Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

In the 1980s, that critical decade of the Cold War, the USSR's prepared nuclear stockpile began to significantly exceed US retaliation capabilities. Dire warnings of an imminent nuclear confrontation (essentially over Middle Eastern oil reserves) were given by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and other forefathers of the neoconservative movement. These warnings failed to take into account the fact that the Soviet Union's rapid accumulation of nuclear weapons was a signal and a symptom of its impending economic and political demise. What ended up happening was that the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) turned into a proxy war between the US and Russia over Middle Eastern oil reserves, with the US supporting Iraq and the Soviet Union supporting Iran.

President Reagan correctly understood that this collapse of the "Evil Empire" was approaching and that the Russian people yearned to be free of Communist dictatorship. Unfortunately, while Reagan's moral leadership in this regard was impeccable, the US meanwhile cranked up its nuclear arms production, causing the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) with Russian premier Mikhail Gorbachev to stall. The two superpowers were now engaged in an arms race of unprecedented scope.

Faced with this situation, popular demonstrations naturally erupted across the globe in favor of a worldwide freeze on nuke production. People rightly asked: What is the point of two great nations creating and amassing more and more nuclear weapons? What benefit will this provide to the nations involved, or to the people of the world?

As a Catholic, Mr. Hannity should be aware that the Catholic Church itself--not just a few bishops--warns of danger from the accumulation of weapons. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in Paragraph 2315:

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. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

Moreover, all recent popes have strongly encouraged a multilateral freeze on the research and development of nuclear weapons. The fact that "liberals" at least agree with the Church on this issue as well as other foreign policy issues should serve as an impetus to dialogue, not as a pretext for political mudslinging.

Stripping aside "liberal-conservative" politics, we can see the wisdom and truth of the statements above. Our weapons kill loads of innocent people in unjust (and even just) wars to secure our precious Middle East petroleum reserves, but a thousand times that many innocents are languishing because our policymakers pour insane amounts of money into advanced weaponry. Furthermore, this generates a vicious cycle in which the ever-widening economic disparity between the Western world and other nations leads to rivalry and unrest, rendering the danger of terrorism and new wars even greater.

Ultimately, it is not the number and technology of nuclear missiles and warplanes we possess that determines our level of security. As the Catechism also says in Paragraph 2317: "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war".   

Nuclear proliferation offers a powerful temptation to leaders of weaker nations to illegally acquire their own nuclear weapons. For example, Israel's growing spectacular wealth and its military belligerence in the Six-Day War of 1967 stimulated Iraq into the development of a nuclear weapons project in the 1970s.

In addition, unsettled grievances and economic disparities have provoked wars time and time again. The first Gulf War arose from a contest over petroleum. With secret US backing, Kuwait (an ally of the US and Israel) had flooded the world market with cheap oil, reducing the demand for Iraqi oil on which Iraq's economy depended. Kuwait also illegally pumped oil from the Rumaila oil field on Iraq's side of the border. Unquestionably, both these actions were grave sins of economic aggression against the nation and people of Iraq. Kuwait was a tiny state with a far lower population, yet far wealthier than its large neighbor to the northwest. Hussein's pretext for war was to punish Kuwaiti aggression and regain control of the Iraqi side of the oilfield. If, instead of aiding and abetting Kuwait's crimes, we had condemned its monopolism and burglary, the entire conflict could have been prevented.    

A worldwide peace based on justice would remove excuses for nuclear weapons. Thus, a multilateral nuclear freeze or reduction would have been prudent in the 1980s--and would certainly be even more prudent now. In his first message for the World Day of Peace in 2006, Pope Benedict summoned all nuclear-armed states to action:

The truth of peace requires that all --whether those governments which openly or secretly possess nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them--agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament. The resources which would be saved could then be employed in projects of development capable of benefiting all their people, especially the poor.