Science in Christian Perspective
War and the Christian
E. T. McMullen Major,
USAF School of Systems and Logistics
Air Force Institute of
'technology
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45431
From: JASA 31 (March 1979): 57-58.
On August 6, 1945, Robert Julius Oppenheimer strode down the aisle of the Los
Alamos auditorium to deliver an announcement to his colleagues. As he mounted
the podium, he clasped his hands above his head like a prizefighter who has won
the match. Then he told them an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima that
morning. Edward Teller remembers walking by a colleague who shouted
to him exuberantly,
"One down!1 On August 9th, a second bomb fell on Nagasaki, and on the
14th, the war was over. It might be interesting to know what reasons
these scientists
might give to justify their part in developing an atomic bomb. Was it right to
develop an awesome new weapon? Oppenheimer said, "A scientist cannot hold
back progress because of fears of what the world will do with his
discoveries."3
Was it right to wipe out entire cities? Hamburg had been firebombed in July and
August of 1943 with results more devastating than Nagasaki.3 Was the
United States
right in being at war in the first place? The Kellogg-Briand Pact,
formally proclaimed
on July 24, 1929, was an agreement by which every nation of the world renounced
war as an instrument of national policy.4,5 What was the right thing
for Christians
to do when Japan broke this international treaty and went to war with China in
1931? When Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935? When Germany threatened
war with Czechoslovakia
in 1938?
Obviously the leaders of the United States thought the country was
right in going
to war and morally justified in developing the atomic bomb. Even Einstein, an
avowed pacifist at the time, wrote the letter to Roosevelt that got
the Manhatten
project going.6 But there was debate on how the bomb should be used. A group of
prominent scientists headed by Dr. James Franck proposed a demonstration of the
newly developed bomb on a barren island before representatives of the
United Nations.7
General George Marshall was against a surprise atomic attack on Japan
and General
Dwight Eisenhower abhorred the thought of the United States being the
first nation
to use such a weapon, especially against a nation that seemed ready
to surrender.8
After the bomb had been dropped, these voices were joined by those who had not
been privy to the decision making process. Many of the scientists,
including Oppenheimer,
began to have moral doubts about their actions. For some, these
doubts transformed
into action as they lobbied politicians for international control of the atomic
bomb. This resulted in a special advisory board which gave birth to
the Aeheson-Lilienthal
Report, a plan for placing atomic energy under international control. President
Truman approved the report. Bernard Baruch presented it to the United Nations
Atomic Energy Commission in the summer of 1946. According to this
plan, the United
Nations Atomic Development Authority would control the world's supplies of raw
materials and all nuclear reactors and separation plants. Further manufacture
of atomic bombs would halt and existing stockpiles would be
dismantled. Thus the
United States, the nation which had developed and used the atomic
bomb, the sole
possessor of the most powerful weapon on earth, was now proposing to
give up that
superiority. One month later the Soviet U.N. representative, Andrei Gromyko, unexpectedly
denounced the U.S. proposal. The plan was killed, eliminated by a
war-time ally.
The reasoning behind Russia's veto became more apparent when a B-29
detected the
fallout of a Russian atomic test in August, 1949. After a month of debating the
wisdom of withholding this news from the American public, Truman announced the
event. In 1950, Americans learned how the Soviets had been able to
build an atomic
bomb so quickly. Klaus Fuchs, a British liason
scientist, had supplied Russia all the high-level scientific data
concerning the
bomb, while a machinist, David Greenglass, had provided meticulous sketches of
the bomb's innermost working parts.9 The Soviets were thereby saved a
time-consuming
and expensive effort to determine the best way to build a bomb. Thus
was a magnificent
and magnaninous unilateral U.S. proposal to control nuclear weapons
crushed. Has
the attitude of the leadership of the Soviet Union changed since? Having vetoed
control of nuclear energy when they had only potential bombs, why
would they agree
now that they actually have them? In Paris in 1975, former Black
Panther and now
Christian, Eldrige Cleaver, said: "The Russians would really prefer that
the U.S. cease to exist. I came to the conclusion that they were
capable of launching
a surprise attack.''10 If this is true, what is the Christian response?
