Nuclear Warfare

Commentary on “Focus: Mission Iran” London Times, January 07, 2007

Assuming the London Times story “Focus: Mission Iran” is accurate, this idea poses several ethical questions, the first among them is the new doctrine of preemptive paranoia, sometimes called starting wars among the more rational in society. Has our world lost any semblance of ethics as the lovely blonde woman on the news assures us that the nuclear device to be dropped on Iran by Israel would be low yield? What are we now expected to accept?

Using nuclear weapons is not acceptable by any standard. Why has the United Nations not sent nuclear weapons observers into Israel yet expects others accede to this demand? How did Israel acquire nuclear technology? Shall we review that story? Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is irresponsible. If such a nuclear strike takes place, the number of warlike regimes in the world will multiply. What then? More nuclear strikes?

To counteract this warlike attitude, I suggest a United Nations resolution that retribution shall not be taken beyond what was given. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Not an eye for a brain. So it is written in the Old Testament and the words are meaningful and those who break that word of their religion are condemned to eternal warfare, the reason for the resolution.

To give this Resolution impetus, once the retribution allowance has been exceeded, immediate member economic boycott will ensue against the offender. Nobody wants to be called greedy, yet even too much retribution is a form of greed.

Warfare is a foolish waste of resources and as such must be stopped, if not for humanitarian reasons that boggle the mind with pain. Threatening a nuclear hit is moral bankruptcy no matter who does it.