Is there any morally possible defense for the existence of nuclear weapons?

Question

Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction. The 'collateral damage' they cause -- both to humans and the earth itself -- is potentially omni-cidal. Even if one accepts the theory of a 'just war', nuclear weapons can not meet the standards, particularly of 'proportionality'. Any nation holding nuclear weapons should be seen as an outlaw to humanity.

The World Court ruled on this question. The decision was: Almost all the judges thought nuclear weapons indefensible on grounds of indiscriminate destruction. But a very few judges allowed the possibility of maintaining a few as deterrence against nuclear attack.
Seems to me, for those "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians and Muslims), the answer would be: "Just what is it about 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' that you do not understand?"
Furthermore the prohibition against *any* 'collateral damage' (i.e., deaths of innocent civilians) is most strictly stated, of those three religions, in the Koran.

Answer 1

yes.
the stockpiling and storage of nukes is proof of mans desire to dominate and oppress other men.
the morality of it is that it is immoral.
(())

Answer 2

We developed nukes before Germany and Japan. Mutually Assured Destruction was a defense posture that is still preached, in an ironically backhanded way, by the French, Russia , China and the UN. They don't want a free America that is "too strong," so they are willing to arm "rogue nations. "

The idea that 'collateral damage' is unacceptable is quite new, and unfortunately not shared by terrorist organizations and the governments who support them.

Is any of this a moral?

In a perfect world we could get rid of all the police and soldiers and magically all the bad guys would suddenly turn good. But, in a world where Russian grade schools are considered fair game by the terrorists, and fertilizer can be used to blow up offices and a daycare facility, the question of the morality of our defense is moot.

Answer 3

St Augustine, in his just war theory, did not write of "proportionality". That is a modern day invention. Beyond that, however, the only justification I can think of for nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to tyrants. It's long shot, I know, but what would happen if Iran had a nuke, and we didn't? Nevertheless, mind you, my moral druthers would be that no nation have nuclear weapons. (Forgive me, this is the most wishy-washy answer I have ever written. I don't deserve the 2 points.)

Answer 4

Nukes are overrated. The firebombing of cities like Dresden and Tokyo was at least as destructive as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - perhaps more so.

If terrorists get a nuke, they can blow up a city. It'll be a tremendous disaster and will change all our lives, but humanity will still survive, even prosper. Bringing an end to civilization would require some superpower launching thousands of nukes, and there's no chance of terrorists getting their hands on that many.

Anyway, as for the moral defensibility: does it matter? Nukes exist, and they will continue to exist regardless of whether we call them "moral" or "immoral". Suppose you consider them immoral... what do you aim to do about it? Is the rest of the world supposed to wipe out the USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan and Israel? (Pardon me if I overlooked anyone). Let's get real - that ain't gonna happen.

I don't like nukes any more than you do. It's probably impossible to eliminate them entirely, but I'd be thrilled to see the US and Russia reduce their arsenals by 90% - but if that ever happens, I can guarantee it won't be because of anyone's moral condemnation. Such decisions are made by cold, hard, realpolitik.

Answer 5

So long as any one nation holds nuclear weapons, all nations are justified to have them. The way nuclear weapons assist in assuring peace is by virtue of the mutual-annihilation pact.

This is why it's so dangerous for rogue countries, who would literally rather see all humanity wiped off the face of the earth than have their enemies alive, to have nuclear weapons.

Answer 6

Eventually some nation of terrorist are going to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and in the name of their faith or some propaganda bull**** they are going to kill millions. I don't see any way to stop this. The Governments in charge will never get rid of their nuclear arsenals. It is only a matter of time.

Answer 7

Yes, the only possible moral reason to have nuclear weapons is in defense of the Earth from asteroid collision! Did I win?

Answer 8

On the coming peaceful earth under the reign of the Kingdom of God, there will be no 'weapons' whatsoever.
\
Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall forge their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-knives: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Answer 9

Once satan and his Angels are Removed from Human Contact, we will not need any more Nukes.
There will finally be Peace on the Earth for a While (1000 Years) untill GOD lets satan back out for a Short Time.

Answer 10

Correct.