[dda]

Mr. Lange was a very articulate speaker in defense of New Zealand's decision not to allow nuclear weapons into New Zealand ports or waters. He was clearly correct that nuclear devices were of no particular benefit to New Zealand.

Again, nuclear weapons are immoral in use. Nucelar weapons are devices of coercion. However, on such a grand scale that it is possible to end all life on earth, certainly to end civilization as we know it. There is a deterrent effect to treatening to kill someone should they try to harm you. There is a deterrent effect to threatening to kill the entire human race should someone try to harm your country. However, it is difficult to see where morality comes into play. It seems immoral to kill all of the innocents in the world in order to see that someone doesn't attack your country. Justifiable under certain logic I suppose but basicly immoral.

Nuclear weapons have no morality on their own. People have morality, not things. Is science moral or immoral? My answer is neither. It simply is. The one sure thing about nuclear weapons was that someone was going to eventually invent/discover them. The science was all in place. The scientists who invented them were very unsure as to exactly what they were going to do. It was not immoral to invent them, it was science. Detonating the first atomic weapon in New Mexico was not immoral, it was science. No one knew for sure what it would do or how powerful it would be until it was detonated. The full effects of atomic weapons wasn't appreciated for decades.

The use of atomic weapons against Japan was justifiable but that is not the same as saying it was moral. Is there necessarily any morality to saying I would rather kill numerous thousands of your citizens rather than allow numerous thousands of my citizens? I can't see any. Self defense is a justification but not necessarily moral.

Once the geni was out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. There was nothing moral or immoral about having nuclear weapons. It is the use of nuclear weapons that becomes a question of morality. For governments to hold the world hostage to its desires is immoral in my opinion.

The world has changed since 1985 and nuclear weapons form a much differnt problem. The emphasis has gone from rogue states to rougue groups and rogue individuals. Does anyone believe that terrorist bombers would not feel morally justified in setting off a 20 magaton bomb in the middle of New York?

The worry is that rogue states will develope atomic weapons and sell them to rogue groups who will detonate them. There could be threats to exterminate an entire nation (Iran? North Korea?) if such a thing occurred but it would not be moral nor would it be effective in all probability.

Speaking of North Korea, an interesting scenario would be: what if PRNK started manufacturing nuclear devices and planting them under their own cities and threatening a mass suicide if anyone tried to disturb the government as it currently is formed. They could be relatively certain no invading army would want to move in. They could also be pretty sure that, if the local populace believed they were crazy enough to do it, there would be no rebellions.