrates92]

Or they could actually nuke us without retribution, even granting that nuclear blackmail is a small concern, which it isn’t.

With MAD as well, nuclear war is also unlikely to occur, because no one wants a nuclear war to occur.

 

[BT3241]

Isn’t it every groups goal - world domination in politics and religion.

 

[Kei]

Just like an empire or kingdom, it could work out fine. But it could also work out terribly. Too much concentrated power. At least as it is if your nation goes to pot and becomes authoritarian you can escape to another, but if everywhere is…
But if you can keep subsidiarity within the big system it probably wouldn’t be too bad, it’d be a helpful stop from too much power by one particular region. However, it would probably feel like only a matter of time until the subsidiaries would lose their own powers to the centralized government. In short it would have a high likelihood of ending in failure, as I’d see it.

 

[tootle_toot]

Of course neither Russia or the USA wants a nuclear war, but that does not mean that it will not happen. It is our Creator who is in control of this world’s future, and, as His prophets have indicated, that disaster is going to happen unless we decide to obey His laws.

 

[tootle_toot]

tootle_toot:

PS, the USA’s nukes in fact made absolutely no difference as to how WW II in the pacific turned out for Japan.

.
Wow.
12345

It is a result of the Truman Administration’s revision of history that most of us believe that the US nuclear bombings forced Japan to accept an unconditional surrender. But there are several things wrong with that idea.
The Japanese knew that they had lost the war and were attempting to obtain conditions, the chief one being the retention of their sacred emperor. But Truman could not publicly offer this condition because to do so would be detrimental to his political career. When no surrender was forthcoming after the two A-bomb attacks, Truman sent a carefully worded message to Japan’s leaders that would be interpreted by them as allowing for the retention of their emperor. It was only then that Hirohito ordered his country to surrender.
It was neither in Hirohito’s nor Truman’s best interests to publish this fact. When, in 1947, Truman came under criticism for the unnecessary atomic attacks, he had his Secretary of War write an article for Harper’s which put forth the idea that it was the atomic bombs which ended the war and thereby saved a million US lives, and that is what most of us still believe to this day.

 

[JimG]

While nuclear powers do rely on deterrence to avoid nuclear war, I don’t think that any nation relies on the “MAD” --mutually assured destruction–protocol any more. In the early days of the Cold War they did, and nuclear weapons were massive in terms of yield and targeted cities because they were not accurate enough to target smaller targets. ICBM’s had warhead yields from 1 to 10 megatons. No more. Accuracy is much more precise and targets tend to be military targets with yields in the kiloton range. All the US land based ICBM’s are targeted at remote areas of the Pacific ocean, and would only be retargeted if hostilities broke out.

 

[JimG]

It was President Eisenhower who pretty much invented the “massive retaliation” protocol. He knew that the USSR could quickly defeat NATO nations in a surprise attack and the US would be unable to prevent it. But he did have SAC with its long range bombers and huge nukes. So he said that any attack on a NATO nation would be considered an attack on the U.S. and be met with “massive retaliation.”

 

[Socrates92]

Of course neither Russia or the USA wants a nuclear war, but that does not mean that it will not happen. It is our Creator who is in control of this world’s future, and, as His prophets have indicated, that disaster is going to happen unless we decide to obey His laws.

So, in your mind then, it should be irrelevant whether the nukes are in one hand or many. Since the only factor in whether there will nuclear Armageddon is whether or not we are obeying God’s laws? Or is there some other distinction between the two options here that you haven’t explained yet? Seeing as though none of the prophecies (at least to my knowledge, and as far as you have quoted) address the question?

 

[tootle_toot]

I have said that there is only room in this world for one nuclear armed superpower. Obeying the Law by giving up our nuclear bombs would lead to that situation. A nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia cannot then occur.

And what is wrong with doing as our currency proclaims: “In God We Trust?” (maybe we don’t really trust in Him as much as we say that we do…)

 

[Socrates92]

I have said that there is only room in this world for one nuclear armed superpower

You have opined that but you haven’t offered any convincing justification for it, scripturally, or logically.

Obeying the Law by giving up our nuclear bombs would lead to that situation.

Also, you haven’t pointed to any law ("L"aw?) requiring a central nuclear power. What law is this that you refer to?

And what is wrong with doing as our currency proclaims: “In God We Trust?”

There’s a difference between trusting in God and being stupid. What you are suggesting is stupid.

(maybe we don’t really trust in Him as much as we say that we do…)

Perhaps. But why are you worried about a nuclear war if all that is necessary is trust in God? I’m not seeing any logical consistency.

 

[JimG]

One nuclear power? Maybe all other nations should give all their nukes to North Korea. Then we can all relax. Or maybe China. But I don’t think that North Korea or Russia would comply with that. What about Russia? Can we expect that Putin would be more benevalent with the nukes than the U.S.?

 

[HarryStotle]

*"The EU is collectively the biggest donor for international aid in the world, providing over € 50 billion a year to help overcoming poverty and advance global development.

Before we grant that the mere dumping of billions of dollars to solve a problem was a laudable deed, we might well ask for an accounting of what that money actually accomplished in terms of helping “overcome poverty.”

Not that a billion here or there did make a difference but that all 30 billion (or close to) did.

I would guess that a few of those billions were spent on NGOs transporting economic migrants into Europe from impoverished countries. It isn’t clear that merely moving able bodied young men out of impoverished places is necessarily a good thing for those left behind.