Militarisation

[Era Might]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572693' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:44 AM']Problems with this occur when your neighbors who in no way like you all have the the gun that can destroy the world with a single shot, or are currently in pursuit of acquiring it. What then are you to do?[/quote]
What justification do you have for possessing a weapon that can destroy the entire world? Are you going to threaten your neighbor with the weapon? You will be killing yourself, and everyone else, if you do use it. You have to find some other way to disarm your neighbor, some way which does not involve indiscriminate destruction of the innocent.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572694' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:45 AM']Nukes=Superpowers, not militarisation.[/quote]
I wouldn't quite make it that simple, but I do agree that having nukes is one requirement of superpower.

[Apotheoun]

I just hope that the U.S. never has a statesman like Prime Minister Chamberlain, who thought that a piece of paper signed by a fascist dictator would really create a peaceful world.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572695' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:47 AM']What justification do you have for possessing a weapon that can destroy the entire world? Are you going to threaten your neighbor with the weapon? You will be killing yourself, and everyone else, if you do use it. You have to find some other way to disarm your neighbor.[/quote]
It appears we have reached a fallacy in our analogy. Nuclear weapons weren't orginally created to destroy the world, more like cities. As a matter of fact the only reason why if there ever was a nuclear war there would be global annilation is because they are currently all set to go off if one of them does. A single nuclear missle cannot destroy the world.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572698' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:49 AM']I just hope that the U.S. never has a statesman like Prime Minister Chamberlain, who thought that a piece of paper signed by a fascist dictator would really create a peaceful world.[/quote]
Sadly, it seems Chamberlain is getting some popularity thdse days. He was anti-war and clearly that's what we need.

[Era Might]

My example of a weapon that could destroy the world in one shot was not meant to be a nuclear weapon, but a hypothetical weapon that illustrates why a nation must limit its might.

But I also believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, because they cannot be used without "indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants."

[quote]"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.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2314[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572703' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:57 AM']My example of a weapon that could destroy the world in one shot was not meant to be a nuclear weapon, but a hypothetical weapon that illustrates why a nation must limit its might.

But I also believe nuclear weapons are immoral, because they cannot be used without "indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants."[/quote]
I apologize for taking the anaolgy too seriously. However the question I was eluding to was not answered: What about countires building up thier nulcear arms because they see their enemies doing the same? Why would it be a wise move for them to risk losing their cities?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572707' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:01 PM']A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.[/quote]
Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?

[Justin86]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572707' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:01 AM']A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.[/quote]
I just hope somebody does something about Iran before it's too late. Maybe Israel will step up to the plate and do something. I couldn't see Bush or Obama doing anything about them. [i]Maybe[/i] McCain, assuming that wasn't just one of those empty campaign promises we hear so much about.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572709' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:01 PM']What about countires building up thier nulcear arms because they see their enemies doing the same? Why would it be a wise move for them to risk losing their cities?[/quote]
Suppose someone did drop a nuclear bomb on an American city. Does that make it moral to drop a nuclear bomb on that nation's city? The Church condemns "every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants" (CCC #2314).

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572711' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:04 AM']Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?[/quote]
No, but because Iran and North Korea are more likely to shoot first.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572711' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:04 AM']Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?[/quote]
If our enemies have the power to take out our major cities the only way to deter that power would be the capabilty to do the same damage to them. It's not a pretty thing, but it is the truth.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572720' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:07 PM']If our enemies have the power to take out our major cities the only way to deter that power would be the capabilty to do the same damage to them. It's not a pretty thing, but it is the truth.[/quote]
So to save ourselves, we are willing to kill the innocent indiscriminately?

Suppose someone kidnapped an innocent family member of yours, and killed them. Does that make it moral to kidnap an innocent family member of the murderer, and kill them?

[Galloglasses]

No thats retaliation when there are other, more viable, more moral means of justice.

In nuclear war there isn't.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572724' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:09 PM']No thats retaliation when there are other, more viable, more moral means of justice.

In nuclear war there isn't.[/quote]
Killing the innocent indiscriminately is immoral. It doesn't matter if others are doing it, that doesn't make it moral for us to do it.

There are worse things than death. If we have to fight with immoral means, then we have to refuse. It is better for us to perish, than to sin.

[Apotheoun]

The point of nuclear deterrents is to make war impossible, and during the cold war era it brought about a relative level of peace because both sides feared the power of the other.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572722' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:08 AM']So to save ourselves, we are willing to kill the innocent indiscriminately?

Suppose someone kidnapped an innocent family member of yours, and killed them. Does that make it moral to kidnap an innocent family member of the murderer, and kill them?[/quote]
That's really not comparable to the situation since the family in question is already dead. We're talking about deterring someone from using annihilation from the beginning. You can't do that unless you are willing to offer equal force in return.

Basically, if we did want you say, we'd all be ruled by the person most wanting to take the world for his own. Is that really what you want? Are you actually prepared to deal with those consequences? Not to mention the blood of millions (possibly billions) that would be on your hands because you did nothing to stop this from happening?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572730' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:12 PM']The point of nuclear deterrents is to make war impossible, and during the cold war era it brought about a relative level of peace because both sides feared the power of the other.[/quote]
The question is not whether nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but whether they are moral to use. If not, then a nation is threatening another nation with something immoral, which is a sin.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572732' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:14 PM']That's really not comparable to the situation since the family in question is already dead. We're talking about deterring someone from using annihilation from the beginning. You can't do that unless you are willing to offer equal force in return.[/quote]
Even the threat of immoral action is immoral. For example, it would be immoral to even threaten to kill an innocent family member, even if you don't intend to do it.

[quote]Basically, if we did want you say, we'd all be ruled by the person most wanting to take the world for his own. Is that really what you want? Are you actually prepared to deal with those consequences? Not to mention the blood of millions (possibly billions) that would be on your hands because you did nothing to stop this from happening?[/quote]
The ends do not justify the means. If victory requires us to commit some immoral action, then we must be accept defeat/death.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572742' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:24 AM']The ends do not justify the means. If victory requires us to commit some immoral action, then we must be accept defeat/death.[/quote]
You seem way off here to me.