Obama was apparently caught off-guard this past Thursday when asked if he would use nuclear weapons to target terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance … involving civilians.“ Later, he seemed to retract his response: “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.“
Obama’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that “[h]is position could not be more clear. He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
And then Hillary responded to the question Obama was asked by saying that “[p]residents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
Emphasis added. Yes Hillary, because nuclear deterrence has definitely “kept the peace”… perhaps in the U.S., but that’s about it. And not even in the U.S. in the light of the several terrorist attacks we have seen in the past few decades.
Let’s revisit what the Church teaches in regards to deterrence and nuclear weapons:
“[T]he Magisterium has made a moral evaluation of the phenomenon of deterrence. ‘The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them’. Policies of nuclear deterrence, typical of the Cold War period, must be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations. (Compendium of Social Doctrine, 508)
Emphasis added.
I really don’t believe much in “hypothetical questions,” but at the same time, their answer tells you something about a candidate’s moral values and in this case, even though Obama was hesitant and uncomfortable, he showed that he believed it would be a mistake to use nuclear weapons under any circumstance, and as Christians, we can agree with him on that. Hillary, on the other hand, showed her true colors. I also don’t think that the candidates are divided by party lines when it comes down to discussing nuclear weapons. I would be very interested to see what the Republican candidates have to say with these question and I’m afraid that, for the most part, their answers will align more with Hillary’s position.
My question is, would we see a candidate making the statement above from the CSC about nuclear deterrence?: “Policies of nuclear deterrence, typical of the Cold War period, must be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations.”
I don’t think so.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In