GEN733 (Continued from DEUT1121]] Deuteronomy 22:5 clothing BLOCH 268-9) To what extent may science be permitted to alter the laws of nature in disregard of the potential dangers which may ensue? It is the function of nature to provide a healthy environment to sustain life. Is the manipulation of natural laws, with the intent of creating catastrophic destructive forces, an attack upon the established order of the universe? The existence of nuclear weapons, posing the greatest menace ever faced by mankind, brings to mind several questions. Is the atomic bomb a legitimate defensive implement of war or a criminal and immoral weapon? The moral question of the legitimacy of weapons capable of total destruction is resolved in the Biblical account of the Flood.  God used the Flood, the ancient equivalent of the atomic bomb, to eradicate mankind, which had degenerated into a state of utter corruption. Yet in the aftermath of the frightful devastation of the flood, God resolved never to use such a weapon again. He formalized this resolution in a covenant with Noah and his sons [This verse]. The condemnation of the atomic bomb is clearly implicit. The next question is, was the initial American production of the atomic bomb immoral? The answer is definitely no.  In view of reliable reports of the imminent acquisition of a nuclear missile by a ruthless enemy, the preemptive production of that weapon by a nation at war was legitimate under the universally accepted principle of self-defense. Was the use of the bomb against Japan immoral? There were no nuclear weapons in the enemy’s arsenal. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense lends a degree of legitimacy to the dropping of the bomb. It has been estimated that about 100,000 American lives would be lost in the invasion of Japan in an attack with conventional weapons. Despite the knowledge of inevitable defeat, the enemy refused to sue for peace. To the end of terminating the needless carnage, it was proper to use every means at one’s disposal, provided that adequate warning was given to the enemy to evacuate the civilian population. Is the possession of nuclear weapons by nations at peace morally justifiable? The answer is no. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense precludes any unilateral nuclear disarmament. The only way out of this dilemma is to follow the biblical precedent. God made a covenant outlawing his weapon of wholesale destruction. Nuclear weapons must be outlawed by an international covenant to which all nations must be signatories. The morality of every nation will be judged by its active pursuit of such a covenant. Is the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes justifiable, in view of the potential risks of accidents? Energy is essential to the survival of mankind. Considering the rapid depletion of natural sources of energy, until such time as alternative sources are available all precautions must be taken to minimize the risks. Financial considerations must not influence the relaxation of safeguards. To prevent the element of profit from entering into judgments of safety, Power plants should be owned by the government. BLOCH 269