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, 04:38 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.


This whole scenario you paint, should the US have no nuclear deterent, is the reason the US needs a nuclear deterent. 

It takes a special kind of naivte to hope that unilateral US disarmament will magically forestall such evil in the future.  Such a view is based on a childish view of evil and of man. 

It also is folly to think that God does not intend that people defend themselves.  God intends man to live free.  Christ's message was one of peace, but it was NOT essentially a political message.  This is why the Church has never embraced a teaching of pacifism.       

Absent a nuclear US, how long before a nuke-armed North Korea attacks South Korea?  How long before Iran attacks Israel?  How long before the Russians attack Georgia?  Even assuming no attack on the US, is such a world a better or a less safe place?  I do not want to disarm and just hope that enemies will not harm us or other countries. 

Neither you nor the cardinal can quarrel with the fact that a US nuclear capability has secured the nuclear peace.  Again, it is naivte to believe that in the bloodiest, most avaricious century in human history, no nation would have attempted to harm the countries of western Europe or the US or parts of Asia had the US not maintained its nuclear arsenal.  Certain countries (USSR, China, some Arab nations, eg.) were plenty aggressive --though short of nuclear force -- the way it was.

Keeping in mind a US military history far different from (far less aggressive than) the belligerent countries seeking or possessing nuclear capability, you cannot equate US possession of nuclear arms with North Korean or Iranian possession of nuclear arms, because their purposes in possessing them is far different from the US's.   Certain countries have certain goals, and they are not all equally evil or peaceful. 

As someone wrote a long time, there is a difference between a guy pushing an old lady in front of a bus and a guy pushing an old lady out of the way of a bus.  Both guys are not simply pushing old ladies around. 
There you have it.  God wants us to have nuclear weapons.  I wondered when that argument would be made.

Your old lady, guy, and bus analogy may seem apt, but you left out one part.  That is where, before pushing, the guy asks the old lady, "What are you going to do for me?"  That is the modus operandi of the US government.
(07-01-2009, 12:34 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]There you have it.  God wants us to have nuclear weapons.  I wondered when that argument would be made.

Your old lady, guy, and bus analogy may seem apt, but you left out one part.  That is where, before pushing, the guy asks the old lady, "What are you going to do for me?"  That is the modus operandi of the US government.


I didn't realize our help to the French and British during the war (and our rebuilding of Germany and Italy and Japan, to name three) was conditional.  Total nonsense.  Your anti-Americanism is blinding you. 

Ok, you're right.  God wants us to be slaves.  For His greater glory.....
The Japanese weren't going to surrender but were prepared to sacrifice every man, woman and child for a five foot emperor. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target. Places like Kobe and Kyoto were. The pilot was running out of fuel and was in the midst of extreme cloud cover. He made a decision.
(07-01-2009, 12:42 PM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't realize our help to the French and British during the war (and our rebuilding of Germany and Italy and Japan, to name three) was conditional.  Total nonsense.  Your anti-Americanism is blinding you. 

Ok, you're right.  God wants us to be slaves.  For His greater glory.....

There are many things you do not realize, or more likely, do not want to realize.  Your worship of the god of American exceptionalism is blinding you.
(07-01-2009, 01:38 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2009, 12:42 PM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't realize our help to the French and British during the war (and our rebuilding of Germany and Italy and Japan, to name three) was conditional.  Total nonsense.  Your anti-Americanism is blinding you. 

Ok, you're right.  God wants us to be slaves.  For His greater glory.....

There are many things you do not realize, or more likely, do not want to realize.  Your worship of the god of American exceptionalism is blinding you.


Perhaps you're right.  For one thing, I didn't realize there were so many rabid anti-Americans living in tyranny-embracing self-delusion.
(07-01-2009, 01:21 PM)OKinyobe Wrote: [ -> ]The Japanese weren't going to surrender but were prepared to sacrifice every man, woman and child for a five foot emperor. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target. Places like Kobe and Kyoto were. The pilot was running out of fuel and was in the midst of extreme cloud cover. He made a decision.

That is only partly correct.  Nagasaki was a secondary target to Kokura.  Kyoto was considered as a target but was spared because Henry Stimson argued against it because of its significance to him.  Kobe was never on the list, as far as I know.  The pilot followed the mission plan; he was not shooting from the hip.  Nagasaki was a preplanned target depending on weather.
(07-01-2009, 01:42 PM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2009, 01:38 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]There are many things you do not realize, or more likely, do not want to realize.  Your worship of the god of American exceptionalism is blinding you.

Perhaps you're right.  For one thing, I didn't realize there were so many rabid anti-Americans living in tyranny-embracing self-delusion.

Of course I am right. Thank you for admitting it.  :)  I would also like to say that you have a gift for the argumentum ad hominem, which does not reinforce your position.  It will, however, probably gain you some fishies.  I congratulate you.
(07-01-2009, 01:53 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2009, 01:42 PM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2009, 01:38 PM)Anthem Wrote: [ -> ]There are many things you do not realize, or more likely, do not want to realize.  Your worship of the god of American exceptionalism is blinding you.

Perhaps you're right.  For one thing, I didn't realize there were so many rabid anti-Americans living in tyranny-embracing self-delusion.

Of course I am right. Thank you for admitting it.  :)  I would also like to say that you have a gift for the argumentum ad hominem, which does not reinforce your position.  It will, however, probably gain you some fishies.  I congratulate you.



Ad hominem -- that's funny.  Coming from the one who caricatures America as a completely self-serving and monochromatic, evil nation, and accused me of "worshipping the god of American exceptionalism", no less. 

On the other hand, you've pretty clearly argued it was better to unilaterally disarm (and thus submit to slavery) than to oppose tyranny through the possession of nuclear weapons.  I can't "ad hominize" that any worse than it is on its face. 

(06-30-2009, 04:45 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]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.

FYI, Admiral Leahy and Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower all disagreed with Truman on the use of the bomb and condemned it as barbarous and immoral.  MacArthur was not even consulted, although he was the commander of the southwest Pacific theater.  All three also believed that Japan was ready to surrender, and Leahy said the bomb "was of no material assistance" in the war against Japan, especially if we were willing to drop the provision of unconditional surrender which threatened the institution of the emperor.

The use of the bomb was indeed a purely political move employed by one of the worst US presidents in history, Harry Truman, who, by the way, had one of worst approval ratings in history yet is now glorified as one of the greatest presidents by official state historians.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7