Do You Support Nuclear Weapons?

[cathqat]

I consider Naziism and Communism pretty much comparable. Both are evil. Thanks to the two of them, about 100 million people were brutally slaughtered during the 20th century.... a million people for each of these skulls:

[img]http://www.geocities.com/johnaugus/skullrack.gif[/img] To anyone who's not read Michael Scammell's "The Price of an Idea: Where, when, and why 85 million people died," a review of the [i]Black Book of Communism[/i] by Courtois [i]et al.[/i], [url="http://www.tnr.com/122099/scammell122099.html"]I recommend that you click here[/url].

On the other hand, I'm not saying that the existence of either Naziism or Communism justifies the possession or use of nuclear weapons. That's one of the issues at hand.

Edited January 25, 2005 by cathqat

[Q the Ninja]

If you say that their existence promotes the use of nuclear weapons, that's just like saying that anything which promotes evil is good enough for the use of nuclear weapons.

?

There have most certainly been much worse things in the world, but when that becomes justification for grave evils, I'm going to pray for a swift death.

Edited January 26, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Ellenita]

[quote]or WHAT if north korea decided to nuke us- we need to have some nukes just as retaliatory dont we? [/quote]

Assuming of course that there is someone left to push the button.....


[quote]I support nuclear weapons as a deterrent but not in actual use. Although, I do support the atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel they were justified and furthermore represent a form of attack no less humane than the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo which nobody seems to know about. [/quote]

The bombing and raising to the ground of Dresden was done in retaliation to the bombing of cities in the UK - in both cases causing massive loss of civilian life and little else in terms of the war....great example of deterrent....


[quote]Secondly, the Japanese wouldn't surrender until we dropped both Atomic bombs on them. Clearly, the decision to drop them was correct because otherwise we would have been involved in a messy invasion of the home islands. [/quote]

Actually there is evidence to suggest that Japan was considering a form of surrender - she was without doubt losing the war before the bomb was dropped, and without her allies could not have stood alone for long.

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 25 2005, 04:57 PM'] Oh, I stand by my statements about it not being the worst in history.  Hitler and the Nazi's, for example, to me are much worse.

(And this is coming from a Ukranian) [/quote]
Hitler and the Nazis murdered an estimated 12 million people, while Communism killed [i]at least 20 million people in the USSR alone![/i] (not counting China, Eastern Europe and other Communist countries).

We must never forget this when discussing 20th century history.

I am not saying this to minimize the evil of the Nazis, but to show how truly evil Soviet Communism was.

This is a fact the Left does not want to admit, as they consistently play down the evil of Communism and spend much time attacking anti-communism.
(I'd recommend [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] , by Dr. Warren H. Carroll, for anyone interested in an in depth history.)

How were the Commies less to blame than the Nazis, Crusader 1234? Because they were somehow "good-intentioned"? They were certainly not less murderous and blood-thirsty.

I know some Ukrainians (from the Ukraine!) and they would beg to differ!

Edited January 26, 2005 by Socrates

[crusader1234]

I am by no means saying that the Communists aren't evil.

[jezic]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 25 2005, 03:40 PM'] Omigawd, Iacabus!!! That's horrible!

I mean the increase in the national debt is so much more significant than the (largely bloodless) defeat of the most horrific and bloody tyranny in the history of mankind and the collapse of the threat of global Communism!!!

Here's to Ronald Reagan and the defeat of the Evil Empire!

(We'll leave Iacobus and his pinko lib buddies to listen to NPR and morosely ponder the tragic loss of the Soviet Union and over 50 years of slavery, terror, purges, government forced famines, the Gulag, and all those other wonders of Soviet Communism).

[noticed I kind of screwed up part of this post, but was too late to edit, so this should make a little more sense] [/quote]
during the 80's the us assisted in coups around the world that kept evil dictatorial systems in power because the people would have went communist/socialist. The us is responsible for millions being dead all over the world because we were scared the cami's were going to take over. No the united states did not rock in the 80's. It was horrible.

Much of the fall of the USSR should be credited to JPII. His behind the scenes work made poland the first, but it had a chain reaction. Regan did very little except build nukes.

The soviet union was also not all evil. There was some good in it, very little but some. Much of what is heard in the united states has the wonderful press spin on it though. Their literature did the same thing, ours is just done without much popular knowledge.

That is changing as we have reporters directly in iraq now so the defense department can't hide as much.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:05 PM'] during the 80's the us assisted in coups around the world that kept evil dictatorial systems in power because the people would have went communist/socialist. The us is responsible for millions being dead all over the world because we were scared the cami's were going to take over. No the united states did not rock in the 80's. It was horrible.

Much of the fall of the USSR should be credited to JPII. His behind the scenes work made poland the first, but it had a chain reaction. Regan did very little except build nukes.

The soviet union was also not all evil. There was some good in it, very little but some. Much of what is heard in the united states has the wonderful press spin on it though. Their literature did the same thing, ours is just done without much popular knowledge.

