Is it wrong to use nuclear bombs against civilians?

[Ken]

Waging wars of aggression is the ultimate wrong here. And also the ultimate war crime. As the Nuremburg Trials concluded:

War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

World War 2, which was launched primarily by acts of aggression on the part of Germany, Japan, and the USSR, resulted in the deaths of 70-85 million people or about 3% of the world population. Of that total, only about 0.25% were killed by nuclear weapons. The other 99.8% were killed though conventional means.

More recently, the Iraq War launched by George W Bush in 2003 killed between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis depending on how expansively you count. Or up to 3-times more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What is really important here? The method of the killing or the fact that nations choose to go to war?

Note: I am not excusing nuclear weapons here. Not at all. I'm just pointing out that they really aren't the real issue when it comes to decisions about war and peace.

[Heirbyadoption]

This is a thread to discuss the ethics and morality of building and using such bombs.

I am not sure why we single out the ethics of using nuclear bombs as opposed to all types of bombs and all other deadly force, but yes, the use of nuclear weapons is, like all other deadly force, wrong and opposed to the teachings and example of Jesus.

Waging wars of aggression is the ultimate wrong here. And also the ultimate war crime. As the Nuremburg Trials concluded:

War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

World War 2, which was launched primarily by acts of aggression on the part of Germany, Japan, and the USSR, resulted in the deaths of 70-85 million people or about 3% of the world population. Of that total, only about 0.25% were killed by nuclear weapons. The other 99.8% were killed though conventional means.

More recently, the Iraq War launched by George W Bush in 2003 killed between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis depending on how expansively you count. Or up to 3-times more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What is really important here? The method of the killing or the fact that nations choose to go to war?

Note: I am not excusing nuclear weapons here. Not at all. I'm just pointing out that they really aren't the real issue when it comes to decisions about war and peace.

With respect to some of the previous comments above, this thread doesn't seem to be about whether war is justified on the part of unregenerate geo-political entities or not, aggressively or defensively. As I understand Josh, the question is specifically about using bombs that inherently target innocent civilians, not just military; ergo, the real issue here (or at least part of it) seems to be whether the Greater Good (aka referenced as Lesser Evil) premise (upon which the idea of nuclear/atomic bombs are based, greater destruction=greater deterrence) is inherently immoral.

[Ken]

With respect to some of the previous comments above, this thread doesn't seem to be about whether war is justified on the part of unregenerate geo-political entities or not, aggressively or defensively. As I understand Josh, the question is specifically about using bombs that inherently target innocent civilians, not just military; ergo, the real issue here (or at least part of it) seems to be whether the Greater Good (aka referenced as Lesser Evil) premise (upon which the idea of nuclear/atomic bombs are based, greater destruction=greater deterrence) is inherently immoral.

Honest question.

Does the New Testament or Jesus make any distinction between civilian deaths and military deaths when it comes to war? Is there any BIBLICAL argument that the death of a civilian is worse than the death of a soldier?

[HondurasKeiser]

With respect to some of the previous comments above, this thread doesn't seem to be about whether war is justified on the part of unregenerate geo-political entities or not, aggressively or defensively. As I understand Josh, the question is specifically about using bombs that inherently target innocent civilians, not just military; ergo, the real issue here (or at least part of it) seems to be whether the Greater Good (aka referenced as Lesser Evil) premise (upon which the idea of nuclear/atomic bombs are based, greater destruction=greater deterrence) is inherently immoral.

Honest question.

Does the New Testament or Jesus make any distinction between civilian deaths and military deaths when it comes to war? Is there any BIBLICAL argument that the death of a civilian is worse than the death of a soldier?

Interesting question.

[steve-in-kville]

Is it wrong to use nuclear bombs against the bad guys?

[RZehr]

With respect to some of the previous comments above, this thread doesn't seem to be about whether war is justified on the part of unregenerate geo-political entities or not, aggressively or defensively. As I understand Josh, the question is specifically about using bombs that inherently target innocent civilians, not just military; ergo, the real issue here (or at least part of it) seems to be whether the Greater Good (aka referenced as Lesser Evil) premise (upon which the idea of nuclear/atomic bombs are based, greater destruction=greater deterrence) is inherently immoral.

Honest question.

Does the New Testament or Jesus make any distinction between civilian deaths and military deaths when it comes to war? Is there any BIBLICAL argument that the death of a civilian is worse than the death of a soldier?

I don’t think so.

“They that take the sword shall perish by the sword”. Does this imply anything? Does it mean that they are getting their just reward, and by deduction, that the unarmed do not deserve to be killed be the sword? Maybe. Or is it just an observable truth, or a proverb?
This something we often think of today as applying to armed forces - and it does fit there. But then we may be forget that in the original scene it was an armed civilian who was being told that.

[Sudsy]

How do citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven go about getting the kingdoms of the world to stop developing and using nuclear and other bombs against other kingdoms of the world?

We can't, but we can speak out about the evil. We can also decline to pay taxes for it.

Jesus said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” Why does that not apply to taxes ?

[Josh]

Part of my purpose was to stimulate discussion about just how immoral, unethical, and against the teachings of Jesus of is to kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants, people not involved in a war at all, simply to somehow try to win some war.

Of course, if we want to abide by OT law - the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy every one of the heathens, including women, children, and cattle. But I don’t see those who excuse modern war saying we need to do that.

[Josh]

How do citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven go about getting the kingdoms of the world to stop developing and using nuclear and other bombs against other kingdoms of the world?

We can't, but we can speak out about the evil. We can also decline to pay taxes for it.

Well, we can’t really decline, other than being so poor there are no taxes owed, which is another good topic for discussion.

[JimFoxvog]

How do citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven go about getting the kingdoms of the world to stop developing and using nuclear and other bombs against other kingdoms of the world?

We can't, but we can speak out about the evil. We can also decline to pay taxes for it.

Jesus said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” Why does that not apply to taxes ?

Recall that the purpose of the question was to trap Jesus and that the listeners were amazed at Jesus' answer.

To the pious Jews, the earth was the Lord's, and everything in it. The brutal occupation forces were due nothing. But to the Romans and their collaborators, everything that Caesar wanted was his. Jesus' answer satisfied both sides because they interpreted it as supporting their position. I support the biblical view of the pious Jews.