No! Weapons of mass destruction are obscene! They don't discriminate. It could be argued that conventional bombs don't either, but the magnitude of their destructive power is such that they just wipe out whole areas regardless of who is there. There can be no practical use for nuclear weapons, and even the original justification that "mutually assured destruction" would deter any nation(s) from actually using them is no longer believable. Certain ideologies today would have no hesitation in using them if they could get hold of them. It's only a matter of time before they do. Iran is no friend to the west and North Korea will sell it's hardware to the highest bidder. These are just two potential sources of future nuclear disaster!

Yes, but the justifications used are hollow and conceited. They're disgusting, they should not be used. There is no 'self defence' when these things are involved.

It is a a terrifying thought, but many rogue countries learned a huge lesson from Iraq. As soon as they completely disarmed they were history. I wonder if these loud threats of having nuclear weapons are now used as some miniscule hope of stopping a future invasion against them? The whole nuclear industry makes me shudder -

[This question links back to the discussion here: http://tinyurl.com/2v32jf] David Hume is asking. Is it permissible under Jewish law to threaten a country with nuclear weapons? ----- In Jewish law the rule is (as is also in international countries) that a country has the right & responsibilty to protect its citizans from any danger or threat from wherever it comes. In fact this law is mentioned in the Talmud in tractate Eruvin 45a, regarding a case which happened in Nehardaa, in Babylon. It so happens that the place Nehardaa is what is today called Iraq. - Rabbi Jacobson The Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch), Orach Chayim, section 329. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 45a. I only have a Hebrew link at the moment I am afraid: http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/ EDIT See this answer for more: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/134758/367431

NO!!! How can you justify the killing of thousands if not millions of innocent people ... for the sake of some crazy fuc*ing governments ?????? There should be an international law for all ... No WMD for 'ANYONE' .... Its not the right of any country or politician to hold the power to destroy mass life ... or any life ...

I think everyone would agree that this is a highly sensitive subject, that needs a comprehensive analysis and discussion. Firstly, from a Jewish perspective, war should be avoided at all costs. When a threat arises, countries should look for peaceful resolutiion (Deuteronomy 20:10 "When you approach a city to do battle with it you should call to it in peace. And if they respond in peace and they open the city to you, and all the people in the city shall pay taxes to you and be subservient. And if they do not make peace with you, you shall wage war with them and you may besiege them. "). The Talmudic sage, Rabbi Yossi of Galillee taught: "How meritorious is peace? Even in a time of war one must initiate all activities with a request for peace". You'll find the same sentiment echoed in the writing of the medieval Jewish scholars, Maimonides and Nachmanides. On the other hand, Judaism believes in every individual's and every country's right to self-defence. In fact, Jewish law allows preemptive military strikes to prevent a real threat to life. For example, the Talmud debates whether or not troops can go to war on the Jewish Sabbath. It is unequivocal, though, that if an army threatens LIVES (as opposed to raiding PROPERTTY), the army must be deployed preemptively to wipe the enemy out BEFORE he threatens the citizens (that's the Talmudic reference Eruvin 45a and the Code of Jewish Law, Shabbat 329 Nevets quoted). None of this addresses the contentious issue of nuclear arms. Jewish law forbids an act of war that would involve a fatality rate of more than 1/6 of the population (Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot 35b). The nature of nuclear war would, most likely, threaten more than that amount- on both sides. Some modern Jewish scholars believe that, while Jewish law prohibits the USE of such weaponry, it does not prohibit using the THREAT of such weapons (i.e. you can have the gun, you can't pull the trigger). Rabbi J. David Bleich, a well-known contemporary scholar, wrote an article on this in the 80's. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy. I think the logic there may be that a Jew may lie (in this case threaten, knowing you won't carry it out) to save lives. So, if your enemies knowing you have nuclear capacity keeps them at bay- it's probably not a bad thing. Bottom line, I think the jury is out on this one. If we could guarantee that our political leadership would always be morally upstanding, maybe we could justify having weapons of mass destruction- as a deterrent to the rogues of the world. The reality of geo-politics is less rosy, I'm afraid.

