FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hmmmm I do see a problem: U.S. production of cheese will cease to exist with out Wisconsin and with Kentucky boiled away KFC will be destroyed... perhaps nuclear war is over-rated after all.
(06-30-2009, 02:06 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 01:50 PM)OKinyobe Wrote: [ -> ]When I was last in Nagasaki, I was asked by a teen-aged girl to sign a petition calling for the ban of nuclear weapons. I could not sign it. She looked disappointed. It was not my intention to disappoint her but it was immaterial if I signed it or not. You and I can agree that nuclear weapons are horrible and that killing is wrong but it doesn't matter because people like Kim Jong-Il or Ahmadinejad believe that killing is just a matter of course. The use of nuclear weapons has been used as a very frightening yet successful deterrent from the Cold War on. Yes, these weapons are frightening but Kim Jong-Il (and now Kim Jong-Un) doesn't care.
I don't think we have a choice when we have mad men with big bombs.

So-called "tactical" nuclear weapons are certainly no deterrent.  In reality, it is impossible to prove whether even strategic nuclear weapons acheived deterrence.  Certainly the US and USSR did not destroy one another since WWII, but we have fought numerous proxy wars instead.  If the US were to unilaterally disarm itself of offensive nuclear weapons what would be the result?  Immediate invasion by one or another country?  That is doubtful if we retained our conventional forces and maintained them within our own borders.  So would Russia or China "nuke" us if we did not have nuclear weapons ourselves?  Doubtful, for what would be the gain to Russia or China?  If we were not a threat to them, why would they attack us, especially with nuclear weapons?  They could threaten to do so, but if they attempted invasion we would repel them.  If they could not invade then they could nuke us, but what would be the point?  Who wants a nuked-out country? 

I believe we should disarm ourselves of offensive weapons and work on developing a workable missle defense system.  Bring our troops home and protect our own borders.

If the US had no nuclear weapons, Russia and China wouldn't need to "nuke" us, all they'd have to do would be to threaten to nuke us.  I can think of many things that Russia and China would want from the US and may very well get using nuclear blackmail. 

I will agree that the use of a nuclear weapon is almost always morally wrong since it indiscriminately targets civilian population, but we live in a world with walls and those walls have to be guarded by nuclear weapons.  I don't think merely possessing these weapons as a deterent is immoral and that is where I disagree with the Cardinal.
sip isp
It does make sense, as a moral argument, but how is complete nuclear disarmament by all nations to be achieved?  The USA demands that Iran does not pursue nuclear armament, yet Iran and all other nuclear free countries live under the threat of USA, Israeli, British, French, Indian, North Korean, Chinese, and Russian nuclear arms.  Unless all nuclear weapons programmes are consigned to the dustbin, Iran has no option but to develop its own nuclear deterrent to maintain a balance of mutually assured destruction.  The  tragic condition of total war on non-combatants is anti-life, totally immoral and evil.  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the biggest war-crime against non-combatants in history, with the possible exception of the allied bombing of Dresden, Germany.  

The Zionist development of atomic warfare was first tested on the areas of largest Catholic populations in Japan.  General MacArthur had received peace overtures of the offer of unconditional surrender by the Japanese High Command, a year previous to the dropping of the bomb.  His report was received by that poor excuse for an American President, Roosevelt, who completely ignored the report,  in order to allow the plan to drop the bomb to progress unhindered.  It has even been suggested, that the primary purpose of the display of explosive power was in order to force Stalin back on the program of internationalism, as he had adopted a policy of Bonapartism after he had utilised the opportunity to seize complete power during Trotsky's bout of ill-health.  Trotsky was to step into Lenin's shoes and Stalin's action had effectively bit the hand that fed him, Wall Street Zionism and the Communist cell that operated in the corridors of power in Washington.  Senator Joe McCarthy had their measure, and that is the real reason he has never ceased to be maligned by his enemies who control major media outlets including Hollywood.  RIP Senator McCarthy.
(06-30-2009, 02:20 PM)Tobri Wrote: [ -> ]i say nuke the bastards to hell! i have no problem: look I am in safe zone if a nuclear holocaust happened.

