The Use of Nuclear Weapons Is Inherently Evil

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 …

I am a bit confused. You earlier said it was related to the New Covenant. Now you are saying it is related to a theocratic state. The only theocratic state was the Old Covenant. Even if the New Covenant were in force now, it wouldn’t be a theocratic state.

The Just War theory doesn’t depend on a a theocratic state. Just means justified, and there are certain criteria laid out in the Just War Theory for when and how a just war is to be carried out. It isn’t hard, in most cases, even for a secular society to determine what is just. The image of God in man and God’s common grace actually make it rather easy. It doesn’t take special revelation to know that the Holocaust was unjust. Or that Boko Haram is unjust. There are some complicated issues in Just War to be sure, but relating it to a theocratic state isn’t one of them.

Are you a pacifist? Don’t you have to be if you don’t think a Just War can be wages now (since I presume you aren’t in favor of an unjust war)?

There is no such thing as a good war. War was formulated in the mind of Satan and springs from the pit of Hell. Even the most “just” war (dare I use that word?) steals something from your soul.

I am not a pacifist; neither do I think war is not sometimes necessary. That would be foolish. But to glamorize war with terms such as “good” or “just” is a monstrous disservice to what war is—a concept of Satan foisted upon mankind at the fall; a collective assault by man upon the image of God that each one bears, and that will someday be put under the feet of King Jesus once and for all. I, frankly, am ready for that day to be here.

Lee, I appreciated that post. Thanks for sharing that.

As for this: “He is threatening to nuclear bomb a country for threatening us.”

I don’t think that Trump is arguing that nukes are his first choice for a strike weapon. I think he was saying that if the DPRK attacks Guam, we WILL reply with force of some sort. There’s room for interpretation there (at least, I hope so!).

But there are a lot more people who are more optimistic about this situation than I am. I hope they are right.

JoshP, thanks for clarifying.

I’ll try to be clearer:

1. Just War theory is a Christian doctrine which seeks to explain under what circumstances war may be justified, according to Christian principles.
2. We do not live in a Christian society, or in a theocratic state, or under the auspices of a state church. The only theocracy under which such principles could be truly implemented was OT Israel, and that theocracy has been abolished. The New Covenant has not established a theocracy yet. It will when Jesus returns, but He has not.
3. Therefore, the theory of “Just War” as a distinctively Christian concept for justifying warfare under certain concepts is largely inapplicable. At best, we’re left with vague principles. However, without a theocratic foundation based on the God of the Bible (and all the moral foundations that come along with it), we cannot expect anything like unanimity about what circumstances justify war. There is no self-conscious common worldview or moral foundation in a secular age.
4. Therefore, arguing for war against North Korea using the theory of “Just War,” when Donald Trump is our President, seems to be a very abstract notion. I don’t believe Trump, or our government in general, makes decisions for war based on a self-consciously Christian understanding of “Just War.” I believe these decisions are more in line with pragmatic, secular, nationalistic self-interest.

So, how would “Just War” apply to the decision to go to war today, in a secular age? As I just mentioned, I have no confidence the state makes decisions to go to war on confessedly Christian principles - therefore “Just War” is generally inapplicable at the national level. It seems to me it is best implemented in a contemporary context at the individual level, but pacifism is not a virtue allowed in the armed forces!

So, what to do? Not sure. This is why I mentioned at the outset that “Just War” is a very slippery, very difficult doctrine to discuss in today’s religious context (i.e. the New Covenant; a non-theocratic arrangement where Christ has not come to assume the throne yet).

Hopefully, I have been clearer, even if you disagree with me.

[josh p]

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.

Josh, apart from the fact I was responding to a more general question—whether the use of nukes could ever be justified—I think you’ve misunderstood the President. He’s not threatening to nuke a country for threatening us, but rather noting that if North Korea goes WMD/nuclear, it will not end well for them.

Now if you said that Trump should learn Roosevelt’s (old west African?) rule that one ought to speak softly and carry a big stick, I would agree. However, the ugly reality of North Korea, is that within the past decade, they allowed up to a million of their own people to die by disease and starvation—one in every 20 approximately—because their leaders weren’t willing to give up WMD programs. We are therefore talking about a nation that really needs a wee bit of directness to dissuade them from the greatest of barbarities.

