what this discussion boils down to is that one of us chooses to believe the Pope and Holy Scripture while the other chooses a modernist who has no understanding of YHWH’s plan for humanity
Rather I think it boils down to one who is uninformed as to Catholic morality and one who does understand the consistent and constant Traditional teaching of Scripture and the Magisterium.
If i am uninformed, then so is Pope Francis who has condemned the possession of nuclear weapons.
Not necessarily. The former is confirmed in your previous post.
The latter, still in development, remains to be seen:
In current conditions ‘deterrence’ based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order toensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." (Pope John Paul II, Message to U.N. Special Session on Disarmament, #8, June 1982.)
I leave you in peace.
With all due respect to John Paul II , his conditional acceptance of the MAD protocol has now been cancelled due to the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament. MAD has been condemned by the Vatican as a “negative peace” which is not based on Christian values. Scripture predicts that the continuation of the MAD system will lead to disaster.
St. JPII never accepted MAD. He accepted the morality of “deterrence” as an interim position toward a balanced reduction in nuclear armaments. The goal of nuclear weapon elimination and St. JPII’s judgement of the morality of deterrence has not "been cancelled due to the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament". Please stop posting your personal opinions as facts.
“The United States and Russia have over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. This fact alone calls for our nation to exercise global leadership for mutual, verifiable nuclear disarmament. The extension of New START Treaty with Russia would be a prudent next step” (USCCB Nov 25, 2019).
The U.S. and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on April 8, 2010, which was ratified by the Senate on a solid bipartisan vote of 71 to 26. The Holy See has “welcome[d] and recognize[d] the ongoing successful implementation of New START.” The New START Treaty: reduces deployed strategic warheads to 1550, 30 percent below the existing ceiling; limits both nations to no more than 700 delivery vehicles; and includes new verification requirements.
USCCB POSITION: The United States and other nuclear powers must move away from reliance on nuclear weapons for security. USCCB urges the Administration and Congress to view arms control treaties not as ends in themselves but as steps along the way to achieving a mutual, verifiable global ban on nuclear weapons.
The Church opposes the use of nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear threats. The U.S. should commit to never use nuclear weapons first and to reject use of nuclear weapons to deter non-nuclear threats. The Church urges that nuclear deterrence be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations. (USCCB Feb. 2018)
The Morality of God supersedes the “science” and “laws” of Man.
It is Man’s science which gave us Nukes
Nukes are an extension of fists, stones, clubs, spears, arrows and guns… to a point
Their quantitative difference as say per self-defense
would by necessity incur deaths and damages of innocents and their property
I have always considered this argument to be a false duality. Science is not anti-morality; the Church is not anti-science. There is no “superseding,” any more that the Ten Commandments supersedes the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins. It is nonsensical to me.
As you’re allowed to…
Meanwhile Physicsl, Maths, etc. gave us Weapons of Mass Destruction
And God’s Steady Law of Love supersedes man’s arbitrary changeable even disagreeable laws.
Yes of course you are right. Perhaps this “zeal-eyed moron” will say that he is using a couple of hydrogen bombs and a few atomic bombs to shorten the war and to save lives.
I would say No because it would involve killing too many innocent people.
The use of atomic weapons set a bad precedent.
Perhaps origination of this thread is aimed at exploring the circumstances in which a nuclear weapon might be justifiably used in removing a serious threat which could not be mitigated by conventional weaponry.
For instance Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities are tunneled inside of its mountains. Even the largest of conventional bombs may not be enough to eliminate them if it comes to that.
The danger in using a nuclear bomb for such a purpose lies in the precedent that it would set. If it is OK for the USA or for Israel to use a nuclear weapon in this way, then other countries might feel enabled to use their own nuclear weapons for a similar purpose. The use of weaponry in war tends to escalate, and an example of this is how the bombing of military targets at the start of WW II soon became the bombing of cities.
My conclusion is that under no circumstances may any nation resort to the use of a nuclear weapon.
How about chemical weaponry? What about weaponized viruses? I think the naming and banning of a particular weapon does not provide the principle necessary.
It seems the principle already in place serves us well: the use of any weapon in a just war that kills indiscriminately and disproportionately is immoral.
The difference is that nuclear weapons have the potential to exterminate the human race.
And the problem is that a “dial-down” smart nuclear bomb such as the B61-12 would not kill either “indiscriminately” or “disproportionately” when used in, say, an attack on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.
An attack of this kind is what Israel and the USA have both been threatening. But once this happens, then other nations (Pakistan, India, N. Korea) will feel that they too may use their own nukes in so-called “pre-emptive” strikes. As i have pointed out, the use of any type of weapon tends to escalate in a war. And that, i believe, is why the Prophet Jeremiah wrote:
See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the world.
America is talking about moving Nukes from Germany to Poland…
So far in this thread, the discussion has been the use of nuclear weapons in a just war, i.e., a defensive war. The moral issue regarding the use of any weapon in a preemptive strike is not part of this thread.
This is the opening line of this thread. “Just war” was not specified.
The use of any weapon in an unjust war is immoral.
Any future use of nukes would probably be Armageddon…
Immoral. Most definitely. Since it’s not a weapon you can control. It would mostly kill noncombatants.
Is this kinda like the death penalty?