Is War Good? Part 3I BBB 61.2

Join us as we embark on this new series about what the Bible says about War, Self-Defense, Violence, Killing, and Murder. www.brainsandbibles.orgwww.thinklikechrist.org

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
We are going to move on to our main topic.
Is war good? Yeah.
And that that makes your brain hurt when you really think about
it sometimes. There's a lot to it.
There's a lot to it. As we found out so far.
Yeah. So we're we're, we're working
through some of these questions.Joel has been taking turns
taking different positions on that I don't know about ahead of
time. This one I do know about 'cause

(00:22):
we ran out of positions to take.And so we're going to we're
going to wrap this up with the final position on the view of
war. And, you know, maybe maybe
you're sitting there thinking, you know what, I got a different
position doesn't match any of these.
That's OK. You know, you know, this is
going to kind of working throughthinking through what the Bible
really says and and just kind oflooking at that big picture

(00:45):
wise. So all right, Joel, let's get
started. So here, here's my final
introduction on it, but I'm going to add a little more than
I did before. So the there are four major
views on the morality of war andpacifism.
War is never good, but just war,which is what I'm going to be
defending. Just where I'm saying now is
this is my position OK? This is officially your

(01:07):
position. This.
Is yeah, before I was taking false positions.
Yeah, faking the position. Right, right.
It's irrationally. Unlike pacifism with just war,
war does have the ability to be justified.
It's not always justified, of course.
Sometimes we are actually morally obligated to go to war.

(01:29):
So it's, yeah, it's not just that, oh, it's a that's that's
kind of a good thing. It's like, no, you ought to do
it or you're actually wrong, youknow, OK, at times.
Then realism, that's where, you know, hey, war justifies itself.
This is the way the world works.It always has, always will.
And so we. Better the more weather is.

(01:51):
Yeah, it's, you know, but that pursuit of power and things,
that's actually how you provide,you know, the, the peace and
prosperity for your citizens andexpands your borders.
That's just more peace and prosperity for more citizens.
Even so, you know, they they they kind of like have a.
For the neighboring countries. Yeah, right.
Well, you know Brazil, so yeah, it's it's why is Brazil so big?

(02:12):
OK, moving on. So then there's holy war, you
know, You know, I forgot to say what it's why just wars, unlike
realism. Sorry.
OK, so just war though. It's saying that, you know, war
must be, there's no alternative.War must be justified by a moral
framework of justice and peace, both things.

(02:35):
So like realism? That moral framework should come
from the Word of God. Yes, yes.
Not just randomly made-up by an individual.
And really that's the whole other conversation that we've
actually already had, you know, like is God good series and
stuff where God is the standard of morality, that kind of thing.
So when I'm, when I'm using terms like moral here, like I,
I, I mean that biblical worldview standard, sure.

(02:56):
OK. So it must be justified by a
moral framework. And of course, I think there's
other people that can have just war, a just war view and they
would reject my position as God is the objective universal,
consistent standard of good. Sure.
So then I think they're going tostill have some problems with it

(03:16):
because of that. So that's kind of an important
distinction too, I guess. But yeah, so, so realism just
says, hey, war, war justifies itself, so who cares?
You know, it doesn't need any external moral framework or
anything, whereas just war says,no, it absolutely it does.
Then you have like holy war. You know, the war is good when

(03:38):
waged to spread the faith movement.
You know, we'll say Christianityin their case.
Yep. But unlike holy war, then just
war, the, the, the causes for war must be tied to the common
good, not only to church leadership, You know, so we're,
we're actually looking out for all citizens, even of all

(03:59):
faiths, you know, we're looking out for literally everyone.
What is the best for peace, justice, that sort of thing.
Prosperity really isn't even necessarily on the menu.
That's kind of a second hand thing because we really want
justice and peace. If we can get prosperity as
well, obviously we'll take it. But that's not #1I.

(04:22):
Kind of like freedom too. Yeah, well, yeah.
Well, if true peace requires freedom, yeah, true peace,
there's a false peace that's outthere, one that the the final
Antichrist will offer. That's a probably another
episode there. But anyways, so then what is
just War? So here's a quote I have from
this book. I've gotten a lot out of it.
I, I recommend it. It's called Ethics of War, a

(04:44):
short companion by Paul D Miller.
And just talking like, maybe I should just shoot an e-mail out
there and see if I can get this,this person to come on our
podcast because this is really, it's a really good book.
And so anyways, this is his quote here.
Just War is an instrument to be used by legitimately constituted
government which it has responsibility for all citizens

(05:07):
of all faiths to uphold justice and peace in the face of violent
assault. OK, so it really couldn't say it
better myself. I had a quoteum, but I think
it's just very concise and involves a lot there.
In fact, I'll let me read it onemore time because it's a lot of
words. So if you're just listening it
might be hard to digest. Just War is an instrument to be
used by legitimately constitutedgovernment which has

(05:29):
responsibility for all citizens of all faiths to uphold justice
and peace in the face of violentassaults.
OK all right with that said, OK,there is five Cree Cree.
There is five key criteria there.
We I can speak when we have we have a question here when when

(05:51):
is going to war? Just so before I give my 5.
That's the big question then, right?
Yes, so I there's, there's five key criteria.
This is standard. This is not just something I'm
making up. So I'm just, I'm just
representing this position here.So off the top of your head,
Nate, what would you say if you had to come up with some
criteria? When is going to war?

(06:13):
Just what? What might you say?
When England's taxing you too much and you can't take it no
more and you have to, you have to fight for your rights.
So you're mentioning A cause? Yeah.
The cause is important. The 'cause is important.
What, what, what would you what?What would be a distinction a

(06:33):
good distinction between good and bad 'cause then?
You know, so much of it, so of it, much of it changes with with
time, right? Like when we fight our
Revolutionary War and the taxes are what, like 2%, whatever it

(06:54):
was, it's insignificant. We only had a few items.
It was super low. And we and, and the big
complaint was we're getting taxed, but we're not getting any
representation in the government, right?
That was our big complaint, right?
One of them. I mean, there's others, but that
was one of the big complaints. I mean, but now we're taxed at
what, 3040%? You know, when you, when you

(07:15):
count, when you count everything50%, you know, if you're rich,
you get really taxed. Sure, but we're not going to war
and fighting for independence, right?
So, so some of that changes overtime, you know, so.
Well, what? What are some universal
principles though that we could have?
Yeah, maybe we'll step away froma specific war right now.
I'm not afraid of going there, but just right now just kind of

(07:37):
back up. And what are some universal
principles that can be consistent, maybe a little bit
more objective? Obviously if you, you're, if you
were attacked by a foreign power, you would defend
yourself, right? And that would be 1 Any nation
that's attacked, whether they'rebeing attacked for good reason
or not, has the right to defend themselves.
Any morally right like we, we have the right of self-defense.

(07:59):
I'm with you on that. You, I would say.
Aggressors coming in? Yeah, we're going to.
Get rid of on that behalf, I think you it would be morally
accessible to also defend othersbeing attacked.
Thinking the innocent. Yeah, especially those those who
are weaker and unable to defend themselves in the case of like a

(08:20):
especially like a mass genocide or something crazy, you know,
you think award what you of course there was there was that
going on. Plus someone trying to conquer
the world who who was who was also, you know, spreading evil
ideology. That was pretty bad.
And and and yet even then, New America was trying to stay out
of it. Like, no, you guys fight your
you know, this is over in Europe.
You guys fight until, you know, we got attacked with Japan and

(08:42):
we stayed out the war. Now what do we eventually got
in? Probably eventually, you know,
but. Yeah, eventually.
But at the same time, like you also don't go looking for
fights, especially other people's fights, right?
But at some point, you're like, OK, there's some bad things
going on here, we need to step in and we have a more
obligation. So I think that would be 1.
We have our. And there's a lot of things that

(09:04):
would play into that, especiallywhen you're fighting for someone
else because. Yeah, yeah.
Which country is right, you know, and all those things.
But that's a super hard one. But but defending of the
innocent would be, would be. And that's not just for war.
That's just life in general, right?
If you're walking down the street and some innocent person
is being assaulted by an evil person, you would step in.
You have the moral obligation tostep in and defend them.

