Missile defence.

The March 28/04 issue of the Catholic Register presented a feature article by Michael Swan, which advocates that our government should not support the American program to develop an effective defence against a nuclear missile attack. In this the author is supported by the NDP, the Bloc Qudbecois, the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC), and the Canadian and American Councils of Catholic Bishops.

On March 15/04 the CCC wrote a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin urging a greater commitment to disarmament, using diplomacy as a strategy as a strong preference to actually manufacturing weapons capable of exploding nuclear weapons in flight, weapons fired at human beings. Their 'reasoning' is that a) such defensive weapons would not work, b) and even if they do, they will be far too expensive, c) the money should be used to relieve poverty and disease, d) explosions in space may damage our satellite communication system.

I am completely baffled by all this. There is the inference in the letter to Paul Martin that such a defensive weapon is actually an offensive weapon. The CCC has grouped them with all the 30,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of Americans, the Russians and several other nations. But such defensive weapons will not be aimed at people but at other dreadful weapons, which have been already fired, at human targets. Their only purpose will be to save human lives. If they fail to hit their target, they will self-destruct out of harm's way. The tests on these weapons so far indicate clearly that they do work. Yes, the program is very expensive, but the destruction caused by nuclear bombs would be much more expensive than ongoing poverty and disease. And surely it is better that our satellite communication systems be damaged than our country be destroyed along with a huge loss of human lives.

The main goal must be to render nuclear missiles useless. That would encourage the destruction of the 30,000 missiles in stock and discourage any further expensive proliferation of nuclear weapons. I cannot for the life of me see anything immoral in defending ourselves and the world from destruction. In fact, I believe we have a moral obligation to do so. In Leviticus 19:16, the Lord says to us, "You shall not stand idly by when your neighbour's life is at stake."

Diplomatic attempts to eliminate nuclear weapons have failed completely. They might have actually encouraged nuclear proliferation. It was the American Star Wars program that likely caused the Russians to see that Communism doesn't work and to discontinue their work on nuclear weapons. The very recent similar decisions of Libya and the progress in negotiations with North Korea and Iran clearly resulted from the resolution and determination of the American leadership against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were not the result of diplomacy. The American plans to further develop the nuclear missile defence system probably discouraged them from continuing the great expense of their own programs and the resultant cost to them of international trade sanctions.

There is a degree of honesty and wisdom missing from the letter to Paul Martin. The spread of HIV/AIDS does not come from spreading violence, entrenched poverty and human rights violations. It comes from sexual immorality. The promoting of abstinence and chastity is the only solution to that problem. They know that!

Deacon St. Clair McEvenue

Toronto, ON