Note: I said possession, not use. Please use logic and stay on topic.
Amendment: Feel free to use philosophy also.
Since everything belongs to Allah, claiming possession of anything is stealing from Him.
Depends on why you have them.
If you just want to deter other nations from attacking, that’s fine.
If you’re going to go on an imperialistic rampage and use the threat of being turned into a radioactive crater to get your way, that’s unacceptable.
Nuclear weapons, like anything else, can be used for good or evil.
I said philosophy, not religion.
Logically, the answer would be “By whose standards?”, since morality is in the eye of the beholder, although I assumed you wanted us to answer based on our personal beliefs.
Sure, use your own beliefs, just support them with somekind of logic or philosophy. For example, if you like Kant, explain how this is/isn’t moral according him.
Sure, use your own beliefs, just support them with some kind of logic or philosophy. For example, if you like Kant, explain how this is/isn’t moral according him.
Oh, so you meant “unethical” not “immoral”?
Hmm… yeah, I guess it is OK. I mean – would it fit in a backpack? Then sure, why not?
Since the mere “possessing” doesn’t require a conscious act of will, it’s neither moral nor immoral. Volition is required to make something right or wrong.
I’m not sure, but I thought the categorical imperative was used to determine morality (as far as Kant goes.)
I would agree with Max: possession is an amoral act. Possessing a nuke is no different, really, then possessing a really sharp pencil. Its what you do with it that matter.
A nuke has no constructive purpose, unlike a pencil. Its only fucntions are to 1) Kill LOTS of people 2) create fear. You could also possess a dead body in your basement, or drugs, is that amoral?
Yeah, but if it was too big to carry around you’d either have to guard it all the time (thus forcing others to bring you food – a somewhat lazy and hence immoral way of life) or else risk getting a ticket for littering. I mean, the plot thickens.
Besides, owning it might tempt others to steal it, and thus you’d be tempting your fellow man to act immorally which is immoral in and of itself.
Oh, I don’t know that a nuke is a purely destructive entity. I can think of at least one use it can have, as postulated by Carl Sagan: a propulsion device. Granted, we don’t exactly have a “kickplate” but it does have at least one use apart from destruction of life.
All weapons have the same standing, including the cannon when that was new, and the club in caveman days, before morals were invented, and we were as amoral as the animals.
I’ve heard somewhere that when China finishes its Three Gorges Dam, they plan to perform some act of large scale civil engineering with nukes (I don’t remember what).
You could appreciate its design, in the same way you’d appreciate a work of art.
You’re moving beyond the mere “having” to “what you could do with it.” According to your OP, that’s moving beyond the topic.
To my mind, any concept of morality applied to military matters, pretty much centers around non-combatants, the “innocents”, the “collateral damage”. It is one of those forms of hypocrisy necessary if honorable men will pursue a barbaric purpose.
A thermonuclear weapon is extravagantly non-specific. A nation that is capable of putting a man on the moon ought to be able to build a very selective weapon.
The richest and most powerful single nation in human history has no real use for nukes. With the exception of Canada, no nation in the world can pose any mortal threat. We should dismantle each and every one, publicly. Our friends will cheer us for it, and rightly so. Our enemies won’t forget we can put one back together damn quick if we have to.
Let’s arm the bears, and give the nukes to the whales.
A nuclear weapon to be used as a proposion devise? What will they ride the mushroom cloud like a surf board? Or maybe like in “Dr. Stranglelove.” Maybe its technology can be applied to other areas, but the weapon is what I’m talking about. A nuke creates fear. If things get tense enough (ie: and alternate ending to the Cold War) it could scare one side into lauching the first (and possibly only) offensive.