(09:27):
All right, so we have on countryscale there's more complicated,
but all right, we. We almost spent too long in one
of these. So yeah, that's one, one of the
five criteria, just cause. And so then what, what about
intentions? So it's so it's distinct from
cause. So there's a cause to go to war,

(09:50):
but what are your intentions when you go to war?
Should be to win. OK.
But what's winning? Yeah, that.
That that target moves a lot of times.
We had for a while, we had a heart and mind campaign.
Remember that with from America over in the Middle East, there's
a heart and mind campaign. So instead of actually like

(10:10):
conquering the, you know, the physical enemy with warfare, it
was more of we go there, try to set up reforms and whatnots.
And and so that, you know, it was, it was, it was hard to say,
you know, when, when did you finish?
When did you win? Did you win?
Yeah, it's that's, that's a tough one.
So like I, you know, aiming at just combine the words we keep

(10:34):
saying just in peace, right. And justice and peace.
And so aiming at just peace, youknow, they have that together.
Revenge would not be good. Do you agree?
Yeah, OK. In theory, although defending
yourself is. I think there is a distinction
there. There's a distinction.
Yeah, I, yeah, I think because. Going just for the sake of

(10:56):
vengeance is not the same as defending.
Cause 'cause revenge is like you, you offended me, you hurt
me or something like that. Me hurt you back and I'm just
out of spite. I'm just going to hurt you back.
In other words, that is the goalin another.
Self just hurting just I want tohurt you not solving the
problem. Right, right.
And so that's why revenge wouldn't be a part of this.

(11:17):
That's not a that's not a good intention, but just peace is.
And I think like conquests, like, you know, that's a tricky
one because it's it's like the idea of you don't want to just
have the intention of I'm going to take all of your land, all of
your things, And that's kind of where the realism view, right?

(11:41):
So I'm just going to keep bulldozing over everybody.
Yeah. I, I think there's yet to
understand your limits. Like what?
What do I intend to do? We'll just leave it there.
But. And those, those things need a
line with scripture. You know, we are just even
though we have enemies, we stillneed to love them.
And that involves even when you kill them on the battlefield, I
think that you still love your enemies to a degree.

(12:04):
You're doing what is right. But, you know, here's a strange
idea for a lot of people, but it's actually mentioned in that
book too, with the the ethics ofwar there just, you know, to
even have a time for soldiers toto, you know, grieve the enemy's
loss. Sure.
Because they are human beings. And a lot of times they're just,

(12:26):
they're also guys just followingorders, you know, and it's not
necessarily that you hate each other.
It's that there is cause and tension.
There's all these things going on.
The the individuals fighting thebattle are still human beings.
There's a lot of soldiers that have a lot of, you know, guilt

(12:46):
and things they carry. You can talk to veterans.
They're the veterans have a highsuicide rate even because of the
guilt they'll carry for these things.
And, you know, sometimes that, that proper grieving can help
with that. And there's, there's resources
out there. Definitely reach out to some
pastoral help and resources, other, other help too.
Yeah, that's, that's kind of a, another branch of this that

(13:09):
would kind of like a, a consequence of war that could be
dealt with. So I'm not really wanting to
deal with that now, but I thought it'd be worthy to
mention, worthy to mention there.
So it's important. So what?
What about? What about this proportionality?
What do you mean by that? So the idea is that the overall
good gained by the war, it must outweigh the evil done.

(13:38):
OK. Are you with me?
Sure, because. Because war brings death and
destruction. And so that's what you mean.
Yes, war brings death and destruction.
So so whatever our, our, our gain is by the outcome needs to
be needs to outweigh needs to outweigh be greater than what we
had to go through The the means don't necessarily justify the

(13:58):
answer. A tie is not good enough.
Equal good to the evil. You know, like, that's sure.
And that kind of goes a little. Countries to slip away with with
damage. I mean, something beneficial
needs to come out of it, correct?
For. One of the countries at least
right and. It and it could just be stopping
you know a Hitler type person sure like that the evil that

(14:20):
that had to get done you know it's it was the good that came
out of it I think far outweighedyeah the evils of war yeah and
of course I know with a with a subject like this I'm sure
there's no matter what you say there's going to be
disagreements and people are going to get upset with a lot of
things too but. Absolutely.
But this is just. I think this is proper.
But I think just thinking through it and then like
actually say, OK, what does the Bible say about this?

(14:42):
And and this thing through it isgood regardless of your
position. Like there's good arguments for
for different positions. I mean, legitimate arguments
like, you know, love your enemies is a is, is really in
the Bible, right? It really is, you know, yeah, do
not murder in the Bible. And so having that distinct
murder and killing, it's important to think through like.

(15:05):
It is specifically in the Bible.It's talking about people that
want to kill you. Yeah, yeah, they, they want to
kill you. And you're supposed to love them
and bless them, you know, and they're.
But I think war does play a partin all this.
I think both things can happen. And that might be a hard thing
to to get in your head at first because that, you know, first
for me too, I was like, wait a minute.
It's either one or the other. It definitely can be.

(15:27):
But yeah, it just was work it through.
How about this one? How soon do you pull the trigger
to go to war so that the the actual criteria marker is it
says last resort? Yeah, I mean we would have.
Tried right? We tried the nonviolent options.
We tried diplomacy. We tried, you know, whatever

(15:49):
there is. Yeah.
What do you think about? There's a there's a nation
coming to war against your nation.
Now, don't don't think America right now.
Just think like it could be any nation.
Any OK a nation comes to war against your nation and they are
pretty much just as powerful, maybe more powerful than your
nation. The more powerful you definitely

(16:10):
send the yeah, the plants, right?
Well, but so like, you know, what about saying, hey, what if
we can just be subservient to you and pay tribute to avoid
war? What?
What? How does that sit with you,
Nate? That doesn't sit very good with
me. But wouldn't that?
Be I like, I like freedom. Yeah, I mean there's still it

(16:30):
depends on the the relationship there I.
Mean it could be if you had no way of winning, that's an
option. Like when Rome took over, right?
A lot of times it was diplomacy.It was like, hey, we will kill
you if you resist. However, we're, we're going to
let you keep, you know, your religious practices, You allow
your civic practices. We'll even let you have some of

(16:52):
your own rulers. We'll, we'll, we'll put ours in
too. We'll.
We'll appoint some governors andyou just send us your tribute
and don't, don't rebel and we'llbe happy.
So. So what would you prefer that
over war? If, if I had no chance of
winning, that would be better than dying, I would.
Well, maybe, I don't know. Probably not.

