Sunday, 30 April 2017


You discover someone intends, makes plans and missiles to blow up London. With all its inhabitants. Civilians, women, children, the lot. Aghast, you’d rush to tell the police, wouldn’t you? But what if the cops were part of the plot? What if they assisted and protected the mega villain?

That is what PM Theresa May intends to do. I kid you not. Her Defence Secretary, the big idiot with the big booming voice Michael Fallon, has just boasted about that. May is prepared to unleash Britain’s nuclear weapons – even as a first, pre-emptive strike. And 10 Downing St has not disagreed.

How many nuclear weapons are there worldwide? Some say 23.000 but I cull other figures from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Little Britain appears to have 225 nuclear warheads. Piffling compared with America’s 4760 and Russia’s 4.300. Numbers apart, what effects would a nuclear strike have on your home town? Like London? Nukemap, a lovely online app, tells you. Fireball, radiation, air blast, thermal effects like darkness, famines – it’s all there. As to the human casualties…the sky – or hell – is the limit. Low-yield, 13 kilotons atomic bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused 100.000 dead on the day and 100.000 more died of radioactive poisoning the next four months. Present-day, multi-megaton nuclear warheads would murder millions. Makes ISIS horrors look like a Vicarage tea party.

Nukemap astutely imagines a Russian Tsar Bomba H-Bomb as the aggressor. Russophobia rules OK, eh? Naturally, British warheads would rain not on Brighton or Birmingham but on Russian cities like St Petersburg or Moscow. It would be no less than genocide.

But it’s all about deterrence, claim sinister apologists for mass murder like Fallon. (He would, wouldn’t he?) To dissuade Russians from nuking us first. The threat of nuclear holocaust warns the enemy that the costs of attack would exceed the gains. Not a new concept. Powerful Armies have always had a deterrent function. The immense power of WMD just makes the bloody thing more exciting, I guess. Still, to really dissuade you must threaten. And for the extermination threat to be effective you must mean it. It's no bluff. You must really intend to perpetrate your nuclear holocaust on the enemy – civilians included.

The morality – immorality, actually – of nuclear deterrence was hot stuff back in the day of the old, bad Soviet Union. Communism now down the drain, the West has created a new bogey. Putin’s Russia. Never mind that Vladimir plugs no ideology to conquer the world. Western warmongering mentality is primitive. They have fabricated an ogre and they love it!

What’s morally wrong with planning nuclear genocide on the enemy? The hallowed Christian doctrine of the Just War, formulated by theologians and Saints, makes clear. Three key criteria must obtain for a war to be justified. Right Authority, Right Cause and Right Intention. Technically, the UN Security Council has such authority. Right Cause? As the UN Charters declares, only self-defence can justify military action. Of course, those two pious clauses are routinely violated by powers like the US, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia, though they pretend otherwise. (Where was self-defence in Iraq or Libya or Bahrain or Yemen? Or even Afghanistan?) Right Intention is the one left.

Right Intention is essential in Christian ethics. It isn’t a matter of being inwardly pure, like a saint or a martyr. Intention must not tend to do evil, that’s fundamental. And it excludes revenge. (If it is true that George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein allegedly tried ‘to kill my dad’, it would exemplify that.) But what is evil, when May and her stooge Fallon affirm they merely wish to deter an enemy attack? You can discern it by considering other vital Just War principles. Non-combatant immunity and proportionality. The first says that innocent civilians should be immune from direct attack. The second rests on a calculation that the good should outweigh the evil in the total balance of war.

It is clear that firing warhead-armed nuclear missiles on enemy cities would result on the direct annihilation of their civilian populations. That flagrantly contradicts the criterion of civilian immunity. It spells out an objectively evil intention – indeed, a satanic will – diametrically opposed to the will to do good which is incumbent on politicians who say they follow Jesus Christ.

Theresa May is an Anglican Vicar’s daughter. She occasionally mumbles she is a Christian. She even jokes she gave up crisps for Lent. (Her idea of self-denial…) Yet she is presiding over a nuclear strategy that aims at mass murder. Why? Sounds mad. Rumour has it, she is ill. Mentally? That would excuse here. If not, she sure is morally sick. I mean, in the sense of being criminally so. In that case, what is to be done to stop her? And her shabby Tory gang, like buffoon Boris?

A citizen’s arrest would be a possibility. Mass murder is certainly an indictable offense in international law and if you apprehended Unholy Theresa and her imbecilic Fallon you’d be acting legally. Problem is, British Bobbies would arrest you! What’s left? A moral legal entity like the Russell Tribunal? A People’s Court? A religious body? As Theresa is an Anglican, the quaint Court of Arches at Lambeth? But all such noble institutions have no teeth. Yet, the matter is urgent, lethally so. The threat of a nuclear holocaust is too awesome to be ignored. What is to be done?

Revd Frank Julian Gelli


** follow on Twitter (Twitter Account not yet Authorized)
| ** friend on Facebook (#)
| ** forward to a friend (

Copyright © Fr Frank Gelli
Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
** unsubscribe from this list (
| ** update subscription preferences (

No comments: