Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons
#12
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons - by DrBombay - 06-30-2009, 02:26 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)