Militarisation

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572462' date='Jun 16 2008, 01:16 PM']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.[/quote]
I don't think that's what Galloglasses was eluding to. All he said was a display of military might in Russia. I know that often includes nukes over there, but they have other weapons they show off too.

In either case I don't think me or Socrates were trying to argue that the ends justify the means. We were just pointing out that nations have the right to defend themselves from threats. Actually, I would rather this be done by showing off how our gun is bigger, so to speak than by an actual war. That is what I consider "militarization".

Edited June 16, 2008 by Justin86

[Era Might]

I agree that a nation has a right to defend itself. But an example of what I would consider unjust militarisation is if your weapon would be immoral to actually use, in which case you shouldn't possess it in the first place. For example, suppose you had a gun that could destroy the earth with one shot. Even if you did not intend to use the gun, it would be immoral to possess such a weapon and threaten others with it, because it would immoral to actually use it.

[Galloglasses]

Like nukes, but nukes don't define militarisation.

They define Superpowers. Even Kosovo could have nukes and bugger all military and be a Superpower.

I'm talking about conventional military might.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572683' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:35 AM']I agree that a nation has a right to defend itself. But an example of what I would consider unjust militarisation is if your weapon would be immoral to actually use, in which case you shouldn't possess it in the first place. For example, suppose you had a gun that could destroy the earth with one shot. Even if you did not intend to use the gun, it would be immoral to possess such a weapon and threaten others with it, because it would immoral to actually use.[/quote]
Problems with this occur when your neighbors who in no way like you all have the the gun that can destroy the world with a single shot, or are currently in pursuit of acquiring it. What then are you to do?

[Galloglasses]

Nukes=Superpowers, not militarisation.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572693' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:44 AM']Problems with this occur when your neighbors who in no way like you all have the the gun that can destroy the world with a single shot, or are currently in pursuit of acquiring it. What then are you to do?[/quote]
What justification do you have for possessing a weapon that can destroy the entire world? Are you going to threaten your neighbor with the weapon? You will be killing yourself, and everyone else, if you do use it. You have to find some other way to disarm your neighbor, some way which does not involve indiscriminate destruction of the innocent.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572694' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:45 AM']Nukes=Superpowers, not militarisation.[/quote]
I wouldn't quite make it that simple, but I do agree that having nukes is one requirement of superpower.

[Apotheoun]

I just hope that the U.S. never has a statesman like Prime Minister Chamberlain, who thought that a piece of paper signed by a fascist dictator would really create a peaceful world.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572695' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:47 AM']What justification do you have for possessing a weapon that can destroy the entire world? Are you going to threaten your neighbor with the weapon? You will be killing yourself, and everyone else, if you do use it. You have to find some other way to disarm your neighbor.[/quote]
It appears we have reached a fallacy in our analogy. Nuclear weapons weren't orginally created to destroy the world, more like cities. As a matter of fact the only reason why if there ever was a nuclear war there would be global annilation is because they are currently all set to go off if one of them does. A single nuclear missle cannot destroy the world.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572698' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:49 AM']I just hope that the U.S. never has a statesman like Prime Minister Chamberlain, who thought that a piece of paper signed by a fascist dictator would really create a peaceful world.[/quote]
Sadly, it seems Chamberlain is getting some popularity thdse days. He was anti-war and clearly that's what we need.

[Era Might]

My example of a weapon that could destroy the world in one shot was not meant to be a nuclear weapon, but a hypothetical weapon that illustrates why a nation must limit its might.

But I also believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, because they cannot be used without "indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants."

[quote]"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." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2314[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572703' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:57 AM']My example of a weapon that could destroy the world in one shot was not meant to be a nuclear weapon, but a hypothetical weapon that illustrates why a nation must limit its might.

But I also believe nuclear weapons are immoral, because they cannot be used without "indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants."[/quote]
I apologize for taking the anaolgy too seriously. However the question I was eluding to was not answered: What about countires building up thier nulcear arms because they see their enemies doing the same? Why would it be a wise move for them to risk losing their cities?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572707' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:01 PM']A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.[/quote]
Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?

[Justin86]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572707' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:01 AM']A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.[/quote]
I just hope somebody does something about Iran before it's too late. Maybe Israel will step up to the plate and do something. I couldn't see Bush or Obama doing anything about them. [i]Maybe[/i] McCain, assuming that wasn't just one of those empty campaign promises we hear so much about.