Bert,

You could be right but that is how it was being reported in what I heard. I realize that they are an atrocious state but many other nations are equally (or close to) as evil. Perhaps they have more ability to being about their evil schemes. I should probably just go ahead and bow out of this one since I have radically different views of what the state is doing and should do. I do fully respect the motivation of a person who reacts against atrocities, even if I disagree with their opinion on how to handle it.

Thanks Tyler. Here’s my response:

1. I don’t find the principles that vague. I think they are rather clear. They are an attempt to apply biblical ethics to decisions about war. It may be hard to know when the time for a “last resort” has come, or how best to protect innocents. But it is not because the principles of just war are vague.

2. It is possible for Christian principles to be lived out absent a theocracy. In fact, that is our calling as Christians. So to object to applying Just War principles because we don’t live in a theocracy would seem to be undermined by our calling as Christians. It is even possible for unbelievers to live by Christian principles and to use Christian principles in their decision making. So again, to object on the basis that some making the decision may be unbelievers seems to be undermined by common grace.

3. You may be right about our nation’s interest in going to war.

Josh, to illustrate how biased the media are:

1. When Trump speaks against the atrocity in Charlottesville and does not name names, all **** breaks loose. It is as if he were driving the car.

2. When Obama spoke against terrorism but did not mention radical Islam, crickets from the media.

I don’t trust the media any further than I can throw them. You can do the same regarding the clear allegations (her server & classified info) against Mrs. Clinton vs. the vague ones (Russian election interference) against Trump, and a whole lot more.

Bert,

Ok one last one. I agree that the media is extremely biased but I also think they are out to make a profit. Sensationalism is unfortunately what sells. It is in the media’s best interest to whip up the American public into a war fervor. I guess I’m not sure what you are suggesting. That the media is biased and therefore is downplaying the fact that Trump’s response was really to a NK nuclear attack? Or maybe that they are trying to make Trump look reactionary when really he is levelheaded? That’s a tough sell.

You know, I’m really getting tired of talking about how biased the media is. We know that, and we can’t change them, but we can control ourselves.

#Hatersgonnahate #liarsgonnalie #obfuscatersgonnaobfuscate

As an aside, I found these two article this morning that might be helpful or encouraging. I hope that the authors are right.

Trump’s Full-Court Press Is Squeezing the Nukes Out of North Korea
China issues order to implement U.N. sanctions on North Korea

Does anybody have any good reading suggestions on Just War theory; particularly its contemporary application?

Found this online but haven’t read it:

Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology, Part 3, Chapter 19, Section 10.

[josh p]

Bert,

Ok one last one. I agree that the media is extremely biased but I also think they are out to make a profit. Sensationalism is unfortunately what sells. It is in the media’s best interest to whip up the American public into a war fervor. I guess I’m not sure what you are suggesting. That the media is biased and therefore is downplaying the fact that Trump’s response was really to a NK nuclear attack? Or maybe that they are trying to make Trump look reactionary when really he is levelheaded? That’s a tough sell.

No argument that Trump is totally levelheaded—again, he needs to listen to Teddy Roosevelt a lot more. All I’m saying is that the level of bias among the media is getting to a point where they can and do indeed completely misrepresent things—and they’re doing it a lot, IMO.

Does anybody have any good reading suggestions on Just War theory; particularly its contemporary application?

I have two books that get into this and may have one more but have to look for it. The first is Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing The Church Today, edited by John Jefferson Davis. The other, which looks to have covered the subject a little more thoroughly, is Ethics For A Brave New World, edited by John S. and Paul D. Fineberg. Both books have been revised and expanded since I bought my copies.

It’s been a while since I have looked in either, but I’ll review the contents and get back to you. The Fineberg work, especially, is usually quite good and thorough. Evangelical Ethics was the textbook for my Christian Ethics class at NBBC / NIU back in the day.

Thanks. This is an area I haven’t looked into, and need to.