5 ms·
Would you help me understand something? The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to h
by sillysaurus2 13y ago
Would you help me understand something?
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government.
In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you personally wouldn't be comfortable with ending so many lives (who would?) or was it a wider objection, i.e. you feel it's immoral for any military personnel to be willing to launch nukes? If it's the former, then I totally understand. But if it's the latter, would you help me understand how to reconcile that belief with the necessity of mutually assured destruction? They seem to be at odds.
- grey-area 13y agoIt is quite possible to believe in the necessity to have a military without believing in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction or the use of nuclear weapons.
- jackpirate 13y agoI personally believe that Jesus calls us to "love our enemies" and that this means not killing them for any reason whatsoever. My personal objection to war goes far beyond the whole nuke thing to even self defense.
- xmonkee 13y agoI fully agree with Jesus on this one, but sometimes I wonder what I would do in a situation where this belief was really challenged. I hope I don't have to find out.
- jackpirate 13y agoMy view is that how we act in these "crisis scenarios" isn't super important. It's how we act in the everyday situations that matters. So I ask myself, "What am I doing right now to reduce war?" or "What am I doing right now to help the homeless living in my city?" This is how I measure whether or not I'm following Jesus.
- alecco 13y ago> The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLA_Marshall#World_War_II_combat_historian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLA_Marshall#World_War_II_comb...
- stockliasteroid 13y agoWe haven't seen a major nation-state conflict between nuclear powers since nuclear weapons were invented. Of course there's no counterfactual, but it does seem given the state of relations with Russia it's likely that sans nuclear weapons we would have had a major conflict with them at some point. Also, try reading this, it's a decent summary of nuclear strategic thinking: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bomb-A-New-History/dp/0061537209 http://www.amazon.com/The-Bomb-A-New-History/dp/0061537209
- alecco 13y agoYou are assuming I'm less informed because I don't agree with you. Also, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me as I'm just skeptic of your (plural) assertion without clear proof.