Militarisation

[Era Might]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1573162' date='Jun 16 2008, 07:49 PM']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)[/quote]
As far as I know, soldiers do not need to confess killing in a just war, as long as they have killed justly. A soldier can kill unjustly even in a just war, and if he has done so, he must confess that sin. But generally speaking, when a soldier honorably kills an enemy combatant in a just war, he is not guilty of committing a sin against the fifth commandment.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572707' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:01 AM']A world where North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not would be a very scary place.[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572730' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:12 AM']The point of nuclear deterrents is to make war impossible, and during the cold war era it brought about a relative level of peace because both sides feared the power of the other.[/quote]


[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1573093' date='Jun 16 2008, 05:51 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.

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.[/quote]
I agree with all the above.

While it is regrettable that nuclear arms exist, the reality is that they do, and deterrence is the only realistic way to deal with this reality.
The reality is also that the world is not a nice little place ruled entirely by nice, peaceful, trustworthy little people.

If the US got rid of all her nukes, that would not cause the "bad guys" to follow suit, and start getting rid of theirs. And even if they said they would, we could not trust that they are being trustful.
Getting rid of our nukes would simply give the "bad guys" the upper hand.

During the cold war, the arms race between the US and the Soviets was one of the things that helped us win the Cold War in a comparatively bloodless fashion, without the mass-slaughter of the two world wars. The Soviets could not keep up with the US and were bankrupted.
While the bleeding hearts howled about how Reagan would destroy the world with nukes, or provoke the Soviets into a nuclear attack, nothing of the sort happened. Not even the Commies would be stupid enough to launch an attack which would result in their own destruction.
If the US had disarmed, the Soviets would not suddenly turn nice and benevolent, but would be given a huge upper hand in their bloody struggle for world domination. The U.S. would have been deterred from any actions against the Soviets, but not vise-versa.

While talk of us getting rid of "immoral" nukes, and this leading to world peace and happiness and fluffy bunnies and butterflies may be a very nice, pretty bleeding-heart fantasy, it unfortunately refuses to face the brutal reality of global power politics.

[CatherineM]

I agree with you there. There has been a lot of war and suffering in the last 60 years since the last bomb was dropped. So getting rid of the nukes probably would have led to more war, not less.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1572742' date='Jun 16 2008, 10:24 AM']The question is not whether nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but whether they are moral to use. If not, then a nation is threatening another nation with something immoral, which is a sin.[/quote]
The question is about deterrents, and weakness is the surest way to bring about conflict. The Byzantine Empire did not fall because it was strong; instead, it fell because it had been weakened by the traitorous disaster known as the Fourth Crusade.

I grew up in the cold war, and I am happy that the U.S. had nuclear weapons then, and I continue to support the maintenance of our nuclear arsenal.

[kujo]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572916' date='Jun 16 2008, 04:35 PM']Ok, Kujo that is a rather stupid Question.[/quote]

So, instead of answering my question, you insult me?

Lame.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1574718' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:07 PM']So, instead of answering my question, you insult me?

Lame.[/quote]

I wouldn't worry about it, perhaps he meant the question and not you yourself.

Nuclear weapons would be immoral since they can not target the military alone, but also the civilians and thousands and thousands of them.

[KnightofChrist]

Not that I believe the question to be stupid... I do not.

[Justin86]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1574842' date='Jun 18 2008, 01:59 PM']Nuclear weapons would be immoral since they can not target the military alone, but also the civilians and thousands and thousands of them.[/quote]
Depends on who you ask. The US military has done some research, and with some success, into what are called "tactical nukes". Basically they would contain the fallout to a much smaller radius, like maybe a building or an enemy base. To my knowledge they've never been used in combat.

[Galloglasses]

Btw Kujo, I wasn't insulting you there. I just meant that its obvious Nukes are immoral as inocent deaths by the thousand are next to impossible to avoid when using them.

Tactical Nukes are much more moral, but still capable of irreparable harm to, say, nearby farms.

[CatherineM]

Nukes aren't the only thing that can kill civilians in a war. I'm sure the people killed in Dresden didn't know the difference between dying by nuclear explosion, or just a whole bunch of regular ones and the resulting firestorm. One of my mom's best friends was a Japanese war bride brought home during Korea. She said as a child, she was shown how to use a grenade and climb under advancing tanks so that when the invasion of the home islands began, she could die honorably. Dropping the bombs probably also saved her life.

I think it is extreme arrogance to say that one type of bomb is better than another, and that a soldier's life is okay to lose, but a civilian's isn't. War is war, it is always ugly, no matter if we follow the "rules" or not. My dad was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for sinking a German U-Boat that was firing on a troop carrier. He told me once that he shouldn't have been given a medal for killing. I doubt the men on the ships would agree.

Clausewitz in his work, "On War" explains that the casualties you suffer is in direct proportion to the length of time you allow an enemy to prepare. In "The Art of War" Sun Tzu, says that winning a hundred battles doesn't make you the most skillful. The most skillful warrior, seizes the enemy without fighting. That is the Cold War in a nut shell.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1575111' date='Jun 19 2008, 03:19 AM']Btw Kujo, I wasn't insulting you there. I just meant that its obvious Nukes are immoral as inocent deaths by the thousand are next to impossible to avoid when using them.

Tactical Nukes are much more moral, but still capable of irreparable harm to, say, nearby farms.[/quote]
Any and every bomb could be said to cause "irreparable harm" to nearby areas.

[Galloglasses]

Not really, a fuel air bomb, the most powerful bomb short of a nuke, burns everything to ashes in seconds. The damaged land can be turned into farmland with help in the space of a year. Nuclear radiation, not so much.

[CatherineM]

Maybe, but dead people don't farm.

[Galloglasses]

The people in the nearby village won't pass up the oppurtunity to sell or claim free land... Or the Government for that matter.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1577995' date='Jun 21 2008, 10:35 AM']The people in the nearby village won't pass up the oppurtunity to sell or claim free land... Or the Government for that matter.[/quote]
So you could care less about the deaths and only about the productivity of the land afterwords?

No offense, but that sounds pretty Marxist to me.