(17:12):
Lots of deaths. We think about how they're
broken, the widows, the orphans.Yeah, I know.
I mean, this is all the arguments against war.
I mean, war brings a lot of bad things, yes.
And, and so I mean, you, you want truly, you want to make
sure that whatever 'cause I'm fighting for, I really believe
in, right? Yeah, like.
And and yeah. So is it truly the last resort

(17:34):
'cause I, I, I think that, you know, last resort's good then,
but you're also going to come into conflict with what are you
not willing to give up Yes. You know, cuz at some point your
nation is kind of no longer a nation.
You've lost your identity. This has happened in other
groups. You know, you think like the,

(17:55):
you hear about the Anglo Saxons that came in and you know, the
Anglos. That's why I became England.
It's Anglo land. The original kind of English is,
you know, basically the Welsh today they got which it means
like like foreigner or somethinglike that is what I mean.
So they like in their own land, they were a foreigner because
they essentially got totally wiped out.

(18:16):
I'm Welsh, our last name is Walsh.
Is that right day? That's a Welsh name.
Supposedly that's what I was told.
That's interesting. So that's now, you know, a
little bit of your history anyways.
Yeah, that's that, that's, that's the idea.
Like, so you don't want, you obviously don't want to be

(18:37):
erased off the the, you know, the the borders of the world
right now. They were just basically
brutally attacked and that's allthat was left and, you know,
whatever. And so.
If you strip conquered, Yeah, ifyou saw.
Something like that coming. You know, it's kind of like,
well, what would be willing to do to avoid mass slaughter, you

(18:58):
know, and then in today's world by mass slaughter lots, you
know, we might be considering, you know, of course, bombs, but
nuclear warfare, of course, which which I am going to that's
a that's at the end of our conversation today on we're
going to address nuclear warfare.
So hold on to that. One, is it good or bad?
That's the question and we're going to consider a lot of

(19:18):
things so. Can something be both?
So we'll hold hold on to this conversation later, Alright?
Alright. So when is going to war just,
well, it's gotta be a just cause, right?
Intention. And there has to be in
proportion, you know, the good has to outweigh the evil.
It needs to be a last resort. And so I think that still needs
to get flushed out a little bit,but we'll be done with it today.

(19:40):
Like that's an idea that we needto think through, yeah.
Worse should worse should not beyour first option.
That's definitely can be agreed on.
Yeah, right. And and you know, and what all
do you try ahead of time, you know, sort of the diplomacy and
all these things, but. How quickly do you pull that
trigger? Do you just surrender because
they're better or do you fight? You know.
And fight and die and. Yeah.

(20:03):
Well, yeah, I mean, and it's hard to.
So some of this is hard to separate just from your American
mindset, right? Oh yeah.
'Cause our, our American mindsetis, no, you're not taking my
stuff. Right.
We, yeah, we are a different kind of nation.
We. We are.
And we, we are very, you know, we're we're built on rebellion.
We're built on literally, Yeah. Freedom fighter.

(20:25):
No one's going to control us. We will all die.
We will be free. Yeah.
You know, and, and, and that andthat that attitude has permeated
our society forever. Right or wrong, Some of it, some
of it is based on biblical truthand some of it is just, you
know, the American spirit, you know, like, and so it's hard to
differentiate sometimes. Sometimes you have to really

(20:46):
stop and think, why do I want tobe free?
Is it just because I don't like people tell me what to do?
Or is there a better moral reason for freedom?
Well, and free from what you know, it's.
Exactly. Free for from what?
And free to do what? Yeah, two different things also.
Yeah. It's so important actually stop
and think. Why?

(21:07):
Is it just 'cause I don't want you to tell me what to do?
Or do I have a real reason to befree?
Yeah, so and then the last one is legitimate authority.
So the idea is that this needs to be like an actual real
institute of government, not in other words, you know, not like

(21:27):
a, a terrorist group, a private militia.
That's probably just war. Now, how does that sit with you?
When I say private militia, I think I maybe the early days of
America. You might be thinking about that
a little. Bit well, I mean, every, every
country's ever fought for their own independence didn't have a
legitimate government in theory,but they but they formed one as

(21:48):
they were doing it. So there's been lots of, you
know, guerrilla warfare tactics over the years that that were
justifiable because, you know, there was done in defense of
their homeland of some sort. So like in our land now, I don't
want to go into this too far, sojust kind of track with me for a
little bit. But the Constitution is the
highest king in America. Actually, it's the people.

(22:10):
People, the ultimate authority in the land.
The Constitution gives them that.
No, the people in the Constitution give the government
authority. Well, the Constitution be.
The Constitution, the people, the the Constitution wasn't
there first. The people were there first.
But. They signed it into power to be
over the people. We the people to.

(22:32):
Govern the people to govern the people.
We, the people of the United States.
The constitution allows for people to rise up against the
government, correct? So then you have 3.
People gave themselves authorityto keep the government in check.
Well, I'm going to say there's three groups there.
OK. And people, constitution and
government, OK, I'm going to divide it that way.

(22:53):
I'm not. I I just want to make this very
simplistic idea real quick. Either way, the government is
not the ultimate authority in our land.
Sure. Sure, calm down, there we go.
So the idea like with legitimateauthority, real government, not
least private militias is the idea.
So for it to be just war, you couldn't have you.
Know groups of people attacking.I'm going to say two things

(23:14):
here. So, yeah, so you're you can't
have just some mob rise up and say this is righteous and
overthrow, you know, whatever. OK.
However, we actually have the wording in our constitution that
is, you know, accepted. It's an official document, you

(23:34):
know, that we are allowed to rise up when the rightfully
instituted government, we believe they've gone too far and
they've done something wrong. So that's an interesting kind of
plot twist to this. Yeah, because it's not.
Literally how our country also was founded.
Yeah, that's right. That was our that's why we

(23:55):
declared independence was for those same reasons.
So it that that's an interestingone to think through as well.
And you know, I think it's, I think just, you know, not to
hash it out right now, but you know, even to think, you know,
I, I want to make it clear that I love my nation.
I love being a citizen here. I don't want to be a citizen
somewhere else. I want, I like, I like.
America 100. Percent and so just with that

(24:15):
foundation, but you know, I do want to consider, you know,
sometimes we celebrate certain things.
You know what, you know, sometimes rebellion is just not
good, you know, and and so therecan be a good just rebellion
because you're rebelling againstevil, right?

(24:36):
And so we have to be very careful with that and kind of
analyze history and don't just go, well, we're just good.
We're just right because this ismy people, this is my
forefathers or something. You know, we want to have a, a
biblical foundation for these things.
And that's not what we're going through today.
We want to make sure that we arebeing consistent with Scripture.
We are honoring God, we're giving glorify, you know, proper

(24:59):
worship and to him, we're glorifying him properly through
all of this. And so that that's kind of the
the foundation, the framework that we're working in here.
So there we go. That's that's when is it going?
When is going to war just just cause, right intention,
proportionality, last resort, legitimate authority.
You have those things. Then the second question, which
only has two criteria, how must war be fought?

(25:22):
OK, so that's another, another ball of wax there.
So this only has two things really.
And so the first one is about discrimination, OK, the idea
that you, you may not deliberately keyword, OK, you
may not deliberately target civilians.

(25:45):
You must aim your force at legitimate military targets and
intend keyword intend Collateraldamage does happen.
Collateral damage we're. Talking about intentions.
And and and, yeah, and you should not bear the brunt of
collateral damage. So but you intend to spare?
Bear the guilt of collateral damage.
You intend to spare noncombatants as far as

(26:07):
possible. Sure.
So not deliberately targeting civilians.
And you intend to spare the civilians?
Now how does this then they'll play into the wars in the in the
Bible. I mean the kill orders, women,
children, babies, animals, kill everything.
Right now we did kind of handle that and it's got good.

