The Use of Nuclear Weapons Is Inherently Evil

Thank you PCinA for continuing to demonstrate that your religion is really “the greater good.”

Agreed. Though I would throw in a caveat for conditions involving rerouting of asteroids or destruction of invading starcraft. :)

Trump might be meeting bluster with bluster but this seems to me a gross exaggeration:

“In light of all this, the fact that our sitting president enjoys an enthusiastic willingness to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately, “like the world has never seen,” is deeply troubling.”

Of course an anonymous quote from FB sheds mugh needed light on the issue:

“The most egregious—and, yes, extreme—was the fellow believer who proclaimed in a Facebook post that ‘Donald Trump is our salvation.’”

There may be willingness if needed if N. Korea acts on its threats. Still “enthusiastic?” I don’t think so. I think Galli has an enthusiastic willingness for exaggeration to prove his point.

I am not sure how the planned invasion of Japan during a planned but never realized invasion at the end of World War II is inherently a more ‘moral’ option than the deployment of ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’? Innocents - tens of thousands of them - would have been slaughtered.

I agree that Galli is exaggerating, and I also think that he’s reading more into a key phrase - “It certainly does not give the state “the authority to do whatever”—a most dangerous phrase if there ever were one—to quell the actions of evildoers” than might be merited.

There are some great sections in this article:

And further, “The thought of killing masses of helpless people who are themselves at the mercy of their own government is abhorrent. Only if there were no other way to prevent an even worse catastrophe could nuclear retaliation ever be justified.” The language is nuanced, but the point is clear: The use of nuclear weapons is, in extreme cases, morally just.

Others of us emphatically disagree: Under no circumstances would the use of nuclear arms be justified. Our reasons hinge on the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” and the indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons. Simply put, they end up killing a great many more civilians than combatants, and therefore, their use violates one cardinal principle of just war: proportionality.

and

This passage is plainly about Christians’ response to the governing authority they live under, and does not begin to address how one governing authority is to deal with other nations. In describing the role of government, Paul says that within their jurisdiction, governing authorities “bear the sword … to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Paul’s point is that Christians who fail to submit to their authorities shouldn’t be surprised if they have to pay some sort of price.

This passage is decidedly not about “taking out” corrupt foreign heads of state. It certainly does not give the state “the authority to do whatever”—a most dangerous phrase if there ever were one—to quell the actions of evildoers.

and

If pressed, these evangelical Christians would say they ultimately trust in God to protect the nation. And they would add that the current President is God’s anointed to do just that. But we have seen a fair amount of evidence to suggest that many evangelicals in the pews are confused about this. The most egregious—and, yes, extreme—was the fellow believer who proclaimed in a Facebook post that “Donald Trump is our salvation.”

None of us, on the left or right, escape the temptation to put our trust in a human leader to guide our nation into peace and justice. But the Bible warns us time and again about this sort of thing:

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in humans. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes. (Ps. 118:-8-9)

And this:

Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. (Ps. 146:3)

And this:

The Lord Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled)…,

Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils.Why hold them in esteem? (Is. 2:12, 22)

Yes, it is human beings, especially those in authority, who must take the practical steps to defend our nation. Yes, we need a strong military, with appropriate weapons to do just that. But we can never put our confidence in any leader or weapon (especially nuclear warheads).

But I am still unimpressed at the argument advanced here. Yes, nuclear weapons are a terrible thing. Yes, the ability to slaughter millions is within Trump’s grasp. Yes, the Bible does explicitly condemn the slaughter of the innocent. Yes, we should hope that the deployment of nukes is a very, very last option to be considered when everything has tried and failed.

But if the option is to allow a failed, personality cult driven state to develop nuclear weapons for blackmail and trade with other nations, including theocratic Iran, then I’m not sure that ‘strategic containment’ is the best course of action. I do think that pre-emptive strikes are an very dangerous option that should at least be considered with all due thought and carefulness. I especially think that it must be reasonably discussed considering that ‘containment’ has been ongoing since the ’90s and doesn’t seem to be working (to understate things a bit).

