Da Nukes Gotta Go (by Rose Marie Berger)
The genetically hip Bianca Jagger addressed the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's global summit in London last month—challenging Britain to lead the world in dismantling its nukes. "Who's going to give them up first?" she asked.
Of course, spiritual and religious leaders have long condemned the inhumanness of nuclear weapons. As Douglas Roche points out the current Sojourners magazine (Sleepwalking in a Nuclear Minefield, Sojourners, March 2008), "Nuclear weapons and human security cannot co-exist."
In 1983, the World Council of Churches, a fellowship of 347 denominations from virtually all Christian traditions in more than 120 countries, unequivocally rejected the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. (See more of the churches' statements.)
In Pope Benedict's 2006 World Day of Peace message, he criticized the idea of nuclear arms for security as "completely fallacious." He said, "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. The resources which would be saved could then be employed in projects of development capable of benefiting all their people, especially the poor."
Even "The Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger said in speech last fall, "Mistakes are made in every other human endeavor. Why should nuclear weapons be exempt? … A nuclear disaster will not hit at the speed of a glacier melting. It will hit with a blast. It will not hit with the speed of the atmosphere warming but of a city burning. Clearly, the attention focused on nuclear weapons should be as prominent as that of global climate change."
Roche, who is chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, states in his article in the current Sojourners magazine, that Congress has authorized the Bush administration "to develop and submit to the Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21st century." The centerpiece of this strategy is not nuclear disarmament. Instead, the plan is to upgrade our nuclear arsenal
Isn't it time we take real and effective action on containing nuclear weapons and nuclear materials? Dismantling the weapons is the first step. Who's going to take it?
Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"but if we get rid of our nuclear weapons we'll be defenseless against the terrorists!"
no, we'd be nuclearly offenseless. there is no such thing as a nuclear defense strategy that involves nuclear weapons, and as people of faith and witnesses to (as well as agents in) human history, our understanding of evil should tell us this. if someone strikes us, we're going to strike back, quite possibly indiscriminately. but even if we were 'strategic' in our response, there would be collateral damage. So that persons or their nuclear allies would lash out at us, and so the scenario would spiral downward.
as those familiar with the way of Jesus, if we can't articulate a better, more divinely inspired imagine than this, what hope is there for those who only see the world's degradation and have not eyes to perceive God's resurrection at work in her as well?
Posted by: melvin bray | March 20, 2008 10:22 AM
OK - let's take the issue of 'disarmament' down to a level that the avg. person can relate to these days. Crime in any metro area is on the rise. So – in the Twin Cities area – let have the Minneapolis and St Paul city counsels pass an ordinance that all fire arms have to be deposited in a central secure warehouse. No house or individual can have a hand gun or rifle in the possession on permanent bases. You can check out a gun for hunting – target shooting – competitions etc. But the city will have to know when you are going to remove it from the warehouse, when it is going to be returned. Where you will be going with the gun and what activity you will be engaging in with the gun. Also how much ammunition you will have with your fire arm.
By doing this we will eliminate any possibility of someone killing a person – robbery of the corner store or a bank with a gun. Killing your spouse with a gun. We will create a safer society. Let’s even say that the NRA is supporting this.
NOW – how many of you really believe that the criminals in the Twin Cities will abide by this law? How many guns will come into the Twin Cities from Chicago or LA and be sold out of the back of some car? Surely the Drug Lords in our community will understand that they need to turn their guns into the warehouse – not!
So – if it will not work at this level – why do you think that it will work internationally with Nukes? The USA has Nukes and has never used them since WWII. But there is a nut in North Korea that wants them to use against his perceived enemies. There is a crack-pot in Iran that is developing them to use against his enemies. (which I believe is Israel and the US)
Sorry – I will keep our military weapons because there are nut and crack-pots out there that will use them if they can get them. Do you think that the USSR would have shown the restraint the US has if they had them first? (no way, they would have used them in a heart beat)
Blessings –
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 10:58 AM
Posted by: melvin bray | March 20, 2008 10:22 AM
'...way of Jesus, if we can't articulate a better, more divinely inspired imagine than this...'
I believe that we are. We have great power of distruction and could eliminate our enemies within minutes after they attack us. We have refused to use this weapon because we value life more than many others around the world. These people will strap explosives to mentally challenged people and have them walk into a market area and then push the button and kill men, women and children in a heart beat. They will murder flight attendents and pilots so they can fly jets into building and kill mothers and fathers, aunt and uncles, Christians, Jews and Muslims that are just doing a days work to support their families.
They show no restraint. They use whatever they can to achieve their objective. Can you imagine what the world would look like if they had Nukes?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 11:08 AM
Moderatelad,
If the terrorists had nukes and used them against us, does our faith allow us to use nukes against them?
