Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

Is this kinda like the death penalty?

I suppose that depends upon the size of the weapon. Big does not necessitate being out of control.

We know from several areas of Prophecy
that there shall be extremely serious warring before our Lord Returns



A weapon any weapon should exist in order to defend oneself either personally or as a nation.
Any weapon used to conduct an offense against another nation is typically considered immoral.
The way nuclear weapons were considered back in the days of the cold war was that they assured the “enemy” mutual destruction therefore their use would have been absurd.
Theaters of war do change as well as circumstances. As well as the weapons themselves.
The bombs used in WWII have zero equivalent to today’s arsenals.
There could be a scenario in the future when a nuclear warhead was warranted, we don’t know. but… The question is
Should we unilaterally disarm?
Unfortunately and as we see, a few countries are still in a race to build a bomb.
Things to ponder.

The question is
Should we unilaterally disarm?

Yes. The reason being that this would be the only way to avoid the unprecedented catastrophe of a global nuclear war. So, whatever the negative consequences of such a disarmament might be, they would still be much less than that.

1 Like

This question haunted President Truman about dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had he not done so to finally end World War II in the Pacific, that war could have drawn on and on for many more years, killing many more thousands, even millions of young people on both sides, and we might not have been victorious. The Japanese weren’t going to surrender any other way. We might still be fighting them today if Truman hadn’t ended it once and for all.

As horrific as the outcome was for the populations of those cities, not having done so could have been much more horrific in the long run, for everyone concerned. Sometimes, we find ourselves in a corner where the only choices we have are terrible choices, and all we can do is choose the least terrible of them all.

That said, today’s nuclear technology could very well wipe out the entire human race, and I don’t think any power on earth is willing to do that when it comes right down to it, as it would mean their own annihilation, as well. Some put on blustery shows to frighten and intimidate their enemies, but if push came to shove, I doubt anyone would really go through with it.

I could be wrong, and if proven so, it won’t matter to any of us, anymore.

In WW II the USA was under no obligation to invade Japan. Instead, Russia was obliged, by agreement, to declare war against Japan three months after Germany’s surrender, and she did so. As discussed in the referenced articles by the initiator of this thread, the Japanese leaders were not expecting a Russian attack which came as a severe shock. They knew that they could not defend on two fronts and, therefore, wanted a negotiated surrender to the USA rather than Russia with the condition that the Emperor be immune from prosecution. Truman knew this but did not want to give the impression of offering terms to Japan for his own political reasons. So he ordered the atomic bombings in the hope of forcing an unconditional surrender. When that action did not result in an immediate surrender by Japan, Truman sent a message which he knew would be interpreted by the Japanese leaders as offering immunity to Hirohito. That is when the Emperor finally ordered Japan to surrender. He threw his generals under the bus while saving his own skin.