I’m familiar with the pragmatic arguments in favor, esp. with regard to Japan. But—and this may surprise a number of people here, for it did me as well—there is actually a strong and largely forgotten conservative tradition of rejecting the use of nuclear weapons as inhumane under any circumstances (see Russell Kirk on this, as well as many others).
At any rate, mass destruction of civilians is difficult to justify under nearly any iteration of just war theory, regardless of the presumed felicitous consequences.

I disagree with the reasoning that says it’s ok to kill some innocents as long as a bunch more bad guys are getting killed. Ultimately it comes down to a moral judgment in which our government has decided that another nation cannot be allowed to have the same weapons as us. They are “bad” and we are “good”. I simply do not think North Korea is in our jurisdiction.

Just War theory is very difficult, very slippery and is very disconnected from a proper context in a New Covenant time. Mohler discussed it yesterday. I should read more on it, but haven’t made time.

The entire theory is very difficult to put into context in a secular state, with a secular leader, who makes secular decisions from a secular worldview. Not really sure how it applies. Honestly, unless you’re in an Old Covenant context, I’m skeptical it really works beyond some vague, generic principles.

Big area to tackle, very difficult to apply.

I disagree with the reasoning that says it’s ok to kill some innocents as long as a bunch more bad guys are getting killed.

So how far are you willing to go with that, Josh P? The British killed innocents in the American Revolution. We killed innocents in the Spanish-American War and in the Civil War. The French, Russians, English, Japanese, and Italians killed innocents in World War II. As long as there has been fallen humans, there have been wars, and even in the OT God commanded the slaughter of the ‘innocent’ citizens (during the invasion by Joshua, for example).

I’m all in favor of keeping innocents out of war, but I also think that the idea of a war where the innocent avoid suffering is….excessively idealistic, to put it mildly.

If you’re going to go to war, people are going to get hurt and people are going to die. Even the innocent. The best we can do, short of allowing the enemy to dictate the ROEs, is try to minimize casualties…which everyone is trying to do anyway, with the exception of the DPRK and other nation-states that use their threats of war as blackmail. That’s been the lynchpin of DPRK strategy since Korea - that they will turn Seoul to a sea of fire. Conservative estimates put 25% of Seoul’s citizens as casualties or killed by chemical weapons alone, before we factor in regular artillery or nuclear arms.

I simply do not think North Korea is in our jurisdiction.

Fair enough - but when does a nation become our ‘jurisdiction’? They have threatened (nuclear) attacks on Japan, South Korea, Australia and US territories like Guam. They thumb their nose at international laws and non-proliferation agreements. They fund their country with the manufacture and sale of illegal drugs and weapons, including weapons of mass destruction (Biological/Chemical arms at a minimum). They kidnap and enslave the innocent - the truly innocent, mind you, not just their own people - and use them for all sorts of heinous activities. They are one of the worst nations in the world in their brutal barbaric treatment of prisoners.

At some point the civilized world has to stand up and say no. So when is that tipping point?

Just War theory is very difficult, very slippery and is very disconnected from a proper context in a New Covenant time.

Just war isn’t that complicated in theory; the difficulty is in knowing when to pull the trigger (no pun intended). But what in the world would it have to do with the New Covenant? The New Covenant, even if it were in effect now, is about the people of God. It isn’t about international relations.

We’re not in a theocratic state, that’s why Just War theory is very abstract. How can a secular society, with a secular government, with a secular worldview, even make correct determinations on what is “just” or not!? The very concept only works in a theocratic state, with an agreed-upon divine revelation which establishes moral benchmarks and precepts, and outlines the responsibilities and role of leaders. In the New Covenant, we have no theocracy (yet), and when the theocracy comes, everything will be just … :)

[Jay]

I disagree with the reasoning that says it’s ok to kill some innocents as long as a bunch more bad guys are getting killed.