Will
Posted by: Will | March 20, 2008 11:34 AM
Posted by: Will | March 20, 2008 11:34 AM
But we have not - we have wittnessed the devastation and destruction and have refused to use them.
Sojo is on record that we are not a Christian nation - so wheather we use them or not as a nation is sort of a 'whatever'.
As a nation and soceity - I believe that we have the right. As a believer - I do not want to see them ever used again.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 11:48 AM
the World Council of Churches unequivocally rejected the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
Pope Benedict ...criticized the idea of nuclear arms for security as "completely fallacious."
Top Five Religious Affiliations of US Senators and President
Roman Catholic 25
Jewish 13
Presbyterian 13
Methodist 10 + President
Episcopalian 10
If my people
who are called by my name
will humble themselves
and pray
then......
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 12:19 PM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 12:19 PM
World Council of Churches
Pope Benedict
Top Five Religious Affiliations
All fine and good - and they might have very logical reasons.
But it that is the case - why is the nut in North Korea and the crack-out in Iran working at a fever pace to develop them? What do they know that the people above do not know? If you want to keep the neighbors dog out of your back yard - you better have a bigger dog.
Do I want to have a word without war - yes.
Do I think that most world leaders do - yes.
Do the leaders of N Korea & Iran - no
Does UBL and his merry gang of radicals - no
Does the dip-stick in South America - no
So - you want those that are trying to keep the peace to disarm as a jester of good faith to North Korea - Iran and Venezuela, correct. Why don't we just remove all security guards at the airports, banks and federal buildings as a jester of good faith in mankind to show that we do not want to escalate crime and high-jackings?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 1:12 PM
Moderatelad--maybe we could have a government that took less of our money if we only stockpiled enough nukes to blow the world to bits ten times over.
There was no security in the Tower of Babel
There is only One whom can judge our nuclear capacity; and it is He we should fear and not confuse ourselves with Him.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 3:08 PM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 3:08 PM
I do not confuse me with Him. He is the one that I love and serve and where I put my trust. I also have a neighbor who professes no faith to speak of at this time. He believe that we need to be a strong nation with a good defense. He believes that we need nukes and I support him in his convictions. I have several relatives that have a greater understanding of what is going on in the world and they support our nuke program. I believe that they know more than me so I listen.
I know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree. So I search out people that are knowledgable and fair minded to talk to and help me formulate my convictions. I will support keeping the nukes and pray that we never need to use them.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 3:26 PM
Moderate lad wrote: "... a jester of good faith in mankind ..."
That's an intriguing image. I wonder just who that "jester" might be.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 20, 2008 3:27 PM
Moderatelad--do you think we have the moral depth as a people to wisely steward teh capacity to destroy all humanity??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 4:42 PM
'...moral depth as a people to wisely steward...'
We have shown that we have so far. Of all the nuclear powers in the world we are the best equiped to deviver, yet we have not. I do not believe that the former USSR or many of the that were a part of the group today have the moral depth. I believe that if North Korea or Iran had the ability - they would have used it by now. Thank you Lord that they can't at this time.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 20, 2008 5:01 PM
I wonder if the Japanese would agree that America has the moral depth as a people to wisely steward the capacity to destroy all humanity. As I see it, we have acquired that wisdom only as others have acquired the power of the weapon. When we were the only ones to have it, we used it. Hmmm... deterence is a funny thing. It seems to have taught us wisdom, or did it cultivated our moral depth?
Anyway, not that many Christians died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima...
It does get me wondering, though. So, can a follower of Jesus participate in delivering nuclear death to a civilian population center? I mean, is it okay, if there are enough terrorists living there? Or would Jesus want some kind of a count... like, if you can find 10 non-terrorists, you should probably spare the city?
Or maybe the right question is: How many enemies does Jesus say its okay to kill if your cause is righteous and theirs is not? I suppose there must be a number that is too many, and Jesus would have to say "No, hey, whoa. That's too many." Is it a percentage? Or does it vary according to how crazy their ruler or leader is? Would Jesus expect his followers to limit the killing of enemies to "just enough to achieve deterrence?" Wow. That would be tricky to calculate, huh?
I always have a hard time trying to discern how many enemies Jesus expects us to kill. Or is it that He would just tolerate some killing of enemies, up to a certain point? I mean, what if you kill too many? What happens then? Maybe we should stick to conventional weapons because we have better control over how many innocent mothers and babies we kill. Plus its easier to avoid convents and things like that.
Posted by: Todd | March 20, 2008 11:01 PM
Remember the main reason we have nukes, to cover our sexual inadequacies. I refer you to Bal Thackeray - we need to prove we are not eunuchs-, P J O'Rourke's paean the the missile as phallic symbol, and Saturday Night Live -nukes are man's response to a horse with an erection.
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?