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?
I suppose that depends upon the size of the weapon. Big does not necessitate being out of control.
We know from several areas of Prophecy
that there shall be extremely serious warring before our Lord Returns
“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
A weapon any weapon should exist in order to defend oneself either personally or as a nation.
Any weapon used to conduct an offense against another nation is typically considered immoral.
The way nuclear weapons were considered back in the days of the cold war was that they assured the “enemy” mutual destruction therefore their use would have been absurd.
Theaters of war do change as well as circumstances. As well as the weapons themselves.
The bombs used in WWII have zero equivalent to today’s arsenals.
There could be a scenario in the future when a nuclear warhead was warranted, we don’t know. but… The question is
Should we unilaterally disarm?
Unfortunately and as we see, a few countries are still in a race to build a bomb.
Things to ponder.
The question is
Should we unilaterally disarm?
Yes. The reason being that this would be the only way to avoid the unprecedented catastrophe of a global nuclear war. So, whatever the negative consequences of such a disarmament might be, they would still be much less than that.
This question haunted President Truman about dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had he not done so to finally end World War II in the Pacific, that war could have drawn on and on for many more years, killing many more thousands, even millions of young people on both sides, and we might not have been victorious. The Japanese weren’t going to surrender any other way. We might still be fighting them today if Truman hadn’t ended it once and for all.
As horrific as the outcome was for the populations of those cities, not having done so could have been much more horrific in the long run, for everyone concerned. Sometimes, we find ourselves in a corner where the only choices we have are terrible choices, and all we can do is choose the least terrible of them all.
That said, today’s nuclear technology could very well wipe out the entire human race, and I don’t think any power on earth is willing to do that when it comes right down to it, as it would mean their own annihilation, as well. Some put on blustery shows to frighten and intimidate their enemies, but if push came to shove, I doubt anyone would really go through with it.
I could be wrong, and if proven so, it won’t matter to any of us, anymore.
In WW II the USA was under no obligation to invade Japan. Instead, Russia was obliged, by agreement, to declare war against Japan three months after Germany’s surrender, and she did so. As discussed in the referenced articles by the initiator of this thread, the Japanese leaders were not expecting a Russian attack which came as a severe shock. They knew that they could not defend on two fronts and, therefore, wanted a negotiated surrender to the USA rather than Russia with the condition that the Emperor be immune from prosecution. Truman knew this but did not want to give the impression of offering terms to Japan for his own political reasons. So he ordered the atomic bombings in the hope of forcing an unconditional surrender. When that action did not result in an immediate surrender by Japan, Truman sent a message which he knew would be interpreted by the Japanese leaders as offering immunity to Hirohito. That is when the Emperor finally ordered Japan to surrender. He threw his generals under the bus while saving his own skin.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.