My own personal belief is that there can never be a justification for using such weapons, even in retaliation. The benefits that harnessing nuclear power can bring can be tremendous. If we could create a sustainable fusion reactor we would have almost free energy with clean waste. That is something worth working towards. But the other side of the coin - the weaponry - is abhorrent. It doesn't matter which country, or how many weapons they have. If US, or Russia, were to reduce its stocks one hundredfold it would still have enough weaponry to produce a global nuclear winter. US currently has over 10,000 weapons, and Russia has around 12,000. Approximately 100 weapons being detonated would cause the nuclear winter. So they simply play a game of "my ball's bigger than yours". What need could there ever be for using one of these weapons? The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still suffering from the US bombs, generations after those bombs were dropped, and they were small fry compared to today's bombs. The only belief system that could justify using something that causes such destruction is one that aims to destroy everything. Of course justification is something that happens after an event, and after flexing their muscles in such a way I think that the nation who did so would have an uncaring attitude to justification. Not only would it be mass homicide, but also mass suicide.

A very good question David. However, much is said here, some are very great answers. The topic is very contentious, to say the least. The only thing I can add is that if anyone is trying to justify WMDs, they would be justifying suicide. If used now (unlike WW II) it would surmount to collapse of world order. Whoever uses it, and whoever is the target. We all will be in it, as losers.

well... no. just having a nuclear weapon is enough of an implied threat. those who threaten based on wmds will have them removed by other bigger boys on the playground

It is not the technology of the weapons, it is their unselectiveness. Very small nuclear weapons could be justified in a battlefield context i.e. it could be moral to launch a tactical nuke against an armoured division. But the large scale killing of civilian populations is always wrong, whether it is done by nukes, poison gas, or biological agents.

Korea hasn't used it's weapons cause it knows america will come back with bigger and more powerful nukes. The culture of nuclear weapons is that if everyone had them, they would be redundant because no one will use a nuke when there is a chance their own country will get nuked right back. Can the holding of nukes be justified...maybe not in a perfect world where everyone is making daisy chains and eating bons bons off a satin pillow whilst watching mad orgy love between the races. But in todays world? you betcha they're justified. I may not like the reason beind it, but damn straight i appreciate my nuclear umbrella. Of course, the bombing of my country seems unlikely "Lets bomb Australia!" "What? Why? all they have is dirt" "yeah...but the surfing..." "Duuuude"

Yep! If I were the country of Outer Slobolia and had 10 nukes on ICBMS, even the US with it's arsenal of about 5000 nukes would have to think twice before messing with me. I guarantee the US would never invade. Sure the US could flatten the country. But think about it 10 nukes. I hit the US with 5, the others fail or are intercepted. I hit New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Washington DC. Well, that just might reduce the US to a Third World Country. In world Economy, my bet is it would drop at least 10 places in status. Yep, most would be bluff and I would hope not to have a show down. But, I think I could be threatening enough to get anyone to back down. On the other hand I would like no one to have nukes. The 5000 I mentioned the US has are the deployable ones. The total inventory is over 20,000. When the US gets the number down to maybe 100. Maybe others will fell less need for them. And then maybe the world inventory can be reduced to zero.

I have to state a belief of mine here. The fact that both the US and USSR had nuclear weapons and means to deliver them probably prevented us from having a conventional war or many more wars centered in places like Korea and Vietnam. Now both sides built a ridiculous number of nukes. But as in my other post. If each side hat 10 nukes on ICBM's and the capability half would hit their target. The damage from losing 5 major cities is too much and they won't be used. In both Korea and Vietnam, the US definitely was about to use nuclear weapons. But the realization the USSR would likely reply with everything they had if we used even one against the side they supported prevented that. My belief is had the US maintained a nuclear monopoly after WWII, we would have flattened North Korea, North Viet Nam, China, the USSR, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and many other hot spots with our nuclear weapons. Others possessing them prevented that. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars to invade Iraq and get Saddam. One cruse missile with a 1 Meg warhead could have hit Baghdad and no matter which palace or bunked Saddam was hiding in he would have been dead. Total cost to the US, about $50 million. South Africa and Israel developed nuclear weapons together. Estimates are that Israel has 200-400 nuclear weapons. South Africa built 2. They were dismantled and were the only country to renounce nuclear weapons. In most cases I believe nuclear weapons prevent wars and save lives. But with both Korea and Iran, they have such radical leadership, I feel they would use them. And certainly that could happen elsewhere. I remember President Reagan goofing off on a microphone. He said our stragetic bombers were headed for Moscow to nuke them. Real funny guy. The Soviets went to Defcon 4 and their silos open and ready, and missiles fueled. Not a funny joke. And that was about the time the Soviets knew he was off his rocker and suspected Alzheimer's.

Good points, thank you.