That is changing as we have reporters directly in iraq now so the defense department can't hide as much. [/quote]
This is an incredibly ignorant post (excepting the part about JPII).
The U.S. aided forces that were fighting Communist expansion in places where there was already fighting and war. Global Communism was a much more serious threat than the forces they were fighting.
Reagan stood firm against Communism where past presidents had done little, allowing the tragic Communist take-over of Eastern Europe and other places around the world. The goal of Communists was nothing other than world domination, and they were dead serious about it!

I grew up in the eighties. You were stiil in diapers. I studied the history of Communism in college.

That stuff about the U.S. press being biased in favor of Reagan against the Soviets is a load of dung! The press was very liberal and hostile to Reagan. The liberals were always whining about how Reagan would start a nuclear holocaust or something. Never happened.

Shame on all you liberals who disgrace the name of heroes for fighting the greatest force of evil and oppression the world has ever known.

Stop listening to lying Left-Wing propaganda and start reading some good serious history, such as the book I recommended. Ignore that Lefty P.C. carp those burnt out hippie profs are feeding you in your college.

I'm sorry but the Left-wing slander against every anti-communist makes me sick to the stomach!

Edited January 26, 2005 by Socrates

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:35 PM'] This is an incredibly ignorant thread [/quote]
You probably meant post, but most of this thread is convoluted and tries to get out of the Ex-Cathedra Truth:

[quote][b]Need for Disarmament[/b]

[b]112.[/b] Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. In the words of Pope Pius XII: "The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time.'' (59)

[b]113. [/b]Everyone, however, must realize that, unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reach men's very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or—and this is the main thing—ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men's minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today's world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.[/quote]
-Pope John XXIII, Pacem In Terris

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:39 PM'] You probably meant post, but most of this thread is convoluted and tries to get out of the Ex-Cathedra Truth:


-Pope John XXIII, Pacem In Terris [/quote]
Sorry. I meant "post." I've corrected that - thanks.

[Socrates]

The trouble was the Soviets had no real interest in nuclear disarmanent. They are notorious liars, and they wished to maintain military superiority at any cost. If the U.S. had eliminated its arsenal, the Soviets would not have fallen suit, but would keep their weapons, which would give them clear military superiority over the U.S. The U.S. would be at the USSR's mercy, and they would be free to continue their reign of terror unchecked.
It is tragic that nukes exist, but Reagan pursued the best strategy available. He had no intention of actually using the weapons, but kept the USSR in check, and helped finally wear down its already bankrupted economy. Reagan was a true American hero - the greatest president of modern times.

[jezic]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:35 PM'] This is an incredibly ignorant post (excepting the part about JPII).
The U.S. aided forces that were fighting Communist expansion in places where there was already fighting and war. Global Communism was a much more serious threat than the forces they were fighting.
Reagan stood firm against Communism where past presidents had done little, allowing the tragic Communist take-over of Eastern Europe and other places around the world. The goal of Communists was nothing other than world domination, and they were dead serious about it!

I grew up in the eighties. You were stiil in diapers. I studied the history of Communism in college.

That stuff about the U.S. press being biased in favor of Reagan against the Soviets is a load of dung! The press was very liberal and hostile to Reagan. The liberals were always whining about how Reagan would start a nuclear holocaust or something. Never happened.

Shame on all you liberals who disgrace the name of heroes for fighting the greatest force of evil and oppression the world has ever known.

Stop listening to lying Left-Wing propaganda and start reading some good serious history, such as the book I recommended. Ignore that Lefty P.C. carp those burnt out hippie profs are feeding you in your college.

I'm sorry but the Left-wing slander against every anti-communist makes me sick to the stomach! [/quote]
i didn't mean about reagan. I meant in general it was spun.

Reagan did stand up to them, yes but that didn't really aide in the downfall. They just stopped.

I also did not say that there were not heros, i was simply pointing out the american government wasn't quite so nice when it came to some stuff. In fact the opression was horrible. The us policies from that era are one of the reasons that we have to pay out so much in aide to other countries now.

The materialistic, sexual revolution society we live in today isn't that great either.

About reagan starting a holocaust. he might have under the right situations. Think about the thirteen days with the cuban missle stuff in the times of Kennedy, what would reagan have done there? (i don't really know much he did other than he didn't stop the military from assasinating people around the world.)

Now i prolly only really know one side of it but that is ok. I am willing to learn but i am not a us nationalist that thinks that there is nothing better than this country. Sometimes i wonder if i would rather live in an opressed society so i could hold on to what really matters instead of all of this junk.

As we talk about this, people still die around the world.

[Guest Aluigi]

the world has opened pandora's box, and the only way to bring us around to morality is with an effective defense against nuclear weapons being possessed by every nation in the world. So we need some brilliant scientist entrepreneur to invent that and sell it to every nation on earth (hopefully they'll be benevolent and not charge too much for the poor countries).

