I felt that clarification was necessary

I understood your basic logic no worries, now it's relative for how much damage and how much influence people have so it doesn't stray from the basic logic just adds on it and is mostly consistent. If that's what you think okay, but it does make one ponder.

Actually going by your logic I agree, but here's what I think: weapons are means to harm, inflicting harm without justification is wrong, and weapons research is only the first step in the production of weapons. Keep in mind, some scientists might be studying a subject not necessarily for weapons, and science isn't linear. Aldo many other steps with people actively selling and using the weapons exist and there are many partnerships between universities and arms manufacturers around the world , those same manufacturing companies sell their weapons to repressive regimes accused of war crimes, should you graze the universities to the ground because of the depth and width of their knowledge?

Going by your relative logic, I would also agree that a janitor is less culpable , I would also suggest that those who sold or used the weapons fully knowing their objective and the death they would inevitably cause are most culpable and if death is relatively the greatest punishment then it should be applied on them solely as they are the decisive step of the weapon industry and the driving force to the killings of thousands of people.

I have a different take all in all, nuclear scientists, like other individuals are not "fair game." All individuals, regardless of their profession, are entitled to basic human rights. Targeting or harming nuclear scientists or any other group of individuals based on their profession is unethical and sometimes blatantly illegal. Nuclear scientists play a critical role in advancing our understanding of nuclear science and technology, and advocacy of safe and responsible development and use of nuclear energy. They contribute a lot to research, innovation and technological advancements that have more numerous positive applications in multiple fields like medicine, energy and agriculture.

The field of nuclear science like many others does pose ethical dilemmas, and that's why this field, like any other field of science, is subject to regulations, safety protocols, and ethical considerations. Like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT-the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So technically any concerns regarding the development of nuclear weapons globally can be discussed and addressed through these channels.

However, there are many countries that are not a party to NPT and have not accepted IAEA safeguards on some of its principle nuclear activities , all of them with questionable histories, and they shouldn't preach morals. (and still I wouldn't agree to offing their scientists btw)

And such , it can be inferred that no one is an absolute authority on ethical behavior.

We can peacefully disagree on this.