Discussion on Nuclear Weapons Justification

for territorial aggression against-

I think-

... sovereign states like Ukraine

... I, I, I think ultimately nuclear weapons serve a

very useful

purpose as being the final threat.

But you-

Useful in what way? To what-

A useful in that-

What end?

That, that, uh, that the whole Cold War strategy worked.

Russia and America did not go to war because both sides realized

that the other could wipe them out.

Right.

Now, of course-

They talked about using nuclear weapons, but y- but is using nuclear, the actual

use of nuclear weapons-

No

... is that ever justified?

I think it was-

Offensively

... justified in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes.

I think it was justified in bringing the Second World War to an end, yes,

unquestionably.

Unquestionably justified.

Unquestionably, yes. I thought the num- the, the, um, number of lives are-

So it's justified to kill people who did nothing wrong?

Well, we're not talking about people who did

nothing wrong.

The, the Japanese were warriors.

Well, the populations of crowded cities are-

We were, w-

... not responsible for the war.

We, we were in a-

Women and children get incinerated

... we were, we were in a state of total war.

Okay. Well-

I, I think, I-

We were not in a state of total war, actually.

There were no Japanese troops on American soil.

We were not in a state of total war.

Well, they, they had attacked-

That's not even close to a state of n- total war

... they had attacked, um, American soil, as you know.

Four years before-

Yeah

... and then they were losing, but we were not in a state of total war, and

but I'm

asking you a theological question-

I, uh, it is-

... which is is it ever allowed, under the precepts of, say, Christianity-

Well, does-

... to kill people who did nothing wrong?

Does it mean-

To kill women and children?

Do- does it meet Aquinas's, um, test of a just war?

It does not.

I think it does.

How?

Well, um, are you a legitimate authority? Yes, you are.

Uh, is it an important cause? Yes, because you have been attacked and you're

defending yourself. And is it proportionate?

Yes, because it actually shortens the duration

of the war.

That's not the definition of proportionate.

Proportionate means that you're responding in a way that

is not

grandly larger than the-

It, it-

... initial attack

... the, the, um, overall strat-

In other words, if I, you punch me in the face,

I can't shoot you.

The,

um, yes, but this is m- different means of killing people.

But I'm zeroing in on-

You're, you're not talking about a punch in the

face.

You're talking about is it legitimate that I-

No, no, killing people's kids.

Oh, shoot-

Who have nothing to do with it. That's okay because why?

We were at war with the whole country.

We-

And it end-

We're at war with the kids?

And it ended the war. Yes. Well, the, the, Japan was at war with the United States

and the United Kingdom. We were, we were at war.

So if another nation says they're at war with us, it's okay to kill our kids?

Well, we don't want to be at war with other

nations.

We-

No, I'm asking an abstract question.

But, but, but you're asking a ridiculous-

And you're, you're clearly fluent. It's not a ridiculous question.

It's-

Yeah, no ridiculous question. Um, Japan had attacked the United States,

had start-

I don't think its kids attacked the United States

... had started a war.

Why not kill the people who started the war?

Uh, and, um, the, well, we, we did in the end.

We, um, uh, the Japanese prime minister c- tried to commit

suicide, and we spent-

But we also-

... ages getting him back to good health so we

could hang him

... we also killed tens of thousands of

children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and

you're saying that's okay.

To end the war. Well, I think it was justified.

I think the nu- use of nuclear weapons, uh, at the end of the Second World War was

justified.

So what you're saying as a Christian is yes, it is okay to-

It was a proportionate-

... kill children who did nothing wrong

... it was a proportionate response. Yes.

Do you feel that that is a Christian position?

Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a

just war.

Really?

Yes.

Has a- any pope since

Aquinas, uh,

confirmed that? Have there been any-

Well, the, the-

... papal statements saying yes, under certain circumstances,

it's okay to kill

other people's kids?

The, the Church has preached for centuries

that there, i- are conditions

of a just war.

I don't think there has been-

But the Church-

... any statement since 1945 from, and I'm not Catholic-

But, but-

... so, you know, I'm not an expert, but you are, so you tell me.

But there's, there, there's, there's a-

As a Catholic, you think the, the Church-

Since, since, since-

... endorses killing people's kids

... since 1945, there's only been one explicitly, um,

ex cathedra statement by the Holy See, by the Fa- Holy Father.

I guess the question is if-

And that was on the assumption-

... you are willing to kill non-combatants who

committed no crime, if you're

willing to murder the innocent, then in what sense

are you better than the people

you are fighting?

Well,

that, once a war is engaged, when...

The whole point of what I'm talking about, to go back to the opening part of your

question-

Once the, let me finish the thought.

Once the war's in-

I, I will come back to it-

Yeah

... because it's to avoid war, and you avoid war by being

strong. Once you are in war, you are justified in

winning the war. And-

So you can behave like an animal once the war starts

... and, and if the risk

to you is sufficient, you can use nuclear weapons.

