South Korea’s bishops oppose anti-missile defense system

South Korea’s bishops oppose anti-missile defense system

[One might argue against such a system on the ground of expense or reliability but to oppose such a system in se and rely on “dialogue” with the megalomaniacal Kim Il-sung is naivte and stupidity by the bishops; an anti-missle system would not make South Korea the center of a new cold war, because it remains the center of the same cold war by an increasingly arming and hostile North Korea]

Catholic World News – July 25, 2016

In response to North Korean nuclear missile tests, the United States and South Korea have announced an anti-missile defense system—a move opposed by South Korea’s bishops.

The planned deployment of the system makes Korea “the center of a new cold war,” said Archbishop Peter Lee Ki-heon, president of the Episcopal Commission for Reconciliation, and Bishop Lazzaro You Heung-sik, president of the Commission for Justice and Peace, according to an AsiaNews report.

Warning of “dangers for humanity” and “economic suffering among the poor,” the bishops called upon North Korea to abandon its nuclear testing and North and South alike to make the peninsula a place of “reconciliation and life in cooperation, rather than a dangerous place of clashing states.”

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “South Korea’s bishops oppose anti-missile defense system

  1. What needs to be considered is this: North Korea would immediately against South Korea if a anti-missle system were to be considered. It follows the Cold War doctrine of “Mutally Assured Distruction”[M.A.D.]. Simple put, a Communist State and a non-Communist State will not go to war with each other, if they are both assured destruction. But if one side were to be able to prevent themselves from destruction, the other side would immediately go to war as a pre-emptive measure, before its too late and unable to retaliate. Conversely, according to this same theory, the country that is able to stand intact in case of a nuclear war, presumably would also be far less afraid to cast the first stone.

    • Thanks for mentioning MAD (mutually assured destruction). When I mentally drafted my preliminary remarks on the Catholic World News item, that idea came to mind, although not in your sense of North Korea launching a pre-emptive strike in advance of South Korea installing an anti-missile system (an option that I did not consider but now concede as highly likely). As I put my ideas on paper (rather in my comment), I forgot about MAD. I was thinking of it in terms of what I read about it long ago in Triumph Magazine, whose editors regarded it as intrinsically immoral for targeting innocent civilians to assure such a massive destruction (especially if we were faced with the situation of having to invoke such a response in case of a pre-emptive strike from the then-Soviet Union). Triumph argued that we had a moral responsibility to develop an anti-missile system in order to avoid the immoral situation/choice of MAD. I would argue that if South Korea did not install an anti-missile system, then that country would feel obligated to develop its own nuclear weapons as a MAD-deterrent against North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Further I think that regardless of any MAD, the North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung is mad enough to use nuclear weapons against South Korea (when he has developed a sufficient arsenal), not caring from where would come the assured nuclear destruction of his country – whether from South Korea’s own arsenal or from ours – out of a sense of our obligation to South Korea for such a retaliation against North Korea.

Leave a Reply