the Nuclear Bomb and non combatants

[AHMED_GUREY]

in islamic warfare killing non combatants is prohibited

these WMD's were designed to target and kill and destroy as many civilians and infrastructure as possible

Salahdiin 800 years ago when he sacked Jerusalem he used ballista's

no doubt you will hit non combatants with projectile type of warfare

so if muslim leaders in the future do have the option of using these bombs like pakistan has are they allowed to use it?

 

[arabiyyah]

They should not use it, but then again. Muslims who blow up innocent like a suicide bombing do not follow Islamic law either. Those are the people who are striving to get the Nuclear bombs.

 

[Woodrow]

A nation that has a Nuclear arsenal is very suicidal. I'm convinced that Nukes are the dumbest and most useless weapon to ever be developed. They can not be used as an aggressive weapon as they would destroy the very thing an aggressor is seeking to posses.They can not be used as a defensive weapon as they can cause as much damage to the people they are meant to protect as the aggressor would have done.

They are simply a statement that says, "it is my sand box, if you try to play in it I'm going to dump it out and neither of us will have a place to play."

I can not imagine how supposedly intelligent leaders can select such a dumb choice.

 

[akulion]

the use of the abomb would be a very drastic measure - as a last resort to stop or damage the enemy

and since death is better than persecution

thus it would be allowed to use such a weapon to wipe out the enemy in case of dire need

thats my opinion

however the use of abomb is not a light matter at all - but in the face of certain defeat its an excellent last choice

 

[Trumble]

If you use nuclear weapons non-combatants will die in huge numbers, there is no way around that.

I guess from a moral point of view it would depend on the intended purpose of the weapon. During the Cold War NATO had two flavours, those that were essentially "deterrent" weapons targetted at cities, industrial complexes etc, and smaller "tactical" weapons that were intended for use to disrupt anticipated large Soviet tank formations moving across Germany that could not have been stopped by conventional means. I suppose it would have been "acceptable" to use the latter but not the former, and that would presumably still apply.

 

[Muezzin]

Using a nuke is like putting a foil-wrapped turd in a microwave. Nobody actually wants to do it, but when they do the ensuing explosion is overwhelming and indiscriminate, leaving a stink for years to come.

 

[Wahid]

Only as last resort, if the enemy is about to use nukes and or has already used nukes on us

There is definate justification for useing them in these instances, read my sigy for starters

 

[therebbe]

There is definate justification for useing them in these instances, read my sigy for starters

Does the Quran subscribe to the eye for an eye theory even if civilians will get hurt in the process? Just curious, no offense intended and sorry if I am to off topic.

 

[Woodrow]

Only as last resort, if the enemy is about to use nukes and or has already used nukes on us

There is definate justification for useing them in these instances, read my sigy for starters

Perhaps there may be justification. Yet they are weapons that will only be used by the most ignorant of people. Using a Nuke is the equivilant of burning down your village, because one of your neighbors hit you.

The world can not withstand much more nuclear testings or any detonations of them.

Use of a nuke harms the Nation using it just as much, if not more than the one it is used against. Just takes longer for the damage to be seen.

There is no such thing as a "small nuke" the initial explosion is the safest part of the blast. The fall out from even the smallest possible one will within a short period of time contaminate the entire earth. The radioctivity will last for many generations. We are just now seeing the impact of what Hiroshima and Nagasaki has upon the earth. People are still dieing in every nation because of them and unborn generations will also be affected. It is an utter disgrace for anyone to even contemplate defiling the world to that extent.

 

[therebbe]

Use of a nuke harms the Nation using it just as much, if not more than the one it is used against.

Woodrow, in all respect, do you hold the opinion that the United States was harmed by the use of the Atom Bombs more than Japan was?

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, in all respect, do you hold the opinion that the United States was harmed by the use of the Atom Bombs more than Japan was?

In all sincerity I do. It is known that much of the fall out did settle on our New England States and begining in the 1950's there was a huge increase in the number of Leukemia cases. I lost all 4 grand parents and several uncles between, 1953 and 1957 to Leukemia. Something caused it. Plus the environment in that area was changed considerably in that same time period. I believe the radiation levels in Northern Connecticat and Western Massachusets are still abnormaly high. I can remember in the 1950's there was a trmendous jump in the background radiation levels. I do not know where they stand today. But, I truly believe that the results of Nagazaki and Hiroshima did affect the north Eastern USA.

I also believe that the fall out also caused environmental damage throughout many of the northern stae I am just more aware of the New England area. I do not believe the damage was like Nagasaki in any one area but is spread out and has had a detrimental affect for years. In that way I would say the damage was equal or worse to what was done to Japan, but spread out over a longer time span and over a larger area.

 

[Woodrow]

addendum:

I am unable to find anything to specificaly back up what I said above. But here is a little note regarding Maine one of our Northernmost New England States.

A major but often unacknowledged event in the sixth and seventh decades of the 20th century history of America, Maine and the Norumbega bioregion was the contamination of our environment and our food chain with nuclear weapons testing derived fallout. The ubiquitous spread of this contamination throughout the biosphere of the northern hemisphere beginning in the late 1950s mark the end of the Industrial Revolutionand the beginning of a new era of chemical fallout. These contamination events have a disquieting synchronicity with the two hundred year cycles that seem to characterize the chronology of Maine history:

