The Nuclear Sword Is Not In Vain

Oh, do tell me about "Pax Americana" while I drive through a permanent police checkpoint here in Mexico four times a day because America can't control it hose nose or pipe freak cocaine addicts or it's addiction to providing the Cartels guns and ammunition at gun shows.

The bumper sticker on Reynolds' Jag probably reads: NUKE A GAY WHALE FOR JESUS

John Mark Luke and Whatever Pax Americana may bleeding arse. We've killed 600,000+ non-combatant Iraqis in the last eight yrs. WE DON'T NEED NUKES. WE ARE A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. If there were a god and hell we should be filling up the dance floor as we continue to be the most TERRORIST NATION ON THE PLANET.

As one who spent much of the 1980s as a military intelligence officer whose specialty was the Soviet military (esp. the USSR Navy). The lesson I took from this time frame is that we were engaged in a war of financial destruction. Under Reagan, we embarked on a huge military spending spree. We were lucky that we spent the Soviets to destruction before the reverse happened. During the 1980s we forced their economy to spend so much on their military that their society could not sustain it, and their people ultimately rebelled against the privations necessary. At the same time, our spending significantly strained our own economy. How much longer could we have done the same.

And Prof Reynolds seems to think that this level of military spending is something we should continued???? Why do we have the RIGHT and the BURDEN of such spending? First, why do we think we have the RIGHT to determine world history through military might, because that is what he is ultimately advocating. Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world, if it was, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over." (John 18:36)

We can have only one allegiance in our lives, either we believe that the US is to make the world "safe" through armed military strength, or we find common humanity with other peoples.

We spend nearly 50% of the money spent on arms in the world. This is insane. We are not trusting in God, but in the power of nuclear weapons???? Why do we need a Navy stronger than the next 13 combined? If we spent much less than what we spend on military power on creating assistance to the nations of the "3rd world", we could live in much more safety than our weapons can buy.

Sorry, Dr. Reynolds, after 20 years serving in the US military, I have come to realize that we have been sold a bill of false goods by the likes of Bush, Cheney, and everyone who spends their time trying to scare one person against another. I'm not buying any more.

Pr chris

Clearly Navin needs to re-read the New Testament and take a fresh look at Christians, and Christianity. Jesus never talked of domination of the world, and the wars of the past 100 years were caused by people who ignored their Christian precepts if they had them in the first place.

For mankind to shine, Navin, they have to confront their own SIN, and the way to do this is through the power of Christ's resurrection.

I also notice that you don't mention the Viet Cong, the North Korea communists, Saddam, or the Taliban. War is the result and entrenched in mankind's greed for power, money, etc. We can't solve that problem until we confront our sinful natures. It is very simple yet ignored by people like you.

Passive ideologies are doomed to non-existence. Christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Democracy – none of these groups need to apologies for refusing to hide in the shadows.

Do not mistake being passive with being non-violent. Gandhi was not passive, he was non-violent. Martin Luther King was not passive, he was non-violent.

If you outlaw handguns, then only criminals will have handguns. If you outlaw nuclear weapons, then only rogue states and terrorists will have nuclear weapons. What is the wisdom in this? Will Kim Il Jung or Osama bin Laden follow any moral example made by the United States?

It is not enough to be good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.

Mr. Reynolds analysis mistakenly assumes that it is possible for the U.S. to maintain its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously preventing other nations from acquiring these weapons. As long as the U.S. and other current nuclear powers maintain nuclear arsenals – we will perpetuate their value and legitimacy in foreign policy. It is simply not possible for some nations to hold these weapons without also creating incentives for others to acquire them.

Nuclear deterrence may have prevented direct conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union. But we also must acknowledge that this policy may also have perpetuated and institutionalized a level of permanent hostility that was expressed in proxy wars around the globe – with combined losses approaching 9 million souls. In this era of global terrorism, a strategy of nuclear deterrence is even more erroneous. We cannot deter terrorist groups who have no home address.

The only effective path toward nuclear security is the global, verifiable elimination of all nuclear weapons. We have already recognized this reality for biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction which is why the U.S. has signed on to both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibiting these weapons.

Weapons of war which by their inherent power have no means of distinguishing between military or civilian targets - between man, woman, or child - should have no place in our moral universe. Our religious leadership must be in the forefront in the defense of innocent life.

If europe is no longer christian, it is because of the renaissance and enlightenment. The death sound was heard when the christians executed their greatest aggression against the Jews. Then the christians of Europe realized the emptiness of their ideology. And like all good people, they chose the emptiness of atheism to that of demon worship.

