From the Associate&

     I have been real worried lately about the possibility of a nuclear disaster happening here in the United States, or elsewhere.  I was told by a friend that the CIA caught wind of a possible terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York city, last October.  Our federal government is still gravely worried about just such an attack.  Presently, our country has put into practice the pattern of some government leaders spending time underground, in a  secret location, in case of a devastating attack on our capital (Washington D.C.).  The government has also sent devices to coastal regions, to sniff out nuclear, radioactive material, which terrorists may be importing and harboring for use.  This is pretty scary stuff, and a very real threat.
     I believe a nuclear threat exists for much of the world: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, New Delhi, and many other places besides New York or Washington D.C. may be under consideration by terrorists.  Our own government has also been reconsidering the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, in war.  Some of our leaders are asking, "Are they really only good for deterrence?"; "Could we create smaller nuclear bombs, which may be contained in their devastation, but would provide a very real deterrence for opponents who might not believe we would use the big bombs?"
     The world is desperate for peace and security!  I propose the following: through the United Nations, an international law is put in place, which condemns any use of nuclear weapons, that is, weapons of mass destruction, for the    following reasons.  First, any just war effort must never be aimed at innocent civilians.  This becomes cloudy, when one discovers that civilians are also assisting evil regimes, in hidden ways, or by material cooperation.  Nevertheless, an opponent must be discerned, and innocent civilians not held accountable or attacked.  A large nuclear bomb is by its very nature aimed at civilians: not only can they obliterate a major metropolis, but they will leave toxic,   poisonous elements in the atmosphere and terrain for years to come, such that thousands of individuals who arrive later would also become victims.  Secondly, in a just war, the response of defending good people must be proportioned to the force of the aggressor.  Any nuclear   response to conventional weapons would break this maxim.  Maybe it is possible for science to discover a smaller potent nuclear bomb, which could be contained in its effects, attacking only fighters, but at this juncture, admitting my limited information, it seems that a nuclear bomb's devastation would be catastrophic.  I would define the use of just such a weapon as an intrinsically evil act, and anyone associated with just such an act must go to prison for life.
     Fr. Michael Becker