Comments on: ‘A Step-by-Step Agenda for the Elimination of Nuclear Arms’

By: secondhalfrider

secondhalfrider — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:01:09 +0000

“Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.”

That's kind of like saying, “If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer.” There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects–not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants–that there is no possible moral justification for their use–even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them–why should we have them?

By: lumens

lumens — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:53:41 +0000

"Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? "

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons have historically been used for defense purposes. Also, our leaders aren't all Christians, or even predominantly so. This isn't a theocracy, as I was needlessly reminded hundreds of times throughout the Bush administration.

Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.

By: genie

genie — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:42:51 +0000

I understand the fear that Xfree9 expresses. Isn't that always what has held us back from making these decisions–the what if's? Yet, what if we don't? Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence–the Jesus' way? Isn't that what should be our decision-making guide rather than be paralyzed into in-action because of our fears? I feel so blessed to have had a mentor who always cautioned: Just do the right thing. Leave the rest to God. It's seldom the easiest or the one that seems to make the most sense to the rest of the world who honors might and wealth and “success” and feeding your appetites, rather than doing the right thing.

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:11:37 +0000

I'm very much in favor of taking whatever steps of action necessary to have a more peaceful world, with a lower threat of violence. I hope our leaders are successful in negotiating a mutual peace agreement for disarming. Our society is managed and controlled by those who have “the most arms,” and this is no way to run a peaceful society.

But something scares me about this whole process, and that is specifically, “What if one leader doesn't agree?” What if one leader said they disarmed, and we all disarm… then what? It seems logically and pragmatically impossible to guarantee that every single nuclear weapon will absolutely be abolished, and the knowledge to make it destroyed.

By: SisterMarie

SisterMarie — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:53:57 +0000

Unlike the president, I was one of those elementary school students who prepared for nuclear attacks by getting down under my desk, putting my head between my legs, and kissing my butt goodbye. It was scary then; it is even scarier now when the megatonnage and number of these weapons have greatly increased. I applaud the progress that has been made towards reducing the number and hope for the day when they no longer exist. No one who has ever witnessed the video of the atomic tests (when the destructive capacity was much less than today's weapons) or who has ever reviewed the graphs in which the effects of these blasts are plotted as a function of the distance from ground zero can ever envision a time when the use of these weapons could be justifiable.

We have no moral standing to urge smaller nations to refrain from acquiring these weapons as long as we continue to brandish them in our inventory.