So how far are you willing to go with that, Josh P? The British killed innocents in the American Revolution. We killed innocents in the Spanish-American War and in the Civil War. The French, Russians, English, Japanese, and Italians killed innocents in World War II. As long as there has been fallen humans, there have been wars, and even in the OT God commanded the slaughter of the ‘innocent’ citizens (during the invasion by Joshua, for example).

I’m all in favor of keeping innocents out of war, but I also think that the idea of a war where the innocent avoid suffering is….excessively idealistic, to put it mildly.

If you’re going to go to war, people are going to get hurt and people are going to die. Even the innocent. The best we can do, short of allowing the enemy to dictate the ROEs, is try to minimize casualties…which everyone is trying to do anyway, with the exception of the DPRK and other nation-states that use their threats of war as blackmail. That’s been the lynchpin of DPRK strategy since Korea - that they will turn Seoul to a sea of fire. Conservative estimates put 25% of Seoul’s citizens as casualties or killed by chemical weapons alone, before we factor in regular artillery or nuclear arms.

I simply do not think North Korea is in our jurisdiction.

Fair enough - but when does a nation become our ‘jurisdiction’? They have threatened (nuclear) attacks on Japan, South Korea, Australia and US territories like Guam. They thumb their nose at international laws and non-proliferation agreements. They fund their country with the manufacture and sale of illegal drugs and weapons, including weapons of mass destruction (Biological/Chemical arms at a minimum). They kidnap and enslave the innocent - the truly innocent, mind you, not just their own people - and use them for all sorts of heinous activities. They are one of the worst nations in the world in their brutal barbaric treatment of prisoners.

At some point the civilized world has to stand up and say no. So when is that tipping point?

I agree that it’s a difficult situation but from my perspective until we are attacked we have no right to attack them. I am just as repelled by their despicable behavior. I also do not believe there is any chance that NK would launch a nuclear weapon at the US. It would be the end of their entire civilization.

I don’t think I’m being idealistic in not wanting to destroy innocent lives. I used to be quite the war hawk but I just see it differently now. If an intimidating man began to yell at me in the street and brandish a knife I do not believe that I have the right to shoot him as he has not actually attacked me. Same thing here on a much larger scale.

Take a look at the map; the artillery capable of hitting Seoul are on a peninsula closest to the city. Now, just for a mind question, if war were to break out, do you take those howitzers out piece by piece over months and possibly let hundreds of thousands of innocent South Koreans die, or do you hit that peninsula with a nuke, probably kill tens of thousands of North Koreans in the process, and end the threat to Seoul?

In the same way, the tradeoff Truman faced was up to 200,000 lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki versus millions of Japanese civilians who would have lost their lives in an invasion, if the aftermath of the battle of Okinawa, where up to half the civilians are said to have perished (many at the hands of the losing Imperial Japanese Army), is any indication.

Like it or not, war is all about lousy choices, and when the enemy has nukes, those choices get lousier.

Unless I am greatly misunderstanding the president’s “fire and fury” remarks, the threat was made if NK continues to threaten the US. That’s much different than an actual war. I would certainly favor war if we are actually attacked but that is not the context of his statement. He is threatening to nuclear bomb a country for threatening us.

So to answer your question Bert, I would choose door number three- tone down the rhetoric and do not bomb a country whose petulant leader is making outlandish and frankly absurd threats.

[TylerR]

Just War theory is very difficult, very slippery and is very disconnected from a proper context in a New Covenant time. Mohler discussed it yesterday. I should read more on it, but haven’t made time.

The entire theory is very difficult to put into context in a secular state, with a secular leader, who makes secular decisions from a secular worldview. Not really sure how it applies. Honestly, unless you’re in an Old Covenant context, I’m skeptical it really works beyond some vague, generic principles.

Big area to tackle, very difficult to apply.