(26:27):
We we have, we have handled thatso.
Then I'll just real quick, I canjust.
See, I can just see someone like, well, that's not how they
fought the bio, right? Like they went to exterminate in
so many cases. There, there basically was no
innocent party there. We have to remember that, that
the order was to drive them out and there was clearly they all

(26:49):
knew about Yahweh. They knew about the power of
Yahweh or Jericho. The hearts melted within them
and things. Everybody knew about it.
They heard about the kings beingdefeated in things.
There is lots of warning. God had, you know, his own
ambassadors, so to speak, in theland, like Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and they all kept moving around and he had Melchizedek.

(27:10):
Part of the reason he had Israel's stay, what, 400 years
in Egypt was because the time ofthe Canaanites was not done yet.
He was giving them more and moretime.
Time to repent. Yeah.
Yeah. And so there was.
So there were witnesses in the lands for centuries talk about
mercy. And then.
But. But instead of.
I mean, they just kept getting worse and worse and worse.
It just, it did not slow down atall.

(27:31):
The days of Melchizedek were long gone, and even then there
was some problems, big problems,you know.
Yeah, there was a Sodom and Gomorrah at that time.
Right, correct, correct. And so, so they, they came in to
drive them out. They only had 100% kill rate for
those that stood the ground against them.

(27:53):
And sadly they kept their children and things with them.
And so they doomed their own children really.
But hey, just to get into a little bit like what would
happen? Those kids grow up.
They're gonna be your enemies. Sure.
Even God says, hey the people, you leave the land.
You can use that same argument today though.

(28:13):
I guess that's why I was going to get to.
Yeah, yeah, you could. I think there is a SO.
Why does the why does the ethicsof it change?
I think there is a distinction between God directly saying you
go here and do this, Whereas if we just say I want to expand my
borders or if we say. I'm going to defend my borders.

(28:34):
They really hurt. Well, defending is completely
different. That's that's another issue
altogether, Sure. But I mean either way, like I'm
not going to target the children.
But if you strap bombs as littlekids.
Unless they have guns with them,you know, like, and then they're
combining and that's a whole other.
Story that that'll happen they'll you know, they'll
weaponize children. Yeah, they will.
It's so sad and that's wrong. And it's one of those things

(28:55):
where you you have you have to take them out with the
situation. If anything else could be done,
let's do it. But yeah, there's just there's
so many sad decisions that have to be made.
And I think it is just, and it'sit's really, you know, who who
gets that blame? It's it's that that those people

(29:15):
that are weaponizing the children, those are the ones
that have the guilt anyways. Get get off on a, you know, pet
pet peeve there. But so so, yeah, don't
deliberately target civilians and you should intend to spare
non combatants. Sure, OK.
As far as possible, I think we can agree with that.
And we're saying as far as possible.

(29:36):
Yeah, because there is collateral damage, you know,
wrong place, wrong time. That happens in war, right?
And then the other, the other key point here with how must war
be fought? All right, proportionality, once
again, you should not have a useof force.
That is clearly, I think that's kind of a keyword there.

(29:57):
Clearly excessive relative to the actual military objective.
OK, So what what goes back to cause and attention?
Like what are you going to war for?
What are you trying to accomplish?
And so if it's simply that there's this one bad leader and
this happens, and that leadership group, small cluster

(30:18):
leadership group, they're actually evil and doing a lot of
bad things, then you have a large civilian population that
is in disagreement with that leadership, and they are
actually being persecuted. They're actually suffering
underneath this leadership. You go in to take out the
leadership, but then he goes, you know what?
It'd be a whole lot easier. This is just a carpet bomb.

(30:40):
The place you know, Well, OK, that's not just war, that's
that's disproportional to the objective.
So that's what that that's that's what I talk about.
So you want to make sure that itis proportional.
Your use of force is proportional to the objective.
When you're weighing that out also, it's it's the the
potential loss of life of those on our side as well, right?

(31:03):
Yes, absolutely it is. And so you, you have to make
those decisions based on defending your people as well
and protecting your people as well.
So sometimes it is easier to drop bombs than lose our our
people and and. Well, that's why it's even a
thought to begin with. And so, yeah, you.
You have to weigh those things, yes, so.

(31:25):
But we have like, you know, SEALteams.
Yeah, I know it'll go in and. Just you have, you know, the the
incursion teams that can go do some stuff and they, and they
do. That's why it's beautiful to
have. Special forces, yeah.
Yeah, which I'm always so impressed with the ability.
Using press and special. Forces, Green Berets and all
that. Oh my goodness.
Anyways, we'll move on. So I want to read Exodus

(31:48):
scripture here. So I'll go through just a few
passages, 33 little passages to kind of show how Jesus is a man
of war. He is a he is The Ultimate
Warrior. OK.
Oh yes. OK, so Exodus 15 one through 18.

(32:10):
I know it's longer, but it's beautiful.
And so this is after Egypt army was defeated in the Red Sea.
Okay, so then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song
to the Lord, saying I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed
gloriously. The horse and his rider he has
thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength in my

(32:30):
song. He has become my salvation.
This is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and
I will exalt him. Here is verse 3.
The Lord is a man of war, says ESV.
The Lord is a man of war. The Lord is his name, of course.
That's that master, right? That domination OK, Pharaoh's

(32:51):
Chariots verse 4 Pharaoh's Chariots and his hosts he cast
into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red
Sea. The floods covered them and they
went down to the depths like a stone.
Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power.
Your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy.
In the greatness of your majesty, you overthrow your

(33:11):
adversaries. You send out your fury.
It consumes them like stubble atthe blast of your nostrils.
The waters piled up, of course. That's the idea of like, even
like that anger, you know, you flare the nostrils and stuff,
right? The floods stood up in a heap,
the deeps congealed in the heartof the sea.
The enemy said, I will pursue, Iwill overtake, I will divide the

(33:32):
spoil. My desire shall have its fill of
them. I will draw my sword.
My hand shall destroy them. What happened?
Verse 10? You blew with your wind.
The sea covered them. They sank like lead in the
mighty waters. Who is like you, O Lord among
the gods, Who is like you, majestic and holiness, awesome
and glorious deeds doing wonders.

(33:55):
You stretched out your right hand.
The earth swallowed them. You have led in your steadfast
love the people whom you have redeemed, the defending of the
innocents, protecting your people, that that's kind of
built in there too. You have guided them by your
strength to your holy abode. The peoples have heard, they
tremble. Pangs have seized.

(34:15):
The inhabitants of Felicia now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed,
trembling seizes the leaders of Moab and all the inhabitants of
Canaan have melted away. Terror and dread fall upon them.
Because the greatness of Your arm, they are still as a stone
till your people, O Lord, pass by, till the people pass by whom

(34:38):
you have purchased, you will bring them in and plant them on
Your own mountain, the place, O Lord, which you have made for
your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have
established, That ends with thisin a little section here the
Lord will reign forever and everthat.
Now here's Psalm 2. I love Psalm 2.

(34:58):
Why do the nation's rage in the people's plot?
In vain the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
take counsel together against the Lord and against his
anointed. So the father and the sons, yes,
saying, Let us burst their bondsapart and castaway their cords

(35:19):
from us. What do they want?
They wanted freedom. From God.
Yes. So it's not good freedom this
time, Yeah. Freedom's good.
So then he will speak to them inhis wrath and terrify them in
his fury, saying, As for me, this is the Father speaking.
I have set my King Jesus on Zionin Jerusalem, my holy hill.

