Comments on: Evangelicals, Nuclear Abolitionism, and the Two Futures Project

By: Ethics and Nuclear Strategy — First Thoughts and the Two Futures Project « Withered Grass

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:37:28 +0000

[...] First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus) graciously allowed me to guest-post on Evangelicals, Nuclear Abolitionism and the Two Futures Project. Joe followed up himself with a post on jus en bello and nuclear weapons and, this morning, Tyler [...]

By: A Response to Auten and Carter on Nuclear Weapons » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:01:21 +0000

[...] a blog entry on December 3, Brian Auten wrote a substantive critique of my work with the Two Futures Project [...]

By: Sue

Sue — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:20:21 +0000

Some thoughts on the zeitgeist that generates the nuclear “option”.

The idea behind nuclear weapons is the idea of total war. Total war is not about conflicts based on confrontations between the armies of the warring state. Total war is about a practice of war in which the people altogether are the target.

Total war is an obscenity. It is evil. Total war would destroy the people, and it would destroy everything–for a political advantage.

The seed, or root, of the idea of total war is the commitment to global dominance. Total war has no function except for a nation-state, or an alliance of nation-states, that is interested in global domination.

This kind of warfare has become global policy in the course of the twentieth century, and now into the twenty-first century.

Total war is absolutely unacceptable, and so the current warlike posturing must stop. It is on the verge of producing the ultimate catastrophe.

It is not that this or that nation-state should not have nuclear weapons. Absolutely no state and nobody should have nuclear weapons.

There needs to be an immediate intervention on behalf of humankind altogether to eliminate all nuclear weapons and to establish a working process for settling issues.

At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death is ruling, while the people altogether are engrossed by consumerism

By: Friday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath

Friday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:39:35 +0000

[...] Speaking of which … bombs and the Evangelicals. [...]

By: A Jus In Bello Defense of Nuclear Weapons » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:01:29 +0000

[...] Previous |Home| A Jus In Bello [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:07:39 +0000

Pragmatically speaking, isn’t it strategically impossible for the U.S. to disarm its nuclear arsenal, if only because doing so would leave the U.S. with an enormous tactical disadvantage should other volatile perennial rivals (Russia and China) choose to retain theirs?

By: Tweets that mention Evangelicals, Nuclear Abolitionism, and the Two Futures Project » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:38:23 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things and David Petrla, Brian Auten. Brian Auten said: First Thoughts just posted my "Evangelicals, Nuclear Weapons and the Two Futures Project" — http://tinyurl.com/ykb2jrz [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:27:08 +0000

There is nothing new here. “Progressive” efforts to disarm accomplish nothing except leaving the the good-factor actors with less to defend themselves with when non-good-faith actors enter the arena. The last example of this was the Naval Treaties in the 1930′s which in retrospect hastened the second world war. By contrast Ronald Reagan’s controversial decision to deploy Pershing II missiles to Europe in the 1980′s helped hasten the end of the Soviet Union (that story may not be over yet). Disarmament sounds nice but good intentions do not replace sound wisdom.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:12:34 +0000

Thank you, Brian, for a judicious and balanced take on the issue. I hope that more of the politically-charged posts on this blog begin to follow the model set here as far as seriousness and tone are concerned.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:48:17 +0000

To the last point, wouldn’t it be fair to argue that there is no methodological argument that can refrain from taking into account the behavior of more powerful “others”? In a realist view, one must note that countries take action as a reaction against other countries.

There is no purpose for a country to have a nuclear weapon, except for the effect that it will have on other countries.

Nuclear weapons aren’t a good in and of and of themselves — unlike other weaponry, they don’t spur on industry or create jobs. They’re pretty expensive, and hard to keep an eye on. The first effective nuclear weapon (ours) was created solely in response to our fear that another country would become a “have” before us.

Regional reasons — a regional reason would be a response based on the have/have-not actions of other countries in the area.

Domestic — Perhaps creating a nuclear weapon would make citizens more supportive of their governments, but they do so by allowing citizens to compare their country against other nuclear “haves”… So it’s the same argument.