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
(06-30-2009, 03:27 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Russia or China could take out every American carrier group with nuclear warheads.  That alone would be devastating to our military capability.  Add to those targets military bases, where they tend to have large groups of military personnel in a rather small area, and the damage grows.  Once that's accomplished, they wouldn't have to dump warheads on us.  Take out DC and New York and America would pretty much be brought to her knees.  Or, if you're the president, are you going to demand the sacrifice of more cities before you surrender?  Really?  Wow.

Or let's say we have no nuclear weapons but a militant Islamist state develops one.  Why should they nuke us?  Because we're infidels maybe? 
(06-30-2009, 03:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Russia or China could take out every American carrier group with nuclear warheads.  That alone would be devastating to our military capability.  Add to those targets military bases, where they tend to have large groups of military personnel in a rather small area, and the damage grows.  Once that's accomplished, they wouldn't have to dump warheads on us.  Take out DC and New York and America would pretty much be brought to her knees.  Or, if you're the president, are you going to demand the sacrifice of more cities before you surrender?  Really?  Wow.

Or let's say we have no nuclear weapons but a militant Islamist state develops one.  Why should they nuke us?  Because we're infidels maybe? 

You assume that we would deploy our troops and equipment exactly the same as we do now, if we were to get rid of nuclear weapons?  Why would we do that?  We would have to develop a totally different set of strategies. 

So an Islamic state develops a nuclear weapon.  They still have to deliver it.  You underestimate the ease of development of an accurate ICBM.  Perhaps they can get one off, but if we have focussed on energies on an anti-missle system, we could probably shoot it down.  Even if one hit us, it would not destroy us entirely. 

You seem to think that I imply the US ought to render itself defenseless if it also decides to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons.  I still say that Russia would still have to invade and conquer the US state by state, even if it chose to use a nuclear strike.  Not an easy process.  Russia couldn't even subdue Afghanistan with its mighty military.  Certainly they could subdue us by nuking every major city or every major military base, but I think you forget what a wasteland that would leave behind.
(06-30-2009, 04:06 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 03:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Russia or China could take out every American carrier group with nuclear warheads.  That alone would be devastating to our military capability.  Add to those targets military bases, where they tend to have large groups of military personnel in a rather small area, and the damage grows.  Once that's accomplished, they wouldn't have to dump warheads on us.  Take out DC and New York and America would pretty much be brought to her knees.  Or, if you're the president, are you going to demand the sacrifice of more cities before you surrender?  Really?  Wow.

Or let's say we have no nuclear weapons but a militant Islamist state develops one.  Why should they nuke us?  Because we're infidels maybe? 

You assume that we would deploy our troops and equipment exactly the same as we do now, if we were to get rid of nuclear weapons?  Why would we do that?  We would have to develop a totally different set of strategies. 

So an Islamic state develops a nuclear weapon.  They still have to deliver it.  You underestimate the ease of development of an accurate ICBM.  Perhaps they can get one off, but if we have focussed on energies on an anti-missle system, we could probably shoot it down.  Even if one hit us, it would not destroy us entirely. 

You seem to think that I imply the US ought to render itself defenseless if it also decides to unilaterally disarm itself of nuclear weapons.  I still say that Russia would still have to invade and conquer the US state by state, even if it chose to use a nuclear strike.  Not an easy process.  Russia couldn't even subdue Afghanistan with its mighty military.  Certainly they could subdue us by nuking every major city or every major military base, but I think you forget what a wasteland that would leave behind.

I think they could subdue us by nuking one city if we didn't have the capability to respond in kind.  One.  I ask again, if you were the president and one city was nuked with more threatened, would you surrender or not?  What would Obama do? 
anthem missile shields are rubbish. they are a pipe dream. do you really believe you can shoot down an incoming ICBM at entry with what? even the much hyped old patriot systems did not shoot down as much as the propaganda said and with conventional warheads sure there is some room for error but with a multiple warhead nuke the error would be "opps there goes new york and surrounding areas and d.c. et al but hey at least  they didn't destroy all of us." that kinda error cannot not be acceptable.
to put your nations safety in the hands of a defensive system is absurd because it cedes the initiative, and any defensive system can be beat. MADD makes more sense because then your nation cannot be attacked without consequences.
look japan was nuked into surrendering a city at a time. first Hiroshima then Nagasaki. that same precedent could happen to the states if ti disarmed.
think about it. the world is not a fantasy. its a harsh place.
anthem to bring up A-stan in this discussion is absurd again. your full of them. if the states had no nukes of any kind all an enemy would have to do is pick off American cities one by one. until America surrenders.
the soviets didn't do this to A-stan because of the deterrent. A-stan didn't have nukes but America did.
anyway the mere point were talking about ti shows the deterrent actually worked.
nukes are not immoral in themselves further maybe we should really address the real moral gut rot of society. nukes are not it. they are a red hearing, a convenient diversion

(06-30-2009, 04:12 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]I think they could subdue us by nuking one city if we didn't have the capability to respond in kind.  One.  I ask again, if you were the president and one city was nuked with more threatened, would you surrender or not?  What would Obama do? 