(35:40):
I will tell of the decree. The Lord said to me, you are my
Son today I have begotten you, ask of me, and I will make the
nation's, your heritage in the ends of the earth, your
possession. So there's a domination and a
conquering over the entire earth.
We see that fulfilled much later.
You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces

(36:01):
like a Potter's vessel. So definitely use of force here,
use of force now. Therefore, O kings, be wise.
Be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the sun, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for

(36:22):
his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge
in Him. I love Psalm 2.
It sounds like a holy war. Well, not so much, because it's
not, it's not trying to spread Christianity.
This is just the conquering the enemies that have stood against
Jesus. Yeah, really.
Interesting, I was making a joke.
Well, but I had it cleared up. All right, all right, fair

(36:45):
enough. One last one, one last passage,
because these are awesome. Revelation 1911 through 21.
Yeah. Yeah.
So I kind of got like 3 pieces of the Bible here, you know?
Revelation 1911 through 21. Then I saw heaven opened.
Here comes the big second comingbattle.
I saw heaven opened, and behold,a White Horse, the one sitting

(37:08):
on it, called faithful and true.And in righteousness he judges
and makes war. So there is this idea of a
righteous war, you know. Now there could be an argument
here that only Jesus has the right to to do a righteous war.
You could say that what I didn'tdo I.
Just don't. I just want to give credit to
that. That's an argument that that

(37:28):
many will say. Well, if they listen to the
first part of the series, I gavea stirring pacifist argument.
Yeah. So, yeah, we.
But. But you know, here, even if you
go through every passage that has to do with war, which is
puns, there's a lot of puns. Yeah.
You you will actually be begin to see a lot of this, these

(37:50):
these elements of just war that are there.
But there is the idea that thereis this the justice and
righteousness that is in war, not all war, but it.
But it's there necessary evil, if you will, you know, if if you
understand the phrase not sayingit's actually evil to do it.
OK, All right, so then this is really cool here.

(38:13):
Let's go. Let's go to.
So it's verse 12. Now his eyes are like a flame of
fire and on his head are many diadems.
And he has a name written that no one knows but himself like
this. He is clothed in a robe dipped
in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God.
In the armies of heaven, arrayedin fine linen, white and pure,

(38:35):
were following him on white horses.
From his mouth comes a sharp sword, with which is strike down
the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.
That rule there is Shepherd. He will tread the winepress of
the fury of the wrath of God theAlmighty on his robe and on his
thigh. He has a name written, King of

(38:55):
Kings and Lord of Lords that trading that winepress the fury,
the wrath of God the Almighty. It's that you know you're
stomping on his grapes and stuff.
You know you're just stomping and in this course the grape
kind of looks like blood, right?He's just squirting up, so he.
Doesn't sound pleasant. It's a it's a bloody picture on
purpose. Yeah.

(39:15):
Then verse 17. Then I saw an Angel standing in
the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that
fly directly overhead. Let's get an idea of the carnage
here. Come, gather for the great
supper of God to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains,
the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their

(39:35):
riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both
small and great. And I saw the beast.
And so that's, you know, the figures in Revelation.
There I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their
armies gathered to make war against him, who was sitting on
his on the horse and against hisarmy.
That's a bad idea, by the way. It is a very bad idea, and the
beast was captured, and with it the false prophet, who in its

(39:57):
presence had done the signs by which he deceived those would
receive the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his
image. These two, this is unlike
anybody else. The special thing here, these
two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with
sulfur. I don't know exactly what that
means, but that's a bad deal. They didn't die yet.
In the last verse, here in the rest, Yeah, yeah, yeah.

(40:21):
It's doesn't sound good. No, it sounds bad.
So what happens to the rest of them?
Verse 21 And the rest were slainby the sword that came from the
mouth of him who was sitting on the horse.
He spoke a word and all the birds were gorged with their
flesh. Yikes.
So we have this. Gorgeous.
Overeaten. Yeah, I know.

(40:42):
Trust me. I know what gorge means.
That's a fat guy at a buffet. So you'll hear we, we definitely
see throughout Scripture that, you know, Jesus not only
approves of certain wars, He wages them himself at times and
there is a justice in a righteousness in it that it's,

(41:02):
it's, that's there's potential for war to have those elements.
I think what it comes down to really is, you know, the
individuals participating, are they, are they sitting in their
hearts as they do these things? You know, there's the individual
intentions, the individual reasoning for it all that often
is where there is failure. You know, even with the the, the

(41:26):
nations that God raised up to judge even Israel and Judah and
things, they did so in a sinful way typically.
Yeah. And so they then they were.
Like they were punished for for.For what?
They were judged, Yeah. Right, right.
And So what? So let's get to the final piece
here. OK.

(41:47):
What about nuclear weapons? The big boom.
As I figured out, we got to cover this.
We got to cover. There's so much stuff to talk
about, so really. Well, it's only it's only
they've only really been used once, like, you know.
Two cities, but. Yeah, but like, you know.
In actual, you know, wartime. One time, yeah.

(42:08):
As far as I understand it, maybethere was something else, but
yeah, as far as I understand. Maybe the me I mean smaller
stuff has been done, but yeah. So yeah, because there was a
different. And was that justifiable?
OK, let's, let's, we're kind of jumping ahead a little bit.
So let's go back to our principles, OK?
Discrimination, how? How should war be done, right?
Remember discrimination and proportionality.

(42:29):
So you may not deliberately target civilians.
You must aim your force at legitimate military targets and
intend to spare non combatants as far as possible.
And then no use of force that isclearly excessive relative to
the military objective. All right, with those two key

(42:50):
criteria established, OK, we think of nuclear weapons now,
right now I'm, I'm imagining the, the, the like atom bomb
level 'cause there are like ranges of size, OK.
So just think of like atom bomb,OK?
By nature, really they are indiscriminate and

(43:12):
disproportionate. I mean, typically speaking,
right? Sure.
Yeah. Can there be a situation,
though, where it is proportionate?
They're obviously always going to be indiscriminate.
Yeah, always. By that alone, does that mean we
should never use nuclear warfare?

(43:37):
Never is a long time. Because it, this would be the
just war position, sure. And so it'd be like it, this is
where I think people tend to like, they can be with me.
And then now they're going to take like a a realism view.
So it's like, yeah, I'm just warup until, you know, now I think

(44:01):
I'm going to be more realism. War happens, casualties happen.
This is the nature of it. Everybody has nukes.
We're going to have nukes too. You.
Know, I think, I think in, in the, in the case of the nukes,
which, you know, I mean, we'll just talk about the ones we
dropped on Japan because that's really the only ones I know
about, right? Yeah, right.

(44:22):
It ended the war. It did an ongoing war that would
not end and it ended it. So I mean, that's, that was a
justification for it. Basically, we're going to try
this, hope it ends the war and and it did.
I'm sure there's more details into it than that.
Of course that's but that's what's in our history books,
right? And there was warnings given.

(44:44):
There was like the old, like, you know, leaflets dropped where
they're saying, yeah, you, you, you better get at us to the
city. You may you might want to.
You may want to evacuate. Now the the problem is, is what
did they actually understand? Because you're like, your entire
city's going to vaporize, you know, I'm not sure the wording
was, but how can you comprehend that at that time?
Especially like now we can look back and go, oh, that's what it

(45:05):
did. And so when someone talks about
a nuke, we suddenly have all this information popular in our
heads. But what information do they
have? You know, that's one of the
considerations, things like that.
So like, was it a fair warning? I mean maybe the.
Best I can do, I have no idea. But then you all, but then you,
you weighed into, OK, how many other lives were saved because

(45:25):
the war stopped, which was a lot, right?
And then that and that was a justification for it.
And I'm not necessarily opposed to that justification.
Of course, we're on the winning side, which always excuse you
always excuse it. So like, I also realize that as
well. It's hard to say.
Yeah, yeah. But I can certainly say, you
know, I would not be one who advocates for a nuclear war

(45:48):
today. Sure.
What do I say? It never should have happened.
I mean, there may be a scenario where it's necessary for a just
cause. But I mean, yeah.
I mean, I think most people on board with.
Yeah, we'd prefer that not to take place.
Yeah. And.
I just. About every situation, you know.

