Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons
#41
(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. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons - by epalinurus - 07-01-2009, 11:15 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)