One of the last pieces of information Klaus Fuchs turned over to the
Soviets was
Edward Teller's idea for a hydrogen bomb. Things had slowed down at Los Alamos,
but with the belated realization of Russian intentions, all that changed. A new
arms race began with the hydrogen bomb. The conventional wisdom is that America
won that race, but the actual fact, only recently declassified, is that Russia
was the winner. The Soviet Union exploded the first thermonuclear device (1951)
and the first deliverable hydrogen bomb (1953). 11 It was the United
States which
was behind and who played catch-up to Russia. After this, America did surpass
the Soviets in strategic forces, but mostly because it found it could
not economically
match the Soviet conventional force build up in Europe. President
Eisenhower chose
the cheaper strategy of relying solely on nuclear weapons to defend
the free world.12
Today, with some modifications which may lower the risk of nuclear war, we have
the same policy concerning Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).
The Warsaw Pact forces have overwhelming conventional force superiority and so
NATO may have to use tactical nuclear weapons if it expects to defeat
any massed
attack at this time. Thus, a policy of no first use of tactical nuclear weapons
can be interpreted as offering Western Europe up for Communist
take-over. Concerning
strategic forces however, the U.S. has always adopted a deterrence policy which
states the U.S. will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. This
massive retaliation
policy was effective during the era when the U.S. had overwhelming
strategic superiority.
How well will the United States' nuclear weapons deter when the
Soviets have strategic
superiority? Will the USSR use strategic superiority to back the U.S.
out of Berlin
just as President Kennedy used it to back Russian missiles out of Cuba? Where
is the Christian position in all this? Should Christians call for honoring all
international treaty commitments, even the bad ones? Joshua made a bad treaty
with the Gibeonites, but still honored it and marched all night to
save them from
the Amorites.13 What should Christians do when the sentry blows
the trumpet,
warning that the enemy is coming? What should we do in the face of
aggression?
Christians have failed in America by not providing moral leadership
and teaching
concerning a modern doctrine of Just War and Just Conduct. Because the Church
was not providing our society with biblical guidelines on Just War,
we went through
national confusion during the Vietnam Conflict. First we were "right"
at the start of the war, then we were "wrong" toward the end of it.
Today, we find Senator George McGovern calling for an international
military force
to invade Cambodia.14 It seems that the Communist leadership
there has systematically
murdered 2 to 3 million of the 7 million inhabitants. Was the United
States "right,"
after all, in resisting Communist aggression in Southeast Asia? And what is the
Christian's position on aggresion? What would the good Samaritan have done if
he came upon the robbers on the road to Jericho in the act of beating
their victim
to death? I think he would have risked his life to save his neighbor, just as
Abraham did in waging war to rescue Lot from the four kings. We are to resist
evil. Have 20th century Christians lost their ability to discern between good
and evil?
Just as we had confusion when the Church did not provide a modern doctrine of
Just War, so we also find confusion concerning Just Conduct in a Just
War. Christian
groups have taken stands on the B-I, on nuclear weapons, and on similar issues.
One of the reasons why some of the rhetoric in these stands is emotion laden,
unbiblical,
and half-true is that they reflect no overall framework of Just Conduct. There
has been no thought-out, comprehensive biblical position for Just
Conduct of War.
Until this is done, to take a stand on any position within the
framework of Just
Conduct is on one hand, intellectually dishonest, and on the other
hand, failing
to be a prophetic witness to the world. Jesus said that there will be war and
rumors of war until He returns
again15 Given then, that there will be war, that nation will rise
up against
nation, what does the Christian do about it? Given that men will he killing one
another in these wars, does it matter how they go about it? Until
Christ returns,
is ''peace'' just an interim period between active hostilities during
which rearming
occurs and there are only rumors of war? If so, who are the
"peacemakers?"
Jesus said His peace was not as the world gives.16 And is not the real enmity of
this world the revolt of responsible creatures against their Creator? The sign
of peace is the dove with the olive branch, but this is in the context of the
flood, where a Righteous God destroyed sinful man. Therefore, true
peace is right
standing with God. This is obtained through accepting Jesus Christ.
