Is there any sane person on earth who loves nuclear bombs? As such? If so, I’ve never met one. And I’ve certainly never encountered any good argument for them, as such. Ronald Reagan, the American president whom I heard many Europeans back in the day describe as a warmongering “cowboy,” hated nukes and seriously negotiated with the Soviets to limit their spread. His “Star Wars” plans were defensive not offensive, however much the mere notion of missile defense inspired not only that derisive label, but also fear and loathing among the professional nuclear gamers. Nukes are potentially apocalyptic. Would that we could ban them.
But we dare not. When Winston Churchill heard of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he remarked that henceforth, safety would be the “sturdy child of terror.” Meaning nations with such weapons would, out of necessity, deter one another. Commenters less experienced in worldly affairs often wished that nukes could be simply made to go away. Church figures, including the American bishops, have regularly opined on the immorality of nuclear war – sometimes even the immorality of the mere possession of such weapons.
Which brings us to the “Pilgrimage of Peace” to Japan a few days ago by four American bishops – Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, Seattle Archbishop Paul Etienne, Santa Fe Archbishop John Wester, and Washington’s Cardinal Robert McElroy – for the 80th anniversary of America’s nuclear attacks in World War II.
Cardinal Cupich rightly called for a return to the classic just war criterion on not attacking civilian populations and limiting warfare to combatants. Cardinal McElroy called for the abolition of nuclear weapons and cited Pope Francis that nuclear deterrence “is not a step on the road to nuclear disarmament but a morass.” Indeed, that’s true, but there are worse things than morasses, such as tyrannical states having weapons that they are not afraid to use because there is no reason not to.
So even as Church officials expound such worthy ideals – which they do often – in a wider view, unless there are achievable alternatives, their remarks are overly idealistic, bordering on irresponsible and even in a way themselves immoral. The Church, when it speaks of public affairs – which should be infrequently and very carefully – has to take into account that we live in a fallen world (which is part of its reason for being) after all. And in a fallen world, deadly threats, even man-made potential for global apocalypses, have to be handled carefully, calmly, but firmly.
I regard Pope Leo XIV, so far, as a man who typically displays those very traits. He hasn’t been making himself a public spectacle by injecting himself into every public issue. And his demeanor is sober and thoughtful. So it was unfortunate to see that he, too, weighed in on the question of nuclear arms in what seems a simply unrealistic way.
Last week, he called for nuclear disarmament – again a goal devoutly to be pursued: “True peace demands the courageous laying down of weapons – especially those with the power to cause an indescribable catastrophe. . . .Nuclear arms offend our shared humanity and also betray the dignity of creation, whose harmony we are called to safeguard.”
A worthy ideal and a proper warning.
But how would you get from here to there? Diplomacy? At the very least, it would call for much more rational world leaders than we have, or are likely to have. And it would mean those non-existent world leaders would all have to trust one another at the same time, and to the same degree such that they would be willing to make their nations vulnerable by disarming. Does that sound remotely possible given Putin, the Chinese Communist Party, the radical Hinduism of today’s India, not to mention Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran? We always hope for newer and better leaders, but does world history give us any reason to believe that we would see a whole crop of such philosopher-kings, simultaneously, in every nuclear nation, in any imaginable future?
And the idea that some international body can eliminate nukes is a pipedream. Bertrand Russell, once a prominent modern philosopher, was early in realizing the dangers of a nuclear world. His solution deserves quotation at length. He proposed:
the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force. . . . not an amiable façade like the League of Nations, or a pretentious sham like the United Nations under its present constitution. An international government, if it is to be able to preserve peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and, generally, whatever is necessary to make it irresistible. Its atomic staff, its air squadrons, the crews of its battleships, and its infantry regiments must each severally be composed of men of many different nations; there must be no possibility of the development of national feeling. . . .Every member of the international armed force should be carefully trained in loyalty to the international government. The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. It must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a casus belli. They must be provided with aeroplanes enabling them to discover whether secret plants are being established in empty regions near either Pole or in the middle of large deserts.
Quite logical, but also. . .quite mad. And impossible.
I don’t like that the world in our time is like this. Who does? And I very much support Pope Leo’s repeated emphasis on peace in the world and, above all, in our hearts. But in a fallen world, peace is of necessity a complicated international dance. It’s urgent that we also recognize that.
