Ethics of Developing Weapons of Mass Destruction

I believe that the production of some weapons is normal. If we do not produce weapons to defeand ourself and the enemies do, we would automatically have to surrender because we could not fight back. Also, weapons are mostly made to scare the enemy into submission or prevent wars. If you have many big, dangerous weapons, no one will want to try to attack you if you are generally nice to everyone else. If you are weak, and you are near a larger country, you are possible to be attacked for the purpose of gaining of land, resources and population. If you are average powered and mean to everyone, small and large will combine to attack you.
Next, weapons of mass destruction should only be used for scare tactics. Once one is used, for example, a hydrogen bomb dropped on Washington, D.C. or Moscow, the attacked country would retaliate with as much opposition as possible. The next problem with nucular bombs is radiation and radiation clouds. If there is a big enough nuclear explosion, a radiation cloud will create, which will flow with the strongest wind current, and effect everyone in it's path, not just the people near the epicenter. Also, there are biological weapons, which can be weapons of mass destruction, because if enough is dispenced, it can also be caught in a wind current amnd kill many until it is all used up.
I believe that this can tie into the story "A Long Way Gone" by Ishmael Beah in many ways. I think that the way the drugs, like cocanie, were used to get the boys high was a for of a weapon of mass destruction, because it destroys the boy's lives and gives them the ability to harm others much easier. Also, the guns they used can be compared to cannons, or as "mini-cannons." They are made and used to harm other living things by throwing projectiles out of the barrel in a straight path towards its target.