Archbishop John Wester: The Time for Nuclear Disarmament is Now

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

In September 2017, I traveled to Japan and visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a somber, sobering experience as I realized that on Aug. 6, 1945, humanity crossed the line into the darkness of the nuclear age. Historically, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe has been part of a peace initiative, one that would help make sure these weapons would never be used again. I believe it is time to rejuvenate that peace work.

We need to sustain a serious conversation in New Mexico and across the nation about universal, verifiable nuclear disarmament. We can no longer deny or ignore the dangerous predicament we have created for ourselves with a new nuclear arms race, one that is arguably more dangerous than the past Cold War. In the face of increasing threats from Russia, China and elsewhere, I point out that a nuclear arms race is inherently self-perpetuating, a vicious spiral that prompts progressively destabilizing actions and reactions by all parties, including our own country. We need nuclear arms control, not an escalating nuclear arms race.

Further, we need to figure out concrete steps toward abolishing nuclear weapons and permanently ending the nuclear threat. If we care about humanity, if we care about our planet, if we care about the God of peace and human conscience, then we must start a public conversation on these urgent questions and find a new path toward nuclear disarmament.

The Archdiocese of Santa Fe has a special role to play in advocating for nuclear disarmament given the presence of the Los Alamos and Sandia nuclear weapons laboratories and the nation’s largest repository of nuclear weapons at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. At the same time, we need to encourage life-affirming jobs for New Mexicans in cleanup, nonproliferation programs and addressing climate change.

Pope Francis has made clear statements about the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons, moving the church from past conditional acceptance of “deterrence” to the moral imperative of abolition. Instead of just a few hundred nuclear weapons for just deterrence, we have thousands for nuclear warfighting that could destroy God’s creation on Earth. Moreover, we are robbing from the poor and needy with current plans to spend at least $1.7 trillion to “modernize” our nuclear weapons and keep them forever.

The Catholic Church has a long history of speaking out against nuclear weapons. The Vatican was the first nation state to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As Pope Francis declared, “We must never grow weary of working to support the principal international legal instruments of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, including the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.” It is the duty of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, the birthplace of nuclear weapons, to support that treaty while working toward universal, verifiable nuclear disarmament.

In his reflections on the Gospels, Pope Francis often highlights the nonviolent Jesus and the themes of “blessed are the peacemakers” and “love your enemies.” He has called on us to practice Gospel nonviolence. Therefore, I invite us to step into the light of Christ and walk together toward a new future of peace, a new promised land of peace, a new culture of peace and nonviolence where we all might learn to live in peace as sisters and brothers on this beautiful planet, our common home.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/the-time-for-nuclear-disarmament-is-now/article_01512eac-755b-11ec-964b-ebdd077a466f.html

[Blue3]

lol


… To clarify, it would be nice. But this is not the time that it would be most practical, nor is this the closest the people have come to consensus, nor are there any geopolitical pressures. Obviously, there’s the moral argument, but that’s always been the same. And even then, more countries with nuclear weapons decreases chance of overt war. If Ukraine had kept some of the Soviet nukes, does anyone think that would be a issue now? Obviously there’s always a chance of the wrong people getting them, or someone in power making an irrational decision. Which is why it would be good to eliminate them all. But so many unlikely things are more likely at this point. But I give grace to this person saying it, since this is a religious leader not a political leader.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

lol


… To clarify, it would be nice. But this is not the time that it would be most practical, nor is this the closest the people have come to consensus, nor are there any geopolitical pressures. Obviously, there’s the moral argument, but that’s always been the same. And even then, more countries with nuclear weapons decreases chance of overt war. If Ukraine had kept some of the Soviet nukes, does anyone think that would be a issue now? Obviously there’s always a chance of the wrong people getting them, or someone in power making an irrational decision. Which is why it would be good to eliminate them all. But so many unlikely things are more likely at this point.

It's unlikely that we're even alive right now to discuss this. The Cuban Missle Crisis was far from the only time nuclear war was a hair trigger away from starting. What has happened more frequently is a mistake made by radar that says a missile is incoming, and the fate of life on earth rests in the ability of some low level grunt to their superior officer in the eyes and disobey their orders to press the button. Radar errors are going to keep happening and they are going to become more frequent with the more nukes that are in circulation; sooner or later, somebody is going to lack the courage to disobey their orders. It is a matter of when the button is pressed, not a matter of if.

