Classic Catholic

Am I being too obscure?
Robert Wenson writes in a comment:

1. We're all praying for peace, even those of us who think that, as things stand right now, war is necessary.

2. I doubt that the fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons is the decisive reason that we are not going to war with them right now. I think that far stronger reasons are that we are already gearing up for Iraq and are not in a position to fight two wars on opposite sides of the world, and that it has not yet been established that our differences with North Korea cannot be solved diplomatically.

3. If Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in themselves a sufficient reason not to go to war, then not only should we pack up and leave, but we should also put an end to the inspections. To the extent that the inspections succeed in verifying that Hussein has disarmed, there is less reason to go to war; to the extent that they fail, there is more reason not to go to war. Since the result is the same in either case, why bother?

4. Furthermore, if Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in themselves a sufficient reason not to go to war, then he is in effect invulnerable. As long as we think he will use them, then whatever he does, we can do nothing against him. He has an absolutely free hand.

I'd like to reply to each point one at a time. First of all, though, I am no poliwonk. I just haven't done all the research necessary to have the most informed opinion on matters of prudential judgment. I try my best with what I do know.

Now:

1. We're all praying for peace, even those of us who think that, as things stand right now, war is necessary.

Nor did I intend to imply any different.

2. I doubt that the fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons is the decisive reason that we are not going to war with them right now. I think that far stronger reasons are that we are already gearing up for Iraq and are not in a position to fight two wars on opposite sides of the world, and that it has not yet been established that our differences with North Korea cannot be solved diplomatically.

This is perhaps a matter of speculation, although I can't see how it can't be a factor, even if it is not decisive.

3. If Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in themselves a sufficient reason not to go to war, then not only should we pack up and leave, but we should also put an end to the inspections. To the extent that the inspections succeed in verifying that Hussein has disarmed, there is less reason to go to war; to the extent that they fail, there is more reason not to go to war. Since the result is the same in either case, why bother?

I don't think they are in themselves sufficient reason not to go to war. But the just war theory does require that the damage done by the war not be disproportionate to the good achieved, including the damage done by the opponent. So, we do have to consider the likelihood of a megacatastrophe and we do need to take that into consideration when weighing the option to go to war.

4. Furthermore, if Saddam Hussein's WMDs are in themselves a sufficient reason not to go to war, then he is in effect invulnerable. As long as we think he will use them, then whatever he does, we can do nothing against him. He has an absolutely free hand.

See 3 above.