Weapons of Mass Destruction

Damage of Weapons of Mass Destruction

  1. Some wars have used weapons of mass destruction. These are weapons that can destroy large areas of land and/or lots of people all at once, e.g. chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They’re indiscriminate - they harm soldiers and civilians alike.

  2. Chemical and biological weapons are banned by international law - using them is considered a war crime. There are many arguments for and against possessing nuclear weapons - some key points are given below

Arguments FOR Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Nuclear Weapons serve as a deterrent to ensure peace - a country might not attack another if that country has nuclear weapons. Many countries five this as the reason for keeping nuclear weapons. In the 1900s, several conflicts were settled or sidestepped because nuclear weapons posed too big a risk

  • Some have a utilitarian perspective - the best course of action is the one that brings about the best balance of positive and negative results. The USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in WW as they thought that using nuclear weapons would save the most lives overall, and end the war faster

  • Nuclear weapons could be used by a country in order to defend itself if under attack

Arguments AGAINST Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Many religious and non-religious people oppose nuclear weapons because of the huge loss of life, long-term health issues and environmental damage they can cause.

  • Nuclear weapons are costly. Many people argue that funds could be better spent, e.g. on healthcare

  • Many religions believe in the sanctity of life - life was given to humans by God and should be respected. Widespread suffering caused by nuclear weapons completely goes against this

  • Believers who agree with the Just War Theory might argue that the indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons (they would kill innocent people) could never be classed as just

  • Earth is God’s creation - using nuclear weapons would destroy what God trusted humans to take care of.

Religious View Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Christian Views

    • Some Christians use Jesus’s teachings about peace to argue against nuclear weapons. All Christian denominations are against using them

    • However, some think nuclear weapons helps to keep the peace as countries are afraid of starting a nuclear war

  • Jewish Views

    • The Talmud says that if something will inflict harm on over a sixth of the population, then it’s not allowed

    • Many Jews believe that although actually using Weapons of Mass Destruction can’t be justified because of the scale of damage they cause, a country could say that they’ll use nuclear weapons, without ever intending to use them, to stop something bad happening. They might support this idea with the sanctity of life argument. Israel has never revealed whether it has nuclear weapons

  • Both Christians and Jews might turn to Deuteronomy 20. It suggests that women and children should be spared, and unnecessary damage shouldn’t be caused: “When you lay siege to a city for a long time… do not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them, because you can eat their fruit” (Deuteronomy 20:19). The total destruction that Weapons of Mass Destruction would cause goes against this.

  • Atheists and Humanists

    • Some atheists are in favour of Weapons of Mass Destruction to deter an opponent and to potentially use - they don’t believe their actions will be judged

    • Other atheists are strongly anti-Weapons of Mass Destruction as they believe people only live one life on Earth

    • Humanists have opposed the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction due to the huge number of people that would suffer

    Mark Scheme Evaluation

  • pacifism is right because war can never be justified. This is because Buddhists support the idea of ahimsa (not harming a living thing)/religious believers support the idea of the sanctity of life, etc

  • pacifists believe that all killing is wrong. This is because religions have laws such as 'do not kill' and so will not fight eg Quakers, etc

  • some Christians believe that war is the sometimes the best option and would not support being a pacifist. For example, they would fight in a 'Just War' or to stop genocide taking place, etc.

    Christianity

    There are different views among Christians/some see nuclear weapons as a deterrent to maintain peace and prevent attack/others like the Quakers are pacifists and oppose them/against the Just War rules.

    Judaism

    The Talmud (Shavuot 35b) explicitly prohibits the waging of war in a situation where the casualty rate exceeds a sixth of the population/it would be difficult to actually use a nuclear weapon but having them as a deterrent is seen as justified.