I think that is morally justifiable.

I mean, e- even leaving aside the details of

America's use

of those two bombs, there was no risk to the United States.

Japan was in no condition to invade the United States.

It had never put troops on our shores, so there was no risk to the United States.

No, it, it attacked you, but it wasn't likely to put troops on our

shores.

It attacked our territory.

Yes.

Right? And which is bad.

Well, it attacked a state. It was, it wasn't-

It was not a state

... a state.

It was territory.

There wasn't a state then. No, of course, you're quite right.

In December of '41. But the point is, we were not at risk from an

invasion by Japan in any sense. Okay? It was a defeated nation.

We already firebombed Tokyo.

Yes.

Uh, multiple times. So-

Well, you see, that's where, do, do you think the firebombing of Tokyo was

justified?

I don't think killing the innocent is ever justified under any circumstances,

and I think the basis of Western civilization

is justice for the individual. I believe that blood guilt

and group punishment are antithetical to our entire

civilization.

They're the things we fight against.

Yes.

That's why the Gulag was wrong. That's why what's happening in Gaza

is wrong.

It's always wrong to kill people who did nothing wrong, and if we don't think that,

then on what basis are we administering our own justice

systems-

Well-

... that take such exquisite care to punish

only the guilty?

I don't even understand what you're saying.

I think it's very difficult to have fought the Second World War without innocent

people being killed.

I don't know.

I think-

No one tried. But maybe, well, I never understood why fight the Second

World War in

the first place.

Well, that's a very, um, fundamental question.

Well, how about the First World War?

Well, let's stick to the Second World War.

No, let's start with the First, which led to the Second.

Well, we, we were on the Second. Um, the, the Second World War,

Hitler would've taken as much as he could have done

As he was showing. And did you really want him to-

Well, Hitler said that 15% of Poland was

once Germany, and it was given to Poland at the Treaty of

Versailles. That was German territory with Germans in

it. That was his case.

And by the way, that was true.

Except-

And I-

Except, except the Polish borders had been cut off

by-

I, I, look, I'm not here to-

... Prussia and Russia

... I'm not, it's not about defending Hitler

... and Austria.

I'm just saying the idea that Hitler just randomly rolled into

Poland is a

lie, and everyone believes it because they know

nothing about the actual facts.

But the truth is Germany had big pieces of it carved off, including part

of Prussia, and it was given to this other country.

It infuriated the Germans.

Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did, and that was the justification for it.

The UK had nothing to do with it at all,

and-

Well, we had the Treaty of Alliance

... they destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war-

Yeah

... that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn't.

It, it was fundamental. It was, it was the classic good versus

evil.

Has the UK benefited from it?

We did the right thing.

Is it a better country than it was?

To have defeated Hitler, yes.

So the UK is a better country now. It's a healthier-

Well, otherwise we-

... country now.

Well, otherwise we'd be speaking German.

I, who cares? But-

I do

... there are a lot of people in Britain who

can't speak English.

Well, yes.

So it would be nice to have, like, at least a European language spoken in

your

country.

No.

But you don't.

I see no advantage to speaking German over any other language.

Um, we want to-

But it's-

... speak English, thank you so much.

But, but the point is-

Uh-

... a war should benefit, if a war is fought with the

children

of your citizens, which it is,

then that war should benefit those citizens.

And it did benefit this country.

In what ways?

It benefited this country.

Can you tell me how?

Uh, but as I said to you, otherwise Germany would eventually have

invaded us.

So you, um, Germany-

But we've had 80 years to assess. Tell me the benefits.

Now sitting 80 years later as the grandson of, I'm sh- certain, people who fought

in that war, I am.

Well, my grandfather was, um, too old.

He was in the First World War and Second World War, and my father

was too young.

So we-

In any case-

... we sort of missed a generation.

Um-

I'm saying now that we've had it, and as a, as a, a, a lover of history,

why don't you tell me the ways in which Britain benefited

from, and I'm gonna use air quotes here, "winning"

the Second World War? Because from my perspective,

it looks like the empire ended,

India was lost two years later-

Yes

... the United States took over the world, and has had troops here ever since.

Yes.

You lost your sovereignty and your self-respect.

The, well, we certainly-

And this beautiful country-

We certainly didn't-

... has been destroyed

... we certainly didn't lose our self-respect

over winning the war.

I mean, in terms of self-respect, th- that's a rather ethereal benefit.

Our self-respect was hugely maintained by defeating the greatest evil the world has

known.

Um-

Then why would you allow foreign troops on your soil ever since?

Um, because we wanted to stop the Russians.

Okay. But I mean, it's kind of a prerequisite of sovereignty

and self-respect not

to have foreign soldiers on your soil for 80 years.

The, they're allies. We're in NATO together.

Call them whatever you want.

Yeah.

But there's still foreigners on your soil.

Yeah, they're very welcome here.

I, I know.

But they're part-

That's the point I'm making

... they're, they're, but they're part of defending-