True peacemakers
are those who help bring about this right standing with God. As far
as world peace
is concerned, the Bible indicates that this will occur when Jesus comes again
and only then will men beat their swords into plowshares, their
spears into pruning
hooks, and cease to learn the art of war.17
Just War and Just Conduct for this century should be carefully hammered out by
biblical theologians. Until such doctrines appear, I propose the following as
a starting point for discussion: (1) Just War is based on just cause.
Just cause
involves a declaration of the wrong. The wrong can be as clear cut as a treaty
violation or the more difficult to identify "international evil'' (a war
against a Hitler-type). The national decision-making authority must
decide whether
to go to war. But war must be as a last resort (only after negotiations, etc.,
have failed). (2) Just Conduct for the individual combatant means that he must
have neither an attitude of hate toward the enemy nor one of vengeance. For the
decision making authority, only military targets should be targeted. But what is
a ''military target?'' This is the crucial question; what constitutes
a military
target determines to a great extent the applicability of the
"area weapons,"
be they biological, chemical or nuclear. World War I actually began
with the old
18th century outlook, where professional armies fought it out while the mass of
people watched from the sidelines. But WWI ended with the
"Nation at War"
outlook where the nation not only enlisted the abilities of the
professional soldier,
but the research of the scientist, the inventive powers and technical skill of
the engineer, the manual labor of industry and the pen of the
propagandist.18
This "Nation at War" outlook has dominated man's war-thinking since
WWI. In the broadest sense then, the entire nation could be
considered a military
target and thus chemical, thermonuclear, and some biological weapons would be
justifiable. Thus, America's policy of massive nuclear retaliation appears to
be based on the "Nation at War" concept. In the narrowest
sense, military
forces and their immediate logistics systems would be just military
targets. This
framework would still allow limited use of tactical chemical and
nuclear weapons.
So, even in the narrowest sense, tactical nuclear weapons (such as the neutron
bomb)19 could be considered legitimate, as well as all defensive
weapons (including
the Anti-Ballistic Missile).20
The above analysis and its implications may be unsettling to some and
unacceptable
to others, but the ultimate solution to man's killing and murdering is not by
taking assay guns or nuclear bombs. These solutions are based on the assumption
that man's problems can be cured by controlling his environment.
These treat effects,
not causes. The Christian solution is not to control the external,
but to change
the internal. Certainly Christians should work to help people and
alleviate suffering
where possible. But Christianity's primary thrust in eliminating evil
in the world
is to eliminate it in the heart of man. Christians work toward this
end by proclaiming
the Good News of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work on the cross
and by discipling
the nations concerning the Word of God.
References
1Lansing Lamont, Day of Trinity, Atheneum, N.Y., 1965, p. 265.
2ibid.
p. 267.
3
"Hamburg" and ''Nagasaki," Encylopedia Britannica,
Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., Chicago, 1966, Vol. II, p. 26 and Vol.
15, p. 1148.
4Ihid, Vol. 13, p. 2?3.
5Henry Fairlie, "An Idea Whose Time is Never," The New
Republic, Jan. 14, 1978, pp. 12-13,
6Carl Sagan, "The Other World that Beckons," The New
Republic, Sept. 16, 1978, p. 14.
7Lamont, op. cit., p. 120.
8Ibid. p. 264
9ibid. pp. 279-284.
10K. Willenson and J. Friedman, "Old Panther With a New
Purr," Newsweek,
March 17, 1975, p. 40,
11Stanley A. Blumberg and Gwinn Owens, Energy and Conflict,
The Life and Times of Edward Teller, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York,
1976, p. 268.
12Bernard Brodie, War and Politics, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1973,
p. 412.
13The Book of Joshua, Chapters 9 and 10.
14"What's News Worldwide," The Wall Street Journal,
Aug. 22, 1978,
p.1.
15The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 24.
16The Gospel of John, Chapter 14.
17The Book of Isaiah, Chapter 2.
18World War 1," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 23, p. 748B.
19There are some who would advocate use of the neutron bomb for other than
tactical use. See "A Christian Weapon?" by A. Dahlberg, a
letter published
in Military Review, October, 1978, p. 81.
20The Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 20, provides some insight for biblical
guidelines for just conduct.