The worry is not just with the "wrong people" getting their hands on the button. First of all, remember that the President is not the only person in government with access to the button, and in every other nuclear power, there are also multiple people with access. Most world leaders, give or take your complete dunces like Donald Trump or Dubya who do nor understand the power of nukes and can be persuaded by war hungry generals who want the button presses, or your Christian Nationalists like Ronald Reagan who actually want the apocalypse, are logical about the threat and do not want nuclear war. Biden, Putin, and Xi are not stockpiling nukes because they want to use them — all they want is to enrich their countries' respextice military-industrial complexes with more profits and to gain political points by looking tough. But by putting more nukes in circulation, they're increasing the existential risk. It's a matter of when, not if.

Nuclear Weapons are as much of an existential threat as climate change, if not more. They are a larger threat now than they were during the first Cold War. We need to denuclearize.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously, there’s the moral argument, but that’s always been the same.

I'd argue that the time for nuclear disarmament has always been now.

[dead0man]

lol


… To clarify, it would be nice. But this is not the time that it would be most practical, nor is this the closest the people have come to consensus, nor are there any geopolitical pressures. Obviously, there’s the moral argument, but that’s always been the same. And even then, more countries with nuclear weapons decreases chance of overt war. If Ukraine had kept some of the Soviet nukes, does anyone think that would be a issue now? Obviously there’s always a chance of the wrong people getting them, or someone in power making an irrational decision. Which is why it would be good to eliminate them all. But so many unlikely things are more likely at this point.

It's unlikely that we're even alive right now to discuss this. The Cuban Missle Crisis was far from the only time nuclear war was a hair trigger away from starting. What has happened more frequently is a mistake made by radar that says a missile is incoming, and the fate of life on earth rests in the ability of some low level grunt to their superior officer in the eyes and disobey their orders to press the button. Radar errors are going to keep happening and they are going to become more frequent with the more nukes that are in circulation; sooner or later, somebody is going to lack the courage to disobey their orders. It is a matter of when the button is pressed, not a matter of if.

The worry is not just with the "wrong people" getting their hands on the button. First of all, remember that the President is not the only person in government with access to the button, and in every other nuclear power, there are also multiple people with access. Most world leaders, give or take your complete dunces like Donald Trump or Dubya who do nor understand the power of nukes and can be persuaded by war hungry generals who want the button presses, or your Christian Nationalists like Ronald Reagan who actually want the apocalypse, are logical about the threat and do not want nuclear war. Biden, Putin, and Xi are not stockpiling nukes because they want to use them — all they want is to enrich their countries' respextice military-industrial complexes with more profits and to gain political points by looking tough. But by putting more nukes in circulation, they're increasing the existential risk. It's a matter of when, not if.

Nuclear Weapons are as much of an existential threat as climate change, if not more. They are a larger threat now than they were during the first Cold War. We need to denuclearize.

there is a lot wrong here, but I'm about to leave work.  If I remember, I'll come back and point them out.

[dead0man]

1.we have been a "hair trigger" away, really, only the once with the Soviet sub during the Cuban Missile crisis and even if they had launched the torpedo, it still might not have started the big one.  All the other "close calls" still had safety barriers to get through before launching.
2.It takes more than one person to "push the button".  If Trump had called up StratCom out of the blue and told them to nuke Iran for no good/obvious reason, they would not have done it.
3.the number of warheads has dropped a ton since their peak 40 years ago.

4.they tend to be smaller too, because the plans now are to only go after military targets and not population centers if the sh**t were to hit the fan
5.while I agree, that eventually, an accident will happen.  It has to, eventually.  In some ways it's kind of amazing that there hasn't been accident (or another use of them in war) since 1945.  On the other hand, we know so much more than we did in the past.  What to do, what not to do.  Mistakes are still made (the USAF accidentally left some nukes on a bird a few years ago and the plane flew across the US, full of nukes and nobody on board knew until touch down...not cool bro!), but fewer mistakes are made than in the past because of the knowledge learned from those past mistakes.
6.Dubya probably has a better understand of nukes than most "we must get rid of all the nukes" types.  The "conventional wisdom" on the power of nuclear bombs is far from reality.

[dead0man]

3.the number of warheads has dropped a ton since their peak 40 years ago.

This is only tangentially related, but it's as good an opportunity as any to ask: How much merit is there to the idea that much of the US stockpile is no longer serviceable?

I do not know the answer to that question.  There are SOOOO many things that can go wrong.  They do, obviously, keep the maintenance up on 'em, but sometimes mechanical things don't work after sitting idle for 28 years.  Just because the electronics work on the ground, will they work in space after getting shot out of whatever they were getting shot out of?

I'm an optimist with huge USAF biases, so I think they'll mostly work fine.  But I really don't know the answer to that.  I don't know if anyone does.