Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.~Having them undermines our credibility to discourage nuclear non-proliferation.
~Having and maintaining our arsenal will probably lead to further nuclear testing
~Nuclear deterrence is a lark, especially given some of the people we’re concerned might acquire the bomb.
~Nuclear deterrence is immoral because it is essentially kidnapping and holding hostage the entire population of civilians and noncombatants who have done nothing to directly threaten us other than exist and live in the wrong place.
~We’re never going to use them anyhow, mostly because we’re too good.
~Nuclear weapons used on even a medium scale are completely in violation of the rules of just war such as being non-proportional, not aiming at the achievement of peace, and making no distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
~Just having them makes the risk of using them higher, both by us and by them.
~Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is costly: expensive, security, accidents, waste disposal, etc.
~Aren’t Christians representing the Prince of Peace?
Links:
Deterrence theory (Wikipedia)
Mutually Assured Destruction (Wikipedia)
No comments:
Post a Comment