nuclear war

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/9

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

10 Terms

1
New cards

what is MAD

  • Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a military strategy according to which the full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence.

  • According to this theory, if a country has nuclear weapons this will deter other countries that also have nuclear weapons from attacking them.

2
New cards

arguments for nuclear weapons/ MAD

  • MAD has arguably helped to preserve peace. It is more than 70 years since nuclear weapons were used.

  • MAD is arguably rational – if the weapons are used, everyone dies. No rational person would want this. MAD therefore ensures that nuclear annihilation will never happen.

3
New cards

arguments against nuclear weapons

  • Since 1945, many countries have acquired or are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons e.g. Pakistan, India and Israel are nuclear powers and North Korea has also recently tested them. This is known as proliferation. Nuclear proliferation arguably increases the chances of their use.

  • Proliferation also increases the chances of mistakes/accidents taking place (e.g. through computer malfunctions), which could be devastating.

  • Terrorists may seek to develop or acquire and use them (though experts on terrorism think that there are currently practical difficulties that make this goal out of reach for organisations like ISIS at the present time).

  • If MAD fails, we may all die.

4
New cards

christian views on the use of nuclear weapons

  • both church of england + catholic church have officially stated that nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent

  • having said this, CofE believes that countries should work together to achieve ‘multilateral disarmament’ (where countries that have nuclear weapons try to work together, initially to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and in the long term try to get rid of them all together)

  • meanwhile, the catholic church believes that nuclear weapons should ONLY be kept as a deterrent and to prevent war; they should never be used to attack whole populations or whole cities

  • additionally, the catholic church also believes that countries that have nuclear weapons should be working towards reducing them

5
New cards

unilateral disarmament

  • pacifists support this approach

  • a country decides to get rid of its nuclear weapons regardless of whether other countries do the same

  • one reason for this might be because the govt decides that it is immoral to keep them in the first place

6
New cards

justification for use of atomic bombs against japan at end of ww2

  • The usual argument given is that the atomic bombing of Japan prevented an even greater loss of life.

  • One million dead was the minimum predicted casualty total for a land invasion.

  • By contrast, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed about a quarter of that number.

  • The Christian theologian and advocate of Situation Ethics Joseph Fletcher strongly implied in a book he wrote that this justified the bombings.

7
New cards

criticism of justification for nuclear attack

  • However, against this view it has been argued that the figure of one million dead was only an estimate that was produced to conveniently support the decision to drop the bombs.

  • It has also been suggested that America wanted to impress potential future rivals like the Soviets and the Chinese with their new weapon.

  • Philosophers like John Rawls who were opposed to the bombing have also argued that it was wrong because so many innocent civilians died as a result of the initial blasts and the long term effects of exposure to the radiation.

8
New cards

japan + just war principle

  • The use of nuclear weapons might also violate the Just War principle of proportionality.

  • Note that this principle might also potentially still be violated even if very low-yield nuclear weapons were used exclusively on the battlefield

  • →(which gets around the issue of the indiscriminate loss of life caused by larger nuclear weapons in violation of the jus in bello principle of humanity/discrimination).

9
New cards

justification of use of nuclear weapons

  • Those who believe that it might sometimes be right to use nuclear weapons think that only a supreme emergency can justify unleashing them (e.g. if an evil enemy is about to win a war and this is the only option left to avoid defeat).

  • The philosopher John Rawls supports their use in such circumstances.

  • But he also argues that at the end of WW2, this was not the situation and so it was wrong to use them, for reasons already mentioned in the second paragraph.

  • One related issue is that of the nuclear pre-emptive strike. Suppose the evil enemy was on the brink of developing nuclear weapons or had developed them. Would it be right to launch a nuclear first strike against that enemy in order to prevent their deployment or use?

10
New cards

anscombe’s view on japan’s bombing

  • After the war was over, the Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a speech arguing that the decision by Oxford University to award President Truman an honorary degree was wrong.

  • Anscombe objected on the grounds that, as the person who ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he was guilty of mass murder.