The moral dilemma of weapons of mass destruction
Through out time, humanity's greatest quest is to develop the bigger stick. There's a reason that ages have been named after the kinds of weapons we have (ie the bronze, stone, iron ages). But when you develop a weapon so powerful it could wipe out an entire civilization, have you gone too far? The scientists in Fat Man, Little Boy and Gojira had to face this question. Once a weapon looses it's precision, innocent people tend to get caught in the crossfire. When you destroy an entire city in a fraction of a second, you're not killing an enemy arming, yo're killing innocent people, mothers and fathers who had no part in the war. Perhaps you come up with some kind of excuse. "They started it first. They would have fought us to the end anyway." Does this little girl look like she wants to take up arms and end your life? No? Then what gives you the right to take hers?
I don't like the use of weapons of mass destruction... and I don't think that any one man should ever have the power to wield them. And that's one of the reasons I think that no WMDs have been used since the first two were dropped. People realize that the cost is too great to use a weapon like that. A weapon that kills millions of people is not the answer to your problem with a single group. I'm sure it's easy to use a massive bomb on a group of people if they're not -your- people, after all.
I'm very torn on what to think of WMDs. On one hand I agree that in certain situations they are necessary, but at the same time I can't agree with the use of a weapon that kills everything, involved in the conflict or not. Plus it not only kills the people, but the land as well. Salt the ground? More like turn it into a nuclear fallout.