War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it.
Robust English common sense, the like of which we still see nowadays, but less often. Then, a piece that includes this challenging paradox:
"Like many Christians, I believe that the use of force against evil is in keeping with God’s ethical mandate and can be even be a positive act of love. For this to be true, however, the use of military force must be justifiable under the parameters of “just war theory” including the requirements for a jus ad bellum (circumstances for using force) and jus in bello (just means in using force). The issues of when and how nuclear weapons should be used fall under this category of “just means” and should be examined it that light.
"Unfortunately, the emotional baggage we bring to the topic makes it nearly impossible to rationally discuss the use of nuclear weapons. The threat of global annihilation has so colored the debate that for many people it is considered an axiomatic truth that the use of such weaponry can never be justified. While we should empathize with the anxiety that leads to this conclusion we cannot condone such a morally repugnant stance."
Whew! It's the mindless disarmers who are immoral. An unconventional view.
He's right, of course.
HT to Hugh Hewitt, of course.