Nuclear Weapons and Pro-Life Politics
As we all know, the Church categorically rejects the use of nuclear weapons in war. As Cardinal George said in his letter to Obama on the issue: “The horribly destructive capacity of nuclear arms makes them disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that endanger human life and dignity like no other armaments.” Their use in war is intrinsically evil and can never be justified (and Catholics who defend their use are in the same moral boat as those who defend the virtues of abortion).
William Werpehowski has a very interesting recent article in Commonweal on the issue of nuclear weapons. This is actually a pro-life area where we have seen some convergence between the USCCB and the Obama administration. Both the Church and Obama have called for a world free of nuclear weapons. But what does this mean? Well, START is a clear starting point – without that first step, little else can happen. Of course, the road to zero is a long road, with many obstacles and vested interests along the way. But Werperhowksi also pointed to some other differences between the Obama and Bush administrations I was not aware of:
“This past spring also saw the promulgation of a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), stating our government’s intent to advance nonproliferation efforts, fight nuclear terrorism, reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and continue to seek a safe, secure, and effective deterrent without development or testing of new weapons. The review changed national-security policy, announcing that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear arms against nonnuclear signatories of the NPT who are in compliance with their treaty obligations. As for states “that possess nuclear weapons and states not in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” the review continued, “there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW [chemical/biological weapons] attack against the United States or its allies and partners.”
The NPR does not take the route, encouraged by the bishops and argued in The Challenge of Peace, of declaring that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter against nuclear attack. It holds only that such is their “fundamental” purpose, and that the nation will work to establish conditions under which the more restrictive policy may be safely adopted. Despite this disappointment, Archbishop O’Brien commended the NPR as “morally sound,” albeit requiring “more progress.” Cardinal George’s missive also offered general support for the NPR’s beginning efforts to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons….
The new NPR notably reverses a number of policies of the Bush administration. Bush’s Doctrine of Joint Nuclear Operations countenanced using nuclear weapons in a number of scenarios: to preemptively attack nations or terrorists threatening the use of WMD against the United States or its allies; to destroy WMDs in hardened bunkers; to rapidly end a war on terms favorable to the United States; and “to make sure U.S. and international operations are successful.” Obama follows Kissinger et al. in taking steps to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, rendering adherence to nonproliferation more credible. And O’Brien’s insistence that nuclear decisions be measured against the goal of eventual abolition is mirrored in a number of Obama initiatives that encourage nonproliferation and an international institution of rules to promote disarmament, remove incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, and hold noncompliant states accountable.”
Obama’s strategy might be weak, but Bush’s was deplorable. This is a key pro-life issue that seems to always get swept under the carpet.
Comments are closed.
We all seem so preoccupied with nukes, but I think bioweapons are far more dangerous and far more scary. How come nobody ever speaks out about them?
Dan: a good question, actually. I think you are right to point them out and point out condemnation should include them as well!
MM: “As we all know, the Church categorically rejects the use of nuclear weapons in war.”
No, the Church doesn’t. It does authoritatively condemn particular uses that nuclear weapons can be put to — since they can be lethally indiscriminate (viz Hiroshima and Nagasaki). (“Indiscriminate” meaning that the use of the weapon against an extensive area will kill everyone alike.) But it doesn’t condemn any usage at all in war.
We are either pro-life across the board or we are hypocrites.
It not always so black-and-white. Sometimes you have to take one life in order to save others.
How do you know?
To quote the Catechism:
2314 ”Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.
This would seem to be as close to a categorical condemnation of nuclear weapons as one could hope for. There may be some narrow loopholes lurking in this in theory, but in practice, they are effectively condemned for the horror that they are.
“since they can be lethally indiscriminate”
Is there some instance where a nuclear weapon isn’t lethally indiscriminate? A nuclear weapon is designed to take out a city at a time.
I have no idea what the precise teaching is on nukes, but I would hope the argument doesn’t depend on the fantasy of a “surgical nuclear strike.”
“It does authoritatively condemn particular uses that nuclear weapons can be put to — since they can be lethally indiscriminate”
Is there some case where a nuclear strike isn’t lethally indiscriminate? Nukes are designed to take out a city at a time.
I have no idea what the precise teaching is, but I would hope it’s not based on the fantasy of a “surgical nuclear strike,” one that hurts only the bad guys, leaving the innocent untouched. There’s no such thing.
Sometimes you have to take one life in order to save others.
That is the one thing you cannot do. That is consequentialism, comdemned completely by Church teaching.
While I agree, the Church does send a slightly inconsistent message saying that capital punishment is allowed to save lives.
I don’t know from consequentialism, but what I had in mind was self-defense, in which you certainly may take someone else’s life in order to save your own. Or alternatively, if someone is in the process of attacking someone else with lethal force, I may use lethal force against him in order to save his victims. None of which is proscribed by Church teaching.
You may use lethal force in self-defense but you may not use disproportionate force. Nuclear weapons are nearly always disproportionate. And you may never target an innocent directly.
I agree.
Yeah, or like the case in AZ where the nun was excommunicated because she ok’d an abortion where the mother and the child would die if no action was taken. I just plain disagree with the Church on that one. It seems a crime against life to not save the one life that could be saved.
I agree with David. It seems clear that any realistic use of nuclear weapons is evil. The issue is whether they can be used as a deterrent. The USCCB has tried to walk a very fine line on that, arguing that deterrence can only be part of a long-term strategy to rid the world of such weapons. But some moral moral theologians think that this even goes too far. Recall Boyle, Grisez, and Finnis back in the 1980s – I think they argued that holding weapons even for deterrence was morally wrong, as it was based on an intent to actually use them.