Disarmament is not possible, and I'm not contradicting the CHurch by saying there needs to be another policy. If it was possible, I'd 100% want disarmament as well. I agree with the sentiment and the Teaching and hate nuclear weapons (except in the case of asteroids which is VERY REAL and they do have a system to fire a nuclear weapon and redirect the course of an oncoming danger), but it's an open pandora's box.

I love Ronald Reagan as much as the next conservative, and agree with his ideals and everything. The accumulation of nuclear weapons is not something that is good, the fall of the USSR is good. It happened, thank God it did. I credit JPII and Reagan most for that, with some side credit to Gorbechav's cooperation. My favorite idea of Ronald Reagan is Star Wars, regardless of whether it was real and feasble it was the BEST IDEA to deal with the nuclear problem and I pray that one day that will be feasable, real, and in place to defend against all nuclear weapons.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 25 2005, 10:39 PM'] You probably meant post, but most of this thread is convoluted and tries to get out of the Ex-Cathedra Truth:


-Pope John XXIII, Pacem In Terris [/quote]
Ex Cathedra? What?

I hope you're not claiming there was an Ex Cathedra statement on this...there hasn't been.

[Q the Ninja]

I shall ask a simple question now.

Is there a way that you can do the same thing (destroy whatever) with less civilian causulties?


Yes - It's wrong to use nukes.
No - Um...I bet you should look harder.

[aloha918]

In no way do i support them.....one becasue of the destruction that they can do........and also one of their main draws is fear....which is not of God........plus if countries fire at other countries....there wouldn't be to much left in the world

has the church said if the nukes against Japan were "just"?

[popestpiusx]

I think the Vatican should start stockpiling nukes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 25 2005, 11:57 PM'] i didn't mean about reagan. I meant in general it was spun.

Reagan did stand up to them, yes but that didn't really aide in the downfall. They just stopped.

I also did not say that there were not heros, i was simply pointing out the american government wasn't quite so nice when it came to some stuff. In fact the opression was horrible. The us policies from that era are one of the reasons that we have to pay out so much in aide to other countries now.

The materialistic, sexual revolution society we live in today isn't that great either.

About reagan starting a holocaust. he might have under the right situations. Think about the thirteen days with the cuban missle stuff in the times of Kennedy, what would reagan have done there? (i don't really know much he did other than he didn't stop the military from assasinating people around the world.)

Now i prolly only really know one side of it but that is ok. I am willing to learn but i am not a us nationalist that thinks that there is nothing better than this country. Sometimes i wonder if i would rather live in an opressed society so i could hold on to what really matters instead of all of this junk.

As we talk about this, people still die around the world. [/quote]
Jezic, I beleive you have only been hearing one side of the story. The Left, including the "maionstream" media, has been consistantly sympathetic to Communism throughout the 20th century, and are still reluctant to admit that they were wrong. It's their gross misrepresentation of history that makes me angry.

While you may disagree, I would argue that Reagan was indeed a serious factor in bringing down the Soviet Union. True, he was not the sole factor, and did not bring it down single-handedlt, but did do his part. The Soviet Union would not have fallen so swiftly had it not been for Reagan's policies. The Left, having partisan bitterness towards Reagan, does not like to admit this.

Throughout its history, Communism has sought world domination. It wanted to spread an empire throughout the world, and in its heyday, half the world was under the control of Communist tyranny. This made it a unique and powerful threat. You have no personal memory of this. I do.
This was why Reagan gave aid to forces opposing the Communists. True, they were not often the best of people, but neither were the Communists. You must understand the history and nature of Communist expansion to understand its unique level of threat. The Soviet Union funded Communist insurrectionists around the world, just as Reagan funded their opponents.

War is never "nice." It's not a nice world. The Commies were certainly not "nice."! Ask anyone who's ever had to live in under Communist tyranny!
The U.S. was not "nice" when fighting the Nazis and Japanese in WWII.
This "Communists will be nice if we just be nice to them" is the stupidest load of liberal horse dung!

Your assertion that Reagan might have started a nuclear holocaust is baseless and meaningless. Only a monster or madman would do such a thing. It would be utterly contrary to Reagan's character. He was not the monster the Left made him out to be.

If you really think you'd be better off in a repressed or Communist country, go move to one! Otherwise, cut out such foolish and nonsensical talk! (Yeah, I'd like to be sent to the Gulag! I'm packing my bags right now.)

I guarantee, if you knew half the history of Communism, you would not be taking this way at all!

[popestpiusx]

I went to Reagan's wake. That has nothing to do with the discussion. Just thought I'd toss it out there.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jan 26 2005, 05:47 AM'] Ex Cathedra? What?

I hope you're not claiming there was an Ex Cathedra statement on this...there hasn't been. [/quote]
I QUOTED the Encyclical that talks about Nuclear Weapons. What the heck are you talking about?

[Q the Ninja]

Ex Cathedra statements are not synonymous with the Papal encyclicals. Though to these encyclicals, where faith and morals are presented, we owe an ascent of mind and will, they are not infallible. Ex Cathedra is an infallible definition, which has been used twice in the history of the Catholic Church.