Militarisation

[Galloglasses]

After seeing Russia display its military might on Red Square to drum up National Pride, (something which I can appreciate and respect, since I admire military men and being a Nationalist I can appreciate wanting the people to be proud of a country and the importance of such pride), I wonder....

Militarisation, (the increase of military or just the increased investiment of it), is it a fundamental evil or is it good? Provided that the militarisation is not geared for conquest or subjegation of the people. But just militarisation as an event. What does the CHurch say of it? What do you say of it?

(Russia is just an example, not the case of the topic)

[CatherineM]

The Swiss Guard are proud of their uniforms and training.

[Galloglasses]

Militarisation is not the same as having a military.

[Justin86]

I'm no moral theologian, but I would imagine the Church would consider "militarization" as you call it, morally neutral. To me it sounds more like the intention behind the militarization that would make it good or evil.

[Era Might]

See here for a disclaimer about my posts in this thread:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=81490&view=findpost&p=1572896"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1572896[/url]




[quote]Humanity today is unfortunately experiencing great division and sharp conflicts which cast dark shadows on its future. Vast areas of the world are caught up in situations of increasing tension, while the danger of an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons causes well-founded apprehension in every responsible person. Many civil wars are still being fought in Africa, even though a number of countries there have made progress on the road to freedom and democracy. The Middle East is still a theatre of conflict and violence, which also affects neighbouring nations and regions and risks drawing them into the spiral of violence. On a broader scale, one must acknowledge with regret the growing number of States engaged in the arms race: even some developing nations allot a significant portion of their scant domestic product to the purchase of weapons. The responsibility for this baneful commerce is not limited: the countries of the industrially developed world profit immensely from the sale of arms, while the ruling oligarchies in many poor countries wish to reinforce their stronghold by acquiring ever more sophisticated weaponry. [b]In difficult times such as these, it is truly necessary for all persons of good will to come together to reach concrete agreements aimed at an effective demilitarization,[/b] especially in the area of nuclear arms. At a time when the process of nuclear non-proliferation is at a stand-still, I feel bound to entreat those in authority to resume with greater determination negotiations for a progressive and mutually agreed dismantling of existing nuclear weapons. In renewing this appeal, I know that I am echoing the desire of all those concerned for the future of humanity.

--Pope Benedict XVI, 2008 "Message for the World Day of Peace"[/quote]
I think one moral objection to "militarisation" as you describe it is that it leads to an atmosphere of fear and competition. If a nation builds up its military without any moderation, then other nations will take that as a threat, and will build up their own militaries. It becomes an endless competition, which makes true peace impossible.

Also, the Church teaches that the moral law still applies in military defense. For example, "every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" (CCC #2314). But militarisation (in the sense of building up military might just for the sake of having as much might as possible) leads to an unlimited acquisition of greater weapons, both in number and in destructive capability. If a nation is acquiring weapons which could not possibly be used without indiscriminate destruction, why are those weapons being acquired in the first place? I think it could be compared to a "near occasion of sin." Whether or not the nation has any intention of using those weapons, the fact that they have been acquired leaves open the possibility that the weapons could be used. In that context, I think militarisation is an implicit statement by a nation that it is willing to do anything to defend itself, whereas the Church teaches that we are bound to the moral law even in war.

[Galloglasses]

So militarisation to build up one's own military for the sake of being the alpha male in the playground is bad? But if say, faced with such a situation, another country built up its military against a perceived threat, would this second nation be in the wrong if the first one is?

[Justin86]

Personally, I think disarming nuclear weapons is something unatainable whether we like it or not. You're just not going to get every country in the world to agree to do that, and yes, in order for it to happen [i]all[/i] the countries possessing them would have to do it at the same time.

[Galloglasses]

Which could not happen without a third Superpower who does not have nukes could supervise it. (Like Superman)

[Justin86]

[CatherineM]

I'm willing to watch over the nukes. Do you think they would fit in the parking lot behind my condo?

[Galloglasses]

Depends on whether or not we use the grass powered Shrink ray.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1571657' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:13 AM']So militarisation to build up one's own military for the sake of being the alpha male in the playground is bad? But if say, faced with such a situation, another country built up its military against a perceived threat, would this second nation be in the wrong if the first one is?[/quote]
Sovereign nations, like individuals, have a right to self-defense.
The reality is that this involves having a strong military. If a country's military is weak, it will make that country vulnerable to invasion or domination by countries with stronger militaries.

As others have noted, "militarization" in itself (in the sense of building up one's military) is morally neutral - it's actual military actions that are moral or immoral.

"To secure peace is to prepare for war."

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1572381' date='Jun 15 2008, 11:22 PM']As others have noted, "militarization" in itself (in the sense of building up one's military) is morally neutral - it's actual military actions that are moral or immoral.[/quote]
Maybe Galloglasses can clarify, but I don't think the subject of this thread is just building up a military, but building up a military with no moderation.

To use an analogy, it is one thing if your neighbor has a gun in his home which he owns legally, and which he has for self-protection. But if your neighbor has three bombs in his basement, that is a different matter entirely. It doesn't matter whether or not he intends to use them, there is no justification for him to have such a threat.

The military is limited in the force it may use. That is, it is limited by the moral law. So the military should not build its might up beyond what would be just to actually use.

[CatherineM]

At what point does a defensive militarization become an offensive one?

[Galloglasses]

When war breaks out and offense becomes the best defense.