(46:11):
I, I think it's like the, the, the part that doesn't hold up
'cause I think it is, I think there's a good argument to be
made whether someone agrees or not.
I think it's a good argument to be made to say it's, it is
proportional. There is a, there's a level of
evil there, but the good that came out of it as far as ending
a World War, I mean, we're talking about how many lives get

(46:32):
lost on the scale of nations across the globe.
You know that that's a pretty big deal.
The. Discriminate part that's tougher
doesn't really pass pass the muster there doesn't pass,
Although, you know, if you if you gave the warning, you know,
that's also hard to do because abombing attack is less effective

(46:52):
if you give a warning, right? Like also you can get shot down,
especially in today's world. Back then it was a little
different. You know, we were able to sneak
those planes over there. And it's kind of hard to escape
that area. You know, that's like, 'cause
all the fallout you think about,you know, nuclear warfare is a
little bit different than normal.
And of course we don't have necessarily all the information

(47:14):
on the the radiation problems. We did not know.
Correct. Yeah, Yeah.
And there's probably, you know, suspicions of it, But we, we
know a lot more about radiation problems today than we did then.
Yeah, there was a lot of bad information in the beginning of
that. Yeah.
You'll see like, you know, videoof people walking towards the
nuclear blast. They're testing it, yeah.

(47:36):
There's no no clue about how actually bad that you know the
whole thing is. Of course if.
You hide it inside of refrigerator.
I hear. I hear you're safe.
This is how close you are to theblast.
Hey, I watched that Indiana Jones movies.
And then breathing the air afterwards.
Against other refrigerators there like a mile.

(47:58):
Oh wow. Yeah, you know, watch this I.
Haven't seen that in. There some documentary.
Indiana Jones, you. Said yeah, yeah.
OK. All right, OK.
So, so it's it it becomes a little bit hairy.
What is what I'm saying? So let let me introduce you to
another idea because because there could be, you know, the
idea is like, should anyone evereven have them?

(48:21):
Is it unethical to even have it?Like you can make a threat.
Maybe your threats is what's keeping you safe.
But I mean, are you never going to actually use them?
Yeah, I mean, that's just a sucha theoretical thing because once
once you have it, you can't really not have them anymore,

(48:42):
right? Correct.
And it it's so crazy. You're already at that point.
And so just as long as your nation has the most, you should
be good. I mean that's really the theory
that you know, that's the only way to be safe and then you just
hope that everybody is semi reasonable.
We don't just have a full blown everybody hit the button at once
and just destroy the whole worldall at the same time.

(49:04):
You just hope that doesn't happen.
Well, even you think about the possibility of a just peace, OK,
Is that is that endangered? Because if you consider, you
know, a a large nuclear exchangecould destroy infrastructure,
you know, needed for any decent post war life.

(49:27):
OK, so like you're, you're actually creating problems.
So long term it's, you know, many generations afterwards are
affected by this whole thing andeven, you know, creating long
lasting bitterness, desire for revenge, you know, things like
that. I, I just think those have to be
considered. You know, a lot of this is a

(49:47):
thinking exercise here. We're not actually here to, you
know, solve all the world issues.
And the virtues of nuclear. War.
So this is exactly what you are to do, all you nations.
OK, We're not there yet. But no, no, no, no.
But yeah, there's. This just how, what do you think
the Bible says about this? Is is talk through this?
And that's really what this is all about.

(50:08):
There's going to be a massive refugee crisis, there's going to
be famine, you know, potentiallya.
Full on nuclear war would be bad.
Like they may not be refugees. Well, there's there's there's
the idea like like we if everybody shot off their nukes
kind of thing. We all have like anti nuke

(50:29):
capabilities, but The thing is, is you're exploding them in the
air. Well, you're still it's not
like, oh, we dodged that bullet.Well, partially.
Yes, you know, yes, you did, but.
But then here comes the you know, the aftershock.
If you have, if you have the, the radiation portion of it, the
fallout and all that stuff, thatwould be bad.

(50:50):
Oh yeah, and all that, you know,and I'm not a scientist.
I, you know, I'm out of my element knowing what would
actually happen. But I'd read the books and watch
the movies and and it's not good, so.
Yeah, there's, I mean, there's even like the small tactical,
you know, more tactical nuclear little little guys.

(51:12):
But that's, you know, there's still some lingering effects are
still, you see, at the way outs.What are we actually doing?
Where is it going? Who's it affecting?
But I want to make clear becausesometimes we handle things like
this where we are in this very sanitized environment, we don't
have the stress of making a decision.

(51:33):
We can look back at now decades of data and we can say, OK,
well, this is clearly, you know,they didn't have that
convenience and that and that's always true.
Going forward in time is there'sgoing to be the stress of a
situation. You have like 5 seconds to make
a decision sometimes or you knowat best a few days you know if

(51:55):
you guys are your. Decisions have consequences all
the time. And, and, and there's a big
consequence, the decision that to, to drop 2 nuclear bombs,
that's a big decision, right? Yeah, yeah.
And you're weighing it with, youknow, yeah, this is going to
cause all kinds of collateral damage, but it's also going to
end the war. How much more collateral damage

(52:17):
is going to be caused if we continue the war, you know, and
those are the decisions being made.
And, yeah, I mean, that's not tobe made lightly, obviously.
I mean, you hope that if it's taken through the ethics of that
and at some point, you know, youjust have to trust that you
leaders are right. Like and also keep in mind they

(52:38):
have more information than you do.
So a lot of our leaders make decisions and we're like, I
don't know if I do that. Well, they also know more than
you do, right? So there's more information it
plays into than what you know comes out on the news, you know,
So you can't necessarily sit in judgement on what others have

(52:58):
decided necessarily. And and also because quick
commercial. Know all this stuff?
Quick commercial for being active in your, your local
politics and beyond. You know, voting is an, an
important privilege that we have.
And so we, we elect leaders and then we submit to them.