I think it’s pretty silly to authorize nukes as a deterrent if you have already decided they may not be used in actuality.
MM,
That was roughly Anscombe’s position as well–it even led her to suggest that Catholics should not participate in military or political structures likely to make use of nuclear weapons. I forget the essay in which she argues thus, but thus she argues.
Of course, we need to be more precise. Using a nuclear weapon to destroy an asteroid (hypothetically, of course) would not be intrinsically evil. I’m not even sure that the use of a bunker-buster nuclear bomb would be *intrinsically* evil in all cases.
Was it “Mr. Truman’s Degree”? That essay had a profound effect on my thinking.
But this is a very good question. The Church supports selective conscientious objection. But should it no go further and say Catholics should not formally cooperate in the evil of nuclear weapons? And how would that be defined?
And quite right on the asteroid example, which is why I said “in war”.
Pandora’s box has already been opened. Nuclear weapons have been created, and will be a part of the world until we beat all of our swords into ploughshares.
No world power is going to be foolish enough to disarm themselves entirely while another country has the potential to have a hidden stockpile somewhere. Someone has to call their bluff.
If we are operating from the mode of self-preservation through the use of intimidation then that seems to be the opposite of Christ’s teachings. With supporting war and/or the use of nuclear weapons then we seem to turn our backs on Christ because we cannot give up the fear of our death. It seems then that we would be unwilling to lose our lives for the cause of Christ and the peace that is different from the peace of this world.
We are too attached to the illusion of feeling safe.
The jus in bello part of the Just War doctrine, and reflected in International Law governs the conduct of war. One of its provisions proportionality. That means when a combatant has a choice between two weapons to attack a legitimate military target, he should choose the one that causes the least unnecessary harm (to civilians, his own army, and even the enemy).
This is the traditional way of looking at the choice of weapons. The person on the spot makes the best decision on the information he has available. It is the teaching of the Church. The combatent is still a moral actor and morally responsible.
Another way to look at is we make a detailed set of rules and expect them to be followed blindly. I do not doubt the persons compiling the rules have good intentions. But this changes the focus from making decisions directly applicable to the situation to blindly following rote rules. THe hope is that following rote rules will produce better results even though some people will have to, with full knowledge and consent, use weapons that cause unnecessary pain, suffering, and loss of life.
Nuclear weapons are an extreme category but they are still weapons. While it may be rather unlikely that there will be a situation where the use of a nuclear weapon will be the more humane choice it is not impossible. Saying use of nuclear weapons is always intrinsically evil turns the Just War doctrine on it’s head and says that it is possible that choosing the more inhumane weapon is not intrinsically evil and can certainly be justified.
I would think this issue needs a little more reflection.
While it is true that there are tactical nuclear weapons that might be usefully deployed against strategically selected military targets, no matter how you quibble or try to spin it, what we know as “the Bomb” was designed to be used against civilian populations. All of these should be demantled and disposed of, unilaterally, and without regard to the possible consequences of so doing, as should their delivery systems. All morally justifiable defense is NATIONAL defense. Preemptive strikes are never morally justifiable.
There can be nothing different at this level of spiritual, intellectual and emotional development. Conflict and its resolution are the natural result of the level of maturation for the general population that are still influenced by their primitive responses to perceived threat.
Empathy is still in the process of maturation with the minority and it is up to the minority to communicate and organize with one another to establish empathy as the primary instinctive response to conflict.
David Cruz-Uribe: “This would seem to be as close to a categorical condemnation of nuclear weapons as one could hope for.”
But it isn’t a categorical condemnation. For example, the use of a nuclear weapon during war against a WMD-carrying enemy submarine is not covered by the condemnation. Nor is the use in war of a nuclear weapon against an encampment consisting only of military forces.
Nobody in this thread has provided a quote from Church teaching that backs up MM’s very general claim that: “their use in war is intrinsically evil and can never be justified”. There is no such teaching.
Paul,
The following quotes are that much closer to categorical:
“We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare on however restricted a scale can be morally justified. Non-nuclear attacks by another state must be resisted by other than nuclear means.” U.S. Bishops, The Challenge of Peace (1983) 150.
“Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. The preservation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to their abolition.” Archbishop Renato Martino, address to UN Disarmament Commission (1997)
“[N]uclear weapons, even so-called ‘low- yield’ weapons, endanger the processes of life and can lead to extended conflict.”
&
“Nuclear weapons assault life on the planet, they assault the planet itself, and in so doing they assault the process of the continuing development of the planet.” Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, 2005.
I am not going to split hairs and argue whether the Church teaches that any use of nuclear weapons is intrinsically evil, tough in Gaudium et Spes it did teach that nuclear war is an intrinsic evil. The point is that any use is seen as an evil and I have to question why you are so concerned to find a loophole to justify their use. In particular, consider your examples in light of the first quotation by Archbishop Migliore.
David Cruz-Uribe: “The following quotes are that much closer to categorical”
But none of them are categorical and, even on looking at the fuller texts around the quotations you give, none of them give indication that they do intend to teach something like “any use whatsoever of nuclear weapons during war is sinful”.
David Cruz-Uribe: “I have to question why you are so concerned to find a loophole to justify their use”
I should point out that I do believe that the Church teaches that any use of nuclear weapons in ways similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always and intrinsically sinful, i.e. no matter the reason. But I do not find that the same applies to any use whatsoever of nuclear weapons. I gave the example, during a time of war, of an approaching enemy submarine loaded with WMDs. I can see no teaching that would lead to a condemnation of destroying the submarine by using a nuclear weapon.
I am not looking for a loophole (lol!). I am looking to see exactly what the Church teaches because I think it is a reliable teacher. Who would want to listen to an unreliable teacher?