The Nuclear Deterrent Comparison

[Pineapple Thief]

A country has a nuclear deterrent for one reason - to deter, as the name suggests, attack.

Is this a valid comparison to Islamic punishments of removing the hand, etc.?

[Angel_Eyes]

A country has a nuclear deterrent for one reason - to deter, as the name suggests, attack.

Is this a valid comparison to Islamic punishments of removing the hand, etc.?
I am sorry, I can't follow what you are saying.

[Pineapple Thief]

Alright, so a country develops nuclear weapons right. The country doesnt actually plan to use those weapons, but they use it as a deterrent - i.e. if u mess with us, we'll bomb the hell out of you...i.e. the nuclear weapons are to stop violence. Its an extreme case, but if all goes right, they will never have to be used.

Im just wondering if you could apply that logic to islamic punishments, say the cutting of the hand, etc., which many criticise as being severe. So like if they Quran says thieves should have their hands cut off, and you know this, you wont go and steal a TV. Sure, stealing a TV isnt a big crime, but you know and understand the punishment, and thus if you're caught then you shouldn't expect mercy, because you've, well, violated a contract I guess.

Want to know if the comparison makes sense, and if not what criticisms people have on how to make more sense of it.

[Enigma]

PT, when it comes to stealing the punishment should be applied for it to become a deterrent. Otherwise it won't really work will it?

Now if someone DOES invade a country, will they release the nuclear bombs?

[Pineapple Thief]

You are right, if you steal, the punishment should be done. If a country is invaded, I dont think nuclear bombs should be released - there is a difference in the model. But whether they actually will or not depends, and we can't really say right now.

So how do you figure the comparison should be rephrased, or does it not work at all?