The best line in the TV series M*A*S*H: "War isn't Hell. War is war and Hell is Hell and of the two war is worse. Why? Because in Hell, there are no innocent bystanders". There are many discussions (?) going today over the ethics of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Most involve a comparison of the evils of the Japanese and the American war-fighting tactics and warrior cultures. These discussions cannot bear any fruit today since they are mostly wrapped in "presentism". The only moral conclusion that I can see coming out of this argument is that nuclear weapons SHOULD NEVER be used again. That should be an easy point for anyone to make, but it's just words. Translating "SHOULD NEVER" into reality will demand a renunciation of a tiny piece of sovereignty. That would be a very tiny mellowing of nationalism. It would require a resolve from every nation on earth to reject the violence of war as an instrument of international relations. After all, the stated reason for the nuclear option is the prevention of war through "mutually assured destruction (MAD)". That was the foundation of the "Cold War" between the US and the USSR. It worked so well that MAD was copied on a smaller scale by a dozen other countries. These confrontations all feature a "deadly embrace", a standoff where neither party can win but neither can afford to lose. Eliminating the "nukes" from the equations will certainly lead to one party "losing" unless the actual source of conflict is resolved.

To sum up:

• Using Nukes is immoral
• Inspiring the other to use a Nuke is immoral
• Eliminating Nukes is good.
• Eliminating Nukes is hard.
• Why can't we all just get along?

That last line is not a flippant as it sounds. Until the world (all of it) makes war impossible, we will always "need" the biggest weapons possible.