So your scenario is something like this:

Putin says, "Give us your stuff or we nuke you."
Obama says, "Bring it on."
Putin nukes DC.
Obama says, "Thank you sir.  May I have another?"
Putin nukes LA.
Obama says, "I surrender."

Then what does Russia do?  I mean, I guess they would have to come on over and occupy us.  Start flying their MiGs over our airspace?  I mean, it would be a major undertaking to deliver troops to occupy the entire US.  We had 130000 in Iraq and really never subdued them.  Even if we allowed Russia to just walk right in, it would take them a long time to occupy the entire country.  What is to prevent us from using our conventional forces on them when they arrive?  Then we would be back to the nuking situation.  Russia would logically have to start nuking more and more cities until finally nothing worthwhile was left.

If Russia launched any sort of nuclear strike against us they would have to go all out to make sure we were subdued.  In that event, as I said above, all our "stuff" would be gone.  There seems to be two main options, an extensive ground war to subdue the US and keep resources usable, or an all out nuclear attack which would leave notning intact. Now, if Russia really didn't give a rip about our resources, but just didn't like us, they could nuke us into a sheet of glass.  But if they didn't want our resources and we posed no threat to them in a nuclear sense, why nuke us at all?  This is why we don't invade Cuba.  We don't "like" them because they are communists but they don't have anything we want.  We don't "like" China, but they are our biggest trading partner so we pretend we don't notice they are communists.

Look at it another way:  If Russia or China didn't have nukes, but we wanted their resources, for whatever reason, would we nuke them or threaten to do so?  We would still have to go over and occupy them, and I don't think anyone believes the US military, regardless of it's current strength, is prepared to do that.


(06-30-2009, 04:23 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]anthem missile shields are rubbish. they are a pipe dream. do you really believe you can shoot down an incoming ICBM at entry with what? even the much hyped old patriot systems did not shoot down as much as the propaganda said and with conventional warheads sure there is some room for error but with a multiple warhead nuke the error would be "opps there goes new york and surrounding areas and d.c. et al but hey at least  they didn't destroy all of us." that kinda error cannot not be acceptable.
to put your nations safety in the hands of a defensive system is absurd because it cedes the initiative, and any defensive system can be beat. MADD makes more sense because then your nation cannot be attacked without consequences.
look japan was nuked into surrendering a city at a time. first Hiroshima then Nagasaki. that same precedent could happen to the states if ti disarmed.
think about it. the world is not a fantasy. its a harsh place.

We had already effectively defeated Japan by the time we nuked it.  You need to brush up on your history. We nuked Japan because we were flexing our muscles.  Even if we did think nuking them was the best option, it was not done so we could take them over.  We didn't take them over.  We ended up rebuilding them.  We would never have dropped multiple nukes on them if we really wanted their resources.
how id the us defeat japanese imperial forces in wwii? why did japan surrender? why did the Americans not invade the 5 main Japanese islands? are saying the scenario is impossible?
really?
why talk so dismissive of such devastating weapons? yes if America didn't have them what would stop a nation from using them against some cities in non supportive states or against cities as a value only target? there is more then one way to control a nation boots on the ground occupation is far down the list
well maybe i have to brush up on your revisionist history but until i do ill stick with the history i know and no i don't believe the evil Americans nuked japan for kicks or to flex its muscles.

but nukes worked. why give up a good thing while your enemy has them? this makes no sense in this world. and this world is the only one we have.
what makes you so certain America being nuked would only be about resources? big world out there America could get nuked for a variety of reasons the resources you keep on about is just one.
(06-30-2009, 04:28 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]anthem to bring up A-stan in this discussion is absurd again. your full of them. if the states had no nukes of any kind all an enemy would have to do is pick off American cities one by one. until America surrenders.

And then there would be no resources left for the taking.  Russia would still have to come occupy us.  The aftermath of widespread nuclear attacks would not be pretty and would leave little worth Russia's time and energy.  I maintain that Russia would not need to subdue us if we had no nukes that could threaten them.  If we have resources they want, they will have to attack us and take them by a ground war.

devotedknuckles Wrote:the soviets didn't do this to A-stan because of the deterrent. A-stan didn't have nukes but America did.
anyway the mere point were talking about ti shows the deterrent actually worked.
nukes are not immoral in themselves further maybe we should really address the real moral gut rot of society. nukes are not it. they are a red hearing, a convenient diversion

You mean the USSR didn't nuke Afghanistan because they were afraid we would nuke them?  The USSR didn't nuke Afghanistan because they wanted control over oil resources in central Asia.  They didn't want to leave a nuclear wasteland but just wanted to wrest control of the region from the Islamists.  If the USSR had nuked Afghanistan the US would have just said, "You idiots.  Glad you didn't decide to nuke Saudistan."  We would never have nuked the USSR over Afghanistan.

I never said that nuclear weapons were the source of the moral rot of society.  However, I cannot see how possessing and maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal is really making the US safer.  If you ask me, it makes us a Goliath just waiting for some little David to come along to try to knock us off.  Not that that would happen, but it makes us more of a target.  The biggest problem in our history has been our willingness to meddle in other countries' affairs.  It's obvious none of our foreign policy exploits have gained us more safety.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7