1560 - 1760: European conquest and the demise of Maine's Native American communities
1760 - 1960: the rise of an Industrial Revolution that in its later stages left Davistown and the central Maine coast on its periphery
1960 - ?: the beginning of a post-industrial age of chemical and nuclear fallout characterized by the nuclear weapons arms race and a military - industrial - commercial cyber-culture, the international complexity of which may engender an age of terrorism that proliferates the weapons of mass destruction so abundantly produced after 1960
The number of casualties from increasing rates of breast and brain cancer, lymphoma and other diseases after 1960 in Maine and elsewhere as a result of weapons testing and chemical fallout will never be known. The cumulative fallout index completed by the RISO National Laboratory in Denmark makes an appropriate starting point for an abbreviated bibliography on anthropogenic radioactivity that will be continued in RADNET, the second component of the environmental history archives of The Davistown Museum.
Cumulative Fallout Record

The RISO National Laboratory in Denmark has measured the annual fallout record for 137Cs and 90Sr since 1950. The United States government also measures fallout rates, but the information is classified. The cumulative fallout record for Maine is probably slightly higher than that for Denmark since we are closer to the testing sites both in the western United States and in central Russia. Prevailing winds brought Russian fallout across the Pacific or possibly over the north pole; prevailing winds in the United States from west to east resulted in the highest fallout rates in two locations: those close in to the Nevada Test Site, but on the easterly side of the site, and anywhere in the United States where high levels of rainfall tended to wash out weapons testing-derived and Chernobyl-derived radioactive contamination.

source:http://www.davistownmuseum.org/TDMenvHistory.html

the contamination is culmulative and continues to grow with each test and each new nuclear power plant.

In my opinion the Qur'an does seem to forebid the use of Nuclear weapons as they will kill innocent people that are no where near any battle or even in the same countries were the battles are fought. I can not understand how a weapon that will indiscriminatly kill for many years after being used can be seen as not endangering innoncents not just today but for years in the future.

 

[akulion]

The one thing we have to take into account is tht using a nuclear weapon will not just destroy lives of people but also damage the earth, destroying the land itself and all living creatures (animals + plants) and also destroy the air and water, making it contaminated.

If we back track to the days of Abraham, we will find that it was Shaitan who tought the Pahroh to build a weapon of greater destruction (back in those days) called the catapult...so that he could throw Abraham(a) into the flame.

It is actually satans agenda to cause mass destruction and evil upon this world corrupting it.

So usage of Abombs is a very difficult choice to make indeed since it impacts generations to come. But at the same time it also acts as a very powerful deterrant owards war breaking out. Take the example of India and Pakistan...after they initially got over their 'stand off' with the nuclear weapons they realized neither would gain by using it since they are neighbours. Now we see that they are well on the way towards becoming friends slowly. So in this case Abombs proved useful without even being used.

Its a verytouchy topic indeed.

 

[Wahid]

Perhaps there may be justification. Yet they are weapons that will only be used by the most ignorant of people. Using a Nuke is the equivilant of burning down your village, because one of your neighbors hit you.

The world can not withstand much more nuclear testings or any detonations of them.

Use of a nuke harms the Nation using it just as much, if not more than the one it is used against. Just takes longer for the damage to be seen.

There is no such thing as a "small nuke" the initial explosion is the safest part of the blast. The fall out from even the smallest possible one will within a short period of time contaminate the entire earth. The radioctivity will last for many generations. We are just now seeing the impact of what Hiroshima and Nagasaki has upon the earth. People are still dieing in every nation because of them and unborn generations will also be affected. It is an utter disgrace for anyone to even contemplate defiling the world to that extent.

i understand your concerns bro, but like i said it should be the very last resort, other than that in the circumstances that i talked about what do you think should be done? if muslim nations are about to wiped out or totally defeated by enemy nuke attacks? (incidently many right wing bloggers already advocate that)

 

[Woodrow]

The one thing we have to take into account is tht using a nuclear weapon will not just destroy lives of people but also damage the earth, destroying the land itself and all living creatures (animals + plants) and also destroy the air and water, making it contaminated.

If we back track to the days of Abraham, we will find that it was Shaitan who tought the Pahroh to build a weapon of greater destruction (back in those days) called the catapult...so that he could throw Abraham(a) into the flame.

It is actually satans agenda to cause mass destruction and evil upon this world corrupting it.

So usage of Abombs is a very difficult choice to make indeed since it impacts generations to come. But at the same time it also acts as a very powerful deterrant owards war breaking out. Take the example of India and Pakistan...after they initially got over their 'stand off' with the nuclear weapons they realized neither would gain by using it since they are neighbours. Now we see that they are well on the way towards becoming friends slowly. So in this case Abombs proved useful without even being used.

Its a verytouchy topic indeed.

Take the example of India and Pakistan...after they initially got over their 'stand off' with the nuclear weapons they realized neither would gain by using it since they are neighbours. Now we see that they are well on the way towards becoming friends slowly. So in this case Abombs proved useful without even being used


Very good point. They actually do become a handcuff and render both countries incapable of waging full scale war. To a very large extent the mere possession of them can render the country unable to conduct war. The USA has reached that point too. We can no longer engage in limited conventional warfare although we could dfeat a super power, we are virtualy helpless against a small limited groung force.

 

[AHMED_GUREY]

wow this topic took of without me...

woodrow your right the A bomb is more of a ''status'' bomb..

a ''scare'' card a nation can use for it's advantage when it's put under pressure by other nations

i don't see any future islamic state with islamic values using one to win a war since it contradicts islamic rules of war

cause you will hit non combatants and you will hit many..

that's why i don't think the mahdi will use these weapons when he takes over the world

nothing glorious about these weapons

 

[sameer]

the same question can be asked about normal bombs that hit cities, Dont they kill civilians also? the efect wouldnt be as great..but basically is the same question and the same answer would suffice. Civilian targets should be avoided and is Haram in Islam, and is also illegal in Man made laws, but does anyone ever really follow these religious/secular laws?

 

[Woodrow]

You know if we all followed the rule books, this never would have even been a topic. War never would even be a thought, it would just be a little notation in the History books.