Misdirection and Confusions

Nuclear Weapons and the Hands That Bear Them

Nuclear issues have to the fore in recent days, what with President Obama's grand summit which has drawn more nations to the US to confab since the international meetings which set up the United Nations.

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the NZ Herald, opines that the summit it just a symbol, but at least it is a conversation starter. Who could be opposed to talk, right? Confabulation is a medium in which Obama seems to set a great deal of store.

But let's step back and think about the broad parameters of the debate over nuclear weapons. Obama has publicly declared his long term goal is to rid the world of all of them. This tells us that he believes them to be intrinsically evil. He apparently puts nuclear weapons in the same category as, say, rape or incest. But, he must also believe that they are a necessary evil, which would explain why he is prepared to maintain his own nation's nuclear capability--at least for the present.

Are nuclear weapons intrinsically evil? If one would answer in the affirmative, presumably one would also include all weapons of war--say, semi-automatic rifles, tanks, bombs, and fighter aircraft in the same category. Whatever argument one may advance to remove all nuclear weapons from the world it would apply with equal force and veracity to all weapons and technologies of war.

If someone may object and argue that it is the immense destructive force of nuclear weapons which makes them inherently evil. The risk that they could destroy the entire world puts such weapons in a different category which amounts to intrinsic evil. But this is emotive clouding. If a primitive village can be wiped out by machine guns, it is not the smaller quantum of deaths which makes machine guns acceptable. A murder is a murder is a murder. The death of one man, Abel led to his blood crying out from the ground to God.

If nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, so too is the machine gun--for both alike exist for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill human beings. Both alike can kill in large numbers.

We would argue that nuclear weapons are not intrinsically evil at all--no more so than any other instrument or weapon of war. It is the use to which they may be put by men that makes them either evil or good. Evil resides in the human heart and is expressed in human actions. Evil does not reside in things.

Obama's rhetoric in calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world reflects the idealistic world-view of the West in general which looks for evil not in the human hearts, but in externalities. Change the circumstances and the environment and righteousness will dawn upon mankind--at least that's what makes sense of the actions and pontifications of most in the West. When boiled down Obama's stance on nuclear weapons, whilst typical, is akin to calling for a ban on gun ownership or knife bearing. If the inanimate object is removed, men will become righteous and act righteously. The Christian knows this to be a naive and misdirected argument.

Ironically, the Obama summit actually recognizes this--at least to some degree. The specific focus has been on taking action to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda--who will use them, we are told--and we do not doubt it. This, apparently is in contrast to nations such as Pakistan, Great Britain, the United States etc, who will not--at least as a first strike.

Here we come to the nub of the issue. Having nuclear weapons is not the issue. What will be done with them is the all important matter. Ought we to be deeply concerned that Israel has (allegedly) over 200 nuclear warheads? We have never lost the least amount of sleep over it. Ought we to be worried that North Korea has nuclear weapons? Indeed we should, since that nation considers itself at war with South Korea and calls for the subjugation of the South.

Should surrounding nations be concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Absolutely. Their president--a president in good standing let us add--has routinely and regularly called for the extermination of another state--Israel. This, it seems to us, is a de facto declaration of war of Iran upon Israel. That state of war should be reckoned to exist until Ahmadinejad and his doctrines are officially and formally removed in Iran.

If that be accepted as a fundamental principle, then all "pre-emptive" strikes by Israel against Iran to destroy their nuclear weaponry and resource are not only justified, but a necessary act by the Israel government. It would be derelict in its duty to God and its people not to so act.

But, were Iran to eschew Ahmadinedjadism and armed jihad against Israel, whether they had nuclear weapons or not would be neither here nor there. If Iran committed itself to a policy of recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, and of a complete and permanent cessation of any military aggression--either by direct or indirect means--against any other state, they would be welcome to nuclear weaponry.

If we are not prepared to take this position, then a whole can of worms inevitably opens. One such worm is the implication that all nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, which implicitly condemns all those nations which holds any military capability whatsoever--which is clearly contrary to Scripture. Another worm would be an insinuation that an Islamic state should be regarded as "bad" states--as the Great Satan--which sort of sounds a bit familiar.

In a fallen world, war is an inevitable reality, even as crime is. But an absolutely vital issue is whether any nation's war is offensive or defensive in its goals, purposes, and intents. Defensive acts of war are a necessary duty of the civil magistrate. Aggressive or offensive war is always evil. And aggressive war has surely started when one nation calls for the annihilation of another.