(53:18):
You know, as a general rule, of course there's can be exceptions
if it's evil or something, you know, necessarily like like
obviously inherently evil. Yeah, but you know, some way.
Yeah, but just it's a general. Rule or it goes against in our
in our case, it goes against Constitution.
Then you don't. Yeah, you know.
I think there's reason. To obey certain things according
to the Constitution. Now can you still want to search

(53:39):
trouble with that? And that's a whole other
conversation, but. Well, let me, let me introduce
you something else then. I want to keep it moving here.
Yeah. So there's something called the
the the acronym is Mad, MAD, Mad, Mutual Assured Destruction.
Oh, that sounds fantastic. So, so the the idea with this is

(54:00):
that you have nuclear weapons asdeterrence.
Yeah. You know, it keeps people.
From They shoot them at us, we shoot them at you.
Yeah, exactly. If we're gonna die, so are you.
We have. Is that vengeance?
My nukes are pointed at you, andyour nukes are pointed at mine.
Yeah. And so someone that would be a
proponent of this would say thisis a good thing because it

(54:21):
basically assures that you'll never use them.
Yeah, I mean, that's, that's thehope behind it, right?
I. Mean that's the idea.
That's the idea. I think it's not that simple,
but that's nothing. Nothing's ever as simple as
that, but yeah. So is it a question for you?
Is it morally permissible to threaten an unjust action you

(54:42):
believe you must never actually commit?
So we're talking about like a large scale, you know, like
Russia has bomb that that have a40 mile blast radius, 40 square
mile blast radius with all the fallout and everything just.
Sounds like a good negotiating tactic.
So you know, but like can you if, if you believe, if you're in
a position where you'd believe it's not just to nuke somebody

(55:07):
the. Key is, do they believe that?
Do they believe that you believethat?
But but just for you, like if you were to believe that you you
should never actually launch this thing, is it morally
permissible to threaten it Do? You believe that you should
never launch it? Does that answer really the
question? Right.
Well, yeah. Well, yeah, if you, if you're in

(55:29):
a position where so if you're a true just war tradition person,
OK, then obviously this is indiscriminate killing.
It's obviously you have a large number of civilians.
So you can, you don't take, you don't take all five of your
things in the in the in consideration and say, OK, 305,

(55:51):
that's good, you win. No, they they are supposed to
take it as 100% altogether. There is a there is a hierarchy
in some of these, right? You know, we can play with it,
but I'm using the actual like this.
This is the position. If you didn't have the whole
position, you but I. Think because I think, you know,
the the greater good thing outweighs some of the other ones

(56:16):
ultimately. Yes, I, I'm with you, I'm with
you that I believe that the proportionate part of it is
actually probably the, the key, the, the biggest factor, the
biggest factor, because if, if it does produce more good

(56:39):
ultimately, if you know that, ifyou really believe that, then do
it now. I I don't mean the end justifies
the means there. There's a fine line there.
There. There's definitely a line there.
That's I don't mean that, because what that means is
morality goes completely out thewindow.
I. Think, I think you're, you're,

(57:00):
you're weighing the you on the collateral damage sense would,
would more collateral damage happen if you continue on in
this path, But this action here would stop that.
Yes, it causes collateral damage, but ultimately less.
And those are the things you're you're weighing when making that
decision. That doesn't make it an easy

(57:21):
decision or decision to take lightly.
But to say, yeah, you would never do it would be a tough
sense to take. Now to your question.
If you believe you shouldn't do it because it's not, it can't
fit the just test. The arguments really doesn't fit
the just test. But you say you believe it

(57:41):
doesn't. Should you even threaten it or
not? Because that's almost like
you're lying. Lions and sin.
It's kind of deceptive. It's also a really bad thing if
you say I'm going to do this. But then, but then you get in
the whole ethics of deceiving other nations and spies and all
that stuff. Oh yeah, and I do want to cover

(58:02):
that one day. Actually, and that, and that's a
whole another conversation. But I think you fit in that
category right where like, you know what I mean it when it
comes to like, yeah, I'm, I'm going to say I'm going to shoot
these, although I never would because you're trying to deceive
them and think that you're goingto shoot them when you're not.
I think you're in you're in thatcategory.

(58:22):
Now then the argument then is, is is that wrong to lie and
deceive? Yes, I I don't think all is fair
in war. I think that you still have your
same moral code, but it is, it is the idea.
I think proportionality is, is king and I'm willing to fudge on
it really. So it's like, you know, so
there's, there is people that say AI have a just war view, but

(58:46):
they, they, they're willing to say, but not all key
considerations, all key factors are equal.
And I'm open to that. Now back to vengeance though.
Vengeance not being a just 'cause if we're shooting them
just to destroy the other nationalso, is that just vengeance and

(59:09):
therefore not just? Right.
So that I was actually going to mention that, so I'm glad you
did. So the idea is like.
Was that punishment? They launched nuclear weapons at
us. So we launched them back.
So then so so like. They cross paths in there and
that's basically the idea, right?
Because you're going a long waysand you know you got you got
time before they hit. So we're shooting ours too,

(59:29):
right? That's the idea.
Right, right, so so the. We may not win, but neither are
you. I I think what that comes down
to is causing attention. So, So what, what causes there?
We are under attack. Now The thing is, is shooting at
them doesn't stop that attack that that attack.

(59:50):
That's another issue. No, but we do have things that
stop those attacks as well. So the intention of it though,
is the intention that they are evil.
They're they're going to do thisto other nations probably.
And so we want to prevent this from happening to other nations.
So I think that's we'll. Say anything to justify it.
Well, but I really, I really mean it.
I really mean it. Yeah.

(01:00:11):
Yeah, because, because if the intention is you're going to
burn with us and that's it, well, that's not so noble.
That's not as noble. It makes sense.
It's a human, natural, human response.
But that's what, when you hear mutually assured destruction,
that's what you think. Because that's like, OK, you
guys. Stay safe.
And honestly, that very well could be a real reason why we

(01:00:35):
haven't had nuclear warfare is because everybody's, you know,
not everybody, but you know whatI mean, a whole bunch of nations
have nuclear weapons. They're all pointed at each
other. And so no one's interested in
having that mess. Nobody's interested in doing
that. And so, yeah, we'll see.
And then there's there's other things my mind goes to with with

(01:00:57):
how that could go wrong, but let's move on.
OK, OK, so here's here's OK. So let me let me get to maybe
how about some scenarios, let's do some, some what if deals, OK.
And then I think, I think maybe we maybe we'll close with that.
Some what ifs. OK, you're trying to try to make

(01:01:18):
me think through. Yeah, there's, there's lots of
things. OK, OK, OK.
So you have a a single small tactical nuke on an isolated
military target. OK, OK, imagine enemy is about
to launch a massive biological strike that would kill millions.

(01:01:43):
A single low yield nuclear strike on a hardened bunker in
an unpopulated area could stop it.
No civilians are in range. OK, now hold on.
OK, so here's here's the considerations we have to have.
All right, so I think that we'rekind of starting out a little

(01:02:05):
easier maybe here. OK, but discrimination, right?
So are non combatants really safe?
Is Fallout contained? OK, so you see where I'm going
with this. So it's like there's there's
maybe you know, think through the implicate like like what are
the consequences of me doing this?

(01:02:27):
I can present a case that seems safe, but is it really safe?
Is it actually being discriminate?
Just just targeting military? OK, So what about and I'll, I'll
let you go wild here in a littlewhile, but proportionality, OK.
Does preventing millions of deaths justify using a weapon

(01:02:47):
with nuclear side effects? Yes.
OK 'cause the nuclear side effects potentially could cause
problems for even more people to.
Have any other options in this case?
Well, based. On the scenario you're painted,
there weren't other. There's not much information
here. OK, By the way, I had if you had

(01:03:09):
GPT come up with these scenarios, sure if.
You if you had, if you had a bomb that was non nuclear and
you could do the same effect, sure you would do that.
But we're already assuming that that's not the case.
This is the only way and so therefore yes.
So. The answer is yes.
So here's here. What about this?
When we use nuclear warfare, there's a real danger of

(01:03:35):
escalation. Yep.
OK, so I do this. Well, they're going to do
something bigger. And so then we're going to do
something bigger to to, you know, and then it just keeps
going. Yeah, that keeps going.
And of course, it encourages thetechnology to even go faster,
you know, more, more, more quickly.
There we go. More quickly, we will be

(01:03:57):
developing bigger batter stuff to drop on everybody.
And so it's like, man, we don't want to start that ball rolling
down the hill. It's already moving, but why
accelerate it like that and makepeople really be focusing on it
when they could be focused on? Things you would keep in
consideration. OK, you have to have a good PR

(01:04:19):
team. OK, here we go so now I'm going
to have you do a little more your interact a little bit more
OK OK, so that was like that waslike to kind of get us an idea.
All right so so here we have a suppose your country and
everybody think about this, evenif you're from a different
country. OK, suppose your country was
struck first by a nuclear attackthat.

