Militarisation

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572772' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:03 AM']A threat is a helluvalot more moral then allowing an action to take place through willing inaction.[/quote]
Exactly, the sin of omission.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1572759' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:48 PM']Why wouldn't it be?[/quote]
Possibly for a few reasons, but I think the main reason is because it is a form of scandal. The nation would be saying that it is willing to commit an immoral act, and so they would be saying that they are willing to sin. Even if they do not actually intend to sin, I think it would be a sin for them to even say that they are willing to sin. For example, it would have been immoral for the martyrs to say that they believed in false gods, even if they did not actually believe.

[quote]What can be said, too, about those governments which count on nuclear arms as a means of ensuring the security of their countries? Along with countless persons of good will, one can state that this point of view is not only baneful but also completely fallacious. In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all —whether those governments which openly or secretly possess nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them— agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament.

--Pope Benedict XVI, 2006 "Message for the World Day of Peace"[/quote]

[Galloglasses]

So the Just War Theory is meaningless?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572883' date='Jun 16 2008, 02:55 PM']So the Just War Theory is meaningless?[/quote]
Not at all. One of the principles of just war is that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" (CCC #2309).

[Era Might]

I found this from an address to the United Nations by Pope John Paul II in 1982:

[quote]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 to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_07061982_gen-assembly-onu_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...bly-onu_en.html[/url][/quote]
I am not a theologian or a Bishop, so I just want to make clear that my thoughts in this thread do not speak for the Church, although I think they are generally in line with the mind of the Church. But there may be moral nuances about the question of nuclear deterrance that I do not completely understand. I just wanted to issue a disclaimer, in case I have unintentionally not reflected the Church's teaching in any of my posts.

[Galloglasses]

We got confused when you were saying it was "better to commit no moral evil then to commit one to oppose another" Which sounded to us far too pacifistic. If an aggresser is aggressing, its your job to aggress back or at least stand tall and let the other guy know he's in for a fight if he tries something. Which is Kujo's point about arms racing. If they other guy is gaining nukes. YOU, or at least someone on your side of the fence MUST get Nukes too otherwise the first guy will just walk all over you and the rest of the world. What would the world be like if America didn't up the ante on the Arms race when gaining more nukes when Russia was? If America did as you say, did not commit a moral evil by possesing grossly immoral weapons, then an immoral nation would most definately not be afraid to tote those nukes around and boss the world about. Which is inherently worse then what America did by gaining more and more nukes. Eventually, the cold war came to a peaceful end. (Thank God)

[kujo]

Since when are nuclear weapons immoral?

[Galloglasses]

Ok, Kujo that is a rather stupid Question.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572908' date='Jun 16 2008, 03:28 PM']We got confused when you were saying it was "better to commit no moral evil then to commit one to oppose another" Which sounded to us far too pacifistic.[/quote]
I still stand by that. We may never do moral evil to achieve some good:

[quote]The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."

--Catechism of the Catholic Church #2312[/quote]
However, there may be some moral nuances to the question of nuclear deterrence which I am not adequately familiar with, so I do not want anyone to take my thoughts as the teaching of the Church.

Regarding the [i]use[/i] of nuclear weapons, and not just the possession of nuclear weapons, I don't see how a nuclear weapon could be used morally, because by its very nature it inflicts indiscriminate destruction.

[Galloglasses]

Then by your pacifistic notion the Just war theory holds no basis as killing is still an evil. Just a lesser evil then letting someone be killed.

A nuclear weapon can only be used morally as a deterrent. Threats are morally good when compared to actual violence. Some guy is threatening to blow you up, you threathen if he's going to blow you up, you're going to blow him up at the same time. This way Nuclear weapons can be used to ensure peace, (or at least assure non-violence via mutually assured destruction. The presence of a suicide button immediately makes everyone in the room Pray to God that no-one presses it)

Altough we can argue that the world would be a better place without nukes at all, but this is also argueable.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1573093' date='Jun 16 2008, 06:51 PM']Then by your pacifistic notion the Just war theory holds no basis as killing is still an evil. Just a lesser evil then letting someone be killed.[/quote]
Killing is not always a morally evil act. It can be a morally evil act, depending on the circumstances of the act, but it is not always a morally evil act (e.g., it is sometimes justified for self-defense).

[Galloglasses]

Its still a sin. And IS evil. Believe me, I understand fully what you mean by the circumstance, killing in self defense is no-where near as morally evil as killing in cold blood or at random. But its still an Evil. Just lesser evil then allowing someone to be killed by inaction. Evil prevails when Good Men do Nothing.

[Era Might]

[quote]One may never do evil so that good may result from it

--Catechism of the Catholic Church #1789[/quote]
When killing is morally justified (e.g., in certain cases of self-defense), then that act of killing is not a sin.

When killing is not morally justified, then that act of killing is a sin.

If all acts of killing were sinful, then it would be immoral to kill in any situation, because we may never commit any sin under any circumstance.

[Galloglasses]

So why do soldiers in battle still need to confess even though the only sin they've committed is Killing for a just cause? (In general, not a particular theatre)

[CatherineM]

My dad was training a unit to deploy to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan when the bombs were dropped. They were expecting so many casualties to invade Japan that they minted so many Purple Hearts, that the government didn't have to mint another one until very recently. They didn't have to mint a new one for Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Somalia, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, and for most of Iraq. The medals were still pristine, but some of the ribbons began to fall apart from age, and had to be replaced. I think it is easy for some people to double guess those who lived in a much different time and place, but as someone who might not be here had my father deployed to Japan, I'm okay with how the bombs were used.