[Image: aacont2.jpg]

also as i proved in another thread, restoration of Catholic monarchy is only reasonably plausible after a massive nuclear holocaust. therefore we, as catholics, we need nuclear weapons to usher in a new age of monarchy! it will be glorious!



to see if you will live during a nuclear war:
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/list.htm

How absurd!  That sounds like the rant of a mad Protestant neocon.  I live two miles away from the stockpile of nuclear weapons the the English Parliament imposed on Scotland.  If they love the bomb so much the should have stuck it up their Thames.
Absurd.  Yes.
(06-30-2009, 02:26 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]If the US had no nuclear weapons, Russia and China wouldn't need to "nuke" us, all they'd have to do would be to threaten to nuke us.  I can think of many things that Russia and China would want from the US and may very well get using nuclear blackmail. 

I will agree that the use of a nuclear weapon is almost always morally wrong since it indiscriminately targets civilian population, but we live in a world with walls and those walls have to be guarded by nuclear weapons.  I don't think merely possessing these weapons as a deterent is immoral and that is where I disagree with the Cardinal.

So, DrBombay, Putin would be like "Hey Obama, give me all your grain/oil/timber or I'm going to nuke your country into a sheet of glass"?  Thank goodness Putin would then realize, "Hmm..if I nuke them, they probably won't be producing much grain/oil/timber anymore.  Perhaps I should just invade.  But wait, we would get slaughtered."
(06-30-2009, 02:58 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 02:26 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]If the US had no nuclear weapons, Russia and China wouldn't need to "nuke" us, all they'd have to do would be to threaten to nuke us.  I can think of many things that Russia and China would want from the US and may very well get using nuclear blackmail. 

I will agree that the use of a nuclear weapon is almost always morally wrong since it indiscriminately targets civilian population, but we live in a world with walls and those walls have to be guarded by nuclear weapons.  I don't think merely possessing these weapons as a deterent is immoral and that is where I disagree with the Cardinal.

So, DrBombay, Putin would be like "Hey Obama, give me all your grain/oil/timber or I'm going to nuke your country into a sheet of glass"?  Thank goodness Putin would then realize, "Hmm..if I nuke them, they probably won't be producing much grain/oil/timber anymore.  Perhaps I should just invade.  But wait, we would get slaughtered."

Putin doesn't strike me as someone who makes idle threats. If he threatens to nuke us and we don't have the weapons to respond, he will

I can't believe your naivete.
Um, excuse me, Dr. Bombay, when have Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran proven themselves to be democratic nations whose driving purpose it is to better the lives of their citizens?
When I lived in South Korea, I had the opportunity to talk to an American serviceman who described a potential attack from Chinese-backed North Korea like this:

the American base closest to the DMZ would be obliterated. Seoul, with a population of ten million people (not counting the tourists and migrant workers), would be completely destroyed within an hour. The US reponse would be, as it was during the Korean War, to withdraw. North Korea would continue on until it got to Busan, a port city in the south. Within a few days, Chinese-backed North Korea would have complete control over the Korean peninsula. China and Russia would squeeze the vassal state of North Korea out and divvy up South Korea and its waters. Japan, long an enemy of Korea (now, not so), would be nuked. Completely. If you though the bombing of Nagasaki was bad (however necessary at the time), how would mass destruction of the Japanese landmass and population be?

People like Putin aren't trusted by many for a good reason. It is naive to think one can talk to him or that he is really a nice fellow. There is simply no evidence to suggest it.
(06-30-2009, 03:13 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Putin doesn't strike me as someone who makes idle threats. If he threatens to nuke us and we don't have the weapons to respond, he will

I can't believe your naivete.

You laid out the scenario.  Let's recap:

US unilaterally disarms.
Russia (or China) tries to use nuclear blackmail to get "our stuff".  I assumed you meant this wasn't an idle threat.

How do they do it?

I proposed a likely scenario.  If we have no nuclear weapons, why should they need to nuke us?  Why would they want to nuke us?  If they nuke us, then what do they have left?  I suppose they could devise a plan for limited nuclear carnage, just destroying major cities but leaving the resources behind.  However, how would they exploit those resources?  We would presumably still have our conventional military intact, at least major components of it.  Russia would still have to invade and fight a ground war against what I suspect would be a very angry population with lots of guns.

On the other hand, if they dumped all their warheads on us, I doubt there would be any of "our stuff" left.  They would have to dump it all on us to inactivate our military.  Russia knows what Chernobyl was like and they certainly don't want a whole country in that looks like Chernobyl. 

I still don't see what Russia would gain by nuking us.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7