Comments on: Call to Disarm http://blog.mycatholicfaithdelivered.com/2010/09/08/call-to-disarm/ Time for the Timeless Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:51:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: leon http://blog.mycatholicfaithdelivered.com/2010/09/08/call-to-disarm/#comment-859 leon Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:24:03 +0000 /post/Call-to-Disarm.aspx#comment-859 Good points, Pete. I don''t think Bishop Finn went so far as to condemn what was happening, but rather was clear in pointing out the serious moral concerns as specified in GS, the Catechism, and various papal writings (he really didn''t give much, if any, personal opinion). As the facts change certainly the application of the principles also changes. Good points, Pete. I don”t think Bishop Finn went so far as to condemn what was happening, but rather was clear in pointing out the serious moral concerns as specified in GS, the Catechism, and various papal writings (he really didn”t give much, if any, personal opinion). As the facts change certainly the application of the principles also changes.

]]> By: petebrown http://blog.mycatholicfaithdelivered.com/2010/09/08/call-to-disarm/#comment-858 petebrown Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:53:36 +0000 /post/Call-to-Disarm.aspx#comment-858 I don''t know Leon, this statement strikes me as a little naive. Nuclear payloads have dramatically reduced over the years with improvements in guidance systems. Bomb delivery systems have in other words become much much more precise and thus one can hit and take out targets with much smaller explosions, and therefore much less collateral damage. This is a development the bishop actually should support, it seems to me. The way things looked when Gaudium et Spes came on the scene, only a decade or so after the advent of the H bomb, is very different from the way things look now. The idea of nuclear weapons annihilating whole population centers is possible in the case of less advanced arsenals in smaller countries, but the US arsenals (should they ever be used) are much smarter and would strike at military targets, rather than causing wanton destruction of whole cities. Moreover, total US stockpiles have greatly diminished from the height of the Cold War, or for that matter even 10 years ago. So with much smaller arsenals and smaller payloads it''s hard to see in what sense the US is "accumulating" weapons of mass destruction. And as for proliferation, obviously this is a problem but what is the solution other than to have the bulk of such military capability rest with nations like the US which are the least likely to actually use it and, through possession of superior forces, deter other less scrupulous nations from doing so. I''d be open to hearing other ways of dealing with proliferation besides deterrence and balance of power, but American disarmament ain''t it! That would create a world far more prone to the use of WMD than the one we have now! I don”t know Leon, this statement strikes me as a little naive. Nuclear payloads have dramatically reduced over the years with improvements in guidance systems. Bomb delivery systems have in other words become much much more precise and thus one can hit and take out targets with much smaller explosions, and therefore much less collateral damage. This is a development the bishop actually should support, it seems to me. The way things looked when Gaudium et Spes came on the scene, only a decade or so after the advent of the H bomb, is very different from the way things look now.

The idea of nuclear weapons annihilating whole population centers is possible in the case of less advanced arsenals in smaller countries, but the US arsenals (should they ever be used) are much smarter and would strike at military targets, rather than causing wanton destruction of whole cities.

Moreover, total US stockpiles have greatly diminished from the height of the Cold War, or for that matter even 10 years ago. So with much smaller arsenals and smaller payloads it”s hard to see in what sense the US is "accumulating" weapons of mass destruction.

And as for proliferation, obviously this is a problem but what is the solution other than to have the bulk of such military capability rest with nations like the US which are the least likely to actually use it and, through possession of superior forces, deter other less scrupulous nations from doing so. I”d be open to hearing other ways of dealing with proliferation besides deterrence and balance of power, but American disarmament ain”t it! That would create a world far more prone to the use of WMD than the one we have now!

]]>