As an English immigrant who has lived in Scotland for many years I stand with those Scots who deplore the condescendingly superior tone of the last sentence of your editorial (“Weapons that are keeping the peace” 18 April 2015), which states that it is “unwise, and not particularly moral” to pretend that the Russian question does not exist.
Scots are far more aware of the reality of nuclear weapons than anyone else in the UK. They have lived with them for decades and with the nocturnal shuttling of fissile materials along their roads to Faslane, and with the knowledge that Faslane is the prime target for any first strike from a hostile nuclear power. They know that such weapons, being disproportionately powerful and indiscriminate in their effects, are intrinsically evil. Hence they reject the idea of their use and want them removed.
At the same time, the Scots are not so stupid as to believe that their proposed elimination is not fraught with many questions. What depresses them is that the non-proliferation talks have stalled and our Government seems paralysed on the issue. The reality they suspect is that the possession of these is seen as a virility test by those who have them. Does anyone seriously believe they intend to use them? In what situation? Would any nuclear state seriously define the line which, if crossed, would trigger a nuclear response? That scenario was brilliantly addressed in an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" years ago. There are other, more effective ways of dealing with Putins of this world if Western governments had the wit to take them.
In making an issue of this, the Scots are taking a moral stand, and ensuring that it is not forgotten.
Peter Simmons, North Berwick, East Lothian
Your editorial mentioned the Scottish bishops repeating that the possession of nuclear weapons is a grave moral issue. Recently, Pope Francis re-stated that not only is their use immoral but also possessing them. As a moral leader he is actively engaging with the subject. The Holy See's newly appointed Ambassador to the United Nations, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, says: "Today there is no more argument, not even the argument of deterrence used during the cold war, that could ‘minimally, morally justify’ the possession of nuclear weapons. The ‘peace of a sort’ that is supposed to justify nuclear deterrence is specious and illusory."
This highlights a dilemma for everyone of conscience. On the one hand we are told our nuclear weapons are our protection, but on the other this means going along with the intention necessary for credible deterrence; the firm intention to use them and all that that means, i.e. the killing and harming of very many innocent people. Christians cannot live with this. (How might acceptance affect people who do?)
The Catholic bishops in the United States are trying to move the Holy See's moral discussion forward in their own country, but words from our bishops in the UK are awaited. Before long, the question of Trident renewal will be upon us.
The next UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is beginning and the US bishops plan a special event there. Stephen Colecchi, the director of the US bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace, says " Are nations, including our own, serious about nuclear disarmament if they are modernising nuclear weapons systems?" (The UK signed a treaty with France in 2010 to work on them for 50 years.)
Because a lot is hanging on the negotiations with Iran, the US is pleased that Pope Francis is prioritising nuclear disarmament. His influence could be crucial.
Michael Pulham, Waldron, East Sussex
Loading ...