(01:04:39):
'D be a bummer. You can retaliate.
OK. All right, what are the
questions you should be asking? Who attacked me?
I mean, that should be #1 right?You don't want to attack the
wrong country. That's true, yeah.
Yeah, that question one, it was a simple thing, but yeah, you're

(01:04:59):
right. You're right.
That's if you mess that one up, yeah, that'd be really bad.
Then your next question is what it was the best response.
So like just cause is the idea right?
Yeah, you have a just. Cause if.
Your nation's attacked. You have a you have a just cause
to defend yourself. What's the best way to defend

(01:05:22):
yourself? Is one of the questions anybody
asked and and. Would that actually?
And what is the most effective way to defend yourself would be
another question to ask. It's like what?
What would it accomplish? Like what good is going to come
out of? What is the best defense?
Shooting nukes back or a ground attack or you know what is?

(01:05:42):
I mean, you got to ask that question.
What is our best defense? Do we just retaliate in kind or
is there a better way or? Do we go?
Harder shooting. Shooting nukes back is not
necessarily the the correct answer and maybe the correct
answer, but still respect to theother thing.
The the theory is if everybody'sgot them, nobody shoots them.

(01:06:03):
I mean, that's what everybody hopes, right?
Now in this scenario, we we get hit, we're actually hit.
And if then in that scenario, weprobably would have already shot
them, like in our case, other countries probably would do the
same thing. If you're shooting at me and I
know you're shooting at me, yes,we're probably shooting them
back. Sure, sure.
And of course, it would always be a situation where, you know,
like someone could actually comein here.

(01:06:25):
I mean, it would be difficult, but it's not within the realm of
impossibility that they could actually craft, you know, like
even like a another government'sgroup infiltrates the country,
not too hard to do. And then here you gather
materials illegally, of course, and secretly craft a nuclear
weapon, set it off. So it's already, it's not like

(01:06:46):
it's launching in the sky. You know, it's already here.
So, so there, there, you don't have a thing where it's like,
oh, we're alerted to it, we'll shoot them off.
It's goes boom. It's happened.
Oh, that is. Then you're then you're back to
who did it, because who didn't even know?
Yeah, so just 'cause you find out who did it, it's the the
country that you really don't like, you know, and you name it
and. It's all the countries.

(01:07:08):
Retaliation, Well, you know how people are retaliation.
You know, I think we have to like not everyone would agree
with this, but I think we have to agree that retaliation in
itself is not enough. Like that's not a, that's not a
just cause just to retaliate. Correct.
You with me on that one? Yeah, I mean you'll just.
This has to be. This is going to kill other

(01:07:28):
people. That's not that's not the the
solution to the problem. There has to be good to come out
of it like the cause, like you have to be foreseeing.
Well and and defending yourself is a good cause but all.
Right. So what's another question that
needs to be asked here? What do you think?
Who did it again, why did they do it, and how do we and how do
we get them back? All right, what about so we've

(01:07:53):
already we've, I'll give you this one because we've already
kind of talked about it a littlebit so that the intention.
So cause and intention are two different things.
But you know, the intention there.
I think the big question should be, are we acting to restore
justice? Sure.
Because that's that's what it's all about, justice and peace,
you know, So what will actually give peace for the parties

(01:08:17):
involved? What actually brings justice for
the parties involved? What's the best way to do that?
And so that has to be some questions going on in this
process. Yeah, all those questions.
Yeah. So in other words, this is just
a thinking exercise like everything else.
And so people can go back and think about it and there's

(01:08:38):
situations in the course, proportionality,
proportionality, right. So we'll whenever we retaliate
to this country, will it actually prevent further
aggression or will it only add more distraction without any
actual clear game? Sure.

(01:08:59):
So we got to think through that one.
You know, yeah. Are you just attacking random
cities? Are you attacking military
installation or whatever? Yes, yes, discriminate as, as,
as much as possible for, you know, like we said, there's,
there's several factors involvedin some, some end up taking
over. So yeah, a lot of people don't

(01:09:22):
go back to the, the whole this view and they'll, they'll come
back to a very hard stance on ifat all.
We know that civilians will die or get hurt by it, We we cannot
do it. And so that's where I'd kind of
break away. I'd kind of break away on that
one. Yeah, because you're not
defending yourself. Then they'll keep attacking,

(01:09:44):
right? In theory.
And so this brings justice. So that at some point you have
to and. Peace.
Defend your innocent people. I believe you have to, yes.
Yeah, so. You can't just say, Oh no, I
can't hurt those innocent people.
So then our innocent people justkeep dying and keep dying and

(01:10:04):
keep dying. And and that's certainly to play
into the decision, right? Because obviously we don't want
to hurt any innocent people, butme defending my innocent people
is more important. Yes, I think you're this is
where I'm at. I think you're being
indiscriminate if you keep letting your own innocent
civilians die, you know, like that you have to that you have
to think of it both ways. They're very, very important.

(01:10:27):
OK, interesting stuff. So we have to think through
these things I think as we go forward, especially because and
that and that, you know, even the the younger people that are
listening, you know, let's say you're a high school college age
around there. 18 to 22 year old is our biggest demographic on.

(01:10:48):
Well, that's kind of the reason I missed it.
Yeah. Yeah.
Go go, team. Yeah.
Gen. Z all the way.
Hey, we connect with Gen. Z.
Look at that. Yeah, look at that.
Amazing. We're not that old.
Then it's. Like middle-aged white fat guys
with bald heads. Yeah, yeah.
Glasses and beards, yeah, OK. They're very sad, at least polos
I don't. Know how many times people have

(01:11:09):
accused me of being your brotherso.
I I don't know why. Yeah, totally different head
shape. What's funny is if you actually
saw My Brother Is. I've met your brother.
Nothing. He doesn't look.
Like either either of us in any possible.
Way he's got he's got a lot of more good things going on for
him look like hair and OK I hopehe's listening to this one all

(01:11:31):
right anyways, yeah, there's other things I've kind of had
but I think we're good. I think we're good and it just
helps us to think through these things as I think a lot of
people they take positions on war without really thinking
through all the factors without really thinking through the
details. It's just either I like it or I
hate it and there's you know, what's your reasoning?

(01:11:51):
War kills or, you know, they deserve it.
That's really kind of the end ofit.
And there's more to the conversation.
So much more to it. And that's the whole point of
this. Regardless of your view, make
your view biblical and and just think through all the different
ethics of it. I want to close with this just a

(01:12:12):
book recommendation. I already mentioned it before
because I am so impressed with it and I want to try why.
Don't you hold it up so we all see.
The cover. Oh yeah, Yeah, well, I have to
read off it too, so. Yeah.
So Ethics of War, A Short Companion by Paul D Miller.
I can't see my own. Is that in shot?
We got it right there. Ethics of war.
All right, so that's the that's the one I recommend and it's

(01:12:35):
it's it's helped me through thinking through some of these
things and really great, really great book there.
All right. ANYWAYS, good talk.
About wraps her up so this series is over and come join us
for our next one. Yeah, looking forward to seeing
you next.