If you say India is expansionist when Asoka et al ruled. I accept that charge. But if you see that expansionist trend, India is from the current Afghanistan to Vietnam. It seems that Indian expansionism has been on a negative course for some time. Seen historically, this original India is now more than 50% muslim.

If Hindus were to send crusaders or jihadists around the world, missionaries that lie, steal children from their parents to convert them, etc. you may have a point. But I have not seen any systematic evidence of that.

As to logic, nyaya is a foundation of logic. We should all learn it better.

Another lesson in logic, it is called statistics. A size of an army is certainly important. A proportionate (per capita) evaluation is a more profound understanding. Perhaps you should look a little more logically on numerically based judgments (sorry, generalizations).

And no, I do not withdraw my conclusion on the christo-islamist-communist mono-ideological goal for world domination.

hariaum

Hello PT8685,

How is it that reasoning concludes that the dominant religion of any country wants to take over the world, PT? You are sneering a bit at Navin's 'lack of logic' in your post, but I fail to follow what you seem to consider your superior logic. Please enlighten me how you reach that conclusion.

It has been the stated aim of Christianity and Islam, at different times and through different mouthpieces of authority in those religions, the ideal of converting the whole of the world to their religion. I am not aware of that aim having weight in the Hindu faiths. Neither am I aware of it in their political aims.

They do have a bitter rivalry with Pakistan, and some history of territorial disputes that go deep. Perhaps India would like to 'take over the Indian sub-continent', but that seems the extent of their land lusts.

“The intent of christianity to to take over the world. When the christians controlled europe it was always at war.”

Really, Navin1?

Apparently, your Hindu ideology didn’t teach basic logic. If we use your reasoning, we could easily conclude that the dominant religion in any country at war must want to take over the world – including Hinduism.

Hindus comprise 80% of India’s population; a far higher percentage than Christians in Europe today. India has fought wars for centuries, including civil wars, war with Britain, with China, and at least three especially brutal wars with Pakistan. These wars cost millions of lives and often expanded India’s territory. They have the third largest military force in the world, including nuclear weapons.

Care to revise your sweeping generalization, Navin1?

There are several points in this essay to which I take exception. First, I don't believe it is "the goal of a Christian to limit war". It is or ought to be the goal of a Christian to end war. Second, the author seems to be equating strength with maintaining a nuclear arsenal. The U.S. is militarily very strong apart from its nuclear arsenal. That arsenal did not prevent the Korean war nor did it stop the Vietnam war. Third, while it is true that dropping conventional bombs on Nazi Germany made the people just as dead as if they had died by a nuclear weapon, the increased destructiveness of a single nuclear weapon makes killing hundreds of thousands or even millions easier. The destructiveness of these weapons put them in a category by themselves. They cannot and have not been treated as just another bomb. Fourth, Ronald Reagan spoke of peace through strength but he also wanted to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. It is good now to see Pres. Reagan's Secretary of State George Shultz calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Fifth, while you mention that nuclear disarmament should not be a reasonable short term goal, Pres. Obama and others recognize that nuclear abolition is not a short term goal. Of course there are many steps between arms reductions, such as a START follow-on agreement, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and development of a Fissile Material treaty, and world wide abolition of nuclear weapons. The problem posed by talking about short term or long term is nobody is defining those terms, and that leaves forces of the status quo dominating the scene not getting anywhere near the goal.
Of course it is important to work for freedom and human rights for all peoples of the world, but the dangers inherent in nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism mean that that work must be carried on in a nuclear weapon free world.

Larry Pullen
Faithful Security:the National Religious Partnership on the Nuclear Weapons Danger

Sort of wrong. The intent of christianity to to take over the world. When the christians controlled europe it was always at war. It was when Europe abandoned the idea of colonialism and christian values that it found peace. The Nuclear arms race was sustained for decades because two mono-ideologies (the US and the Soviets)could not want a diverse world. Europe suffered for this.

If the prevention of war can save lives, the use of war can certainly be considered the taking of lives. The deterrent did not work in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The US is certainly responsible for killing millions of people.

I am an American by choice. It is this country, and the constitution that defines it, that can lead humanity to a greater world. But the point of my nationalism is not that me and my ethnocentricity is the boss. My Hindu ideology teaches me to want all of humanity to shine. Our first next step as an advait (undivided) humanity is to go beyond the dark ages brought on by the mono-ideological fanatics of christians and muslims. Thus I agree that the US should not disarm (and thus mandating a forceful disarming of the intolerant fanatics "out there") But,I hope you can learn to pray with the rest of humanity for a Pax Humana.

hariaum