Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseMost weapons are aimed at a target: a soldier, a vehicle or a building. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are different. They are designed to kill or injure huge numbers of people at once and to damage large areas. There are three types.
Weapons that release enormous energy in a single blast. They also give off radiation, which makes people ill and harms the land for years afterwards.
Weapons that use poisonous chemicals to injure or kill people. They can harm anyone who is nearby.
Weapons that use germs or poisons made by living things to spread disease on purpose.
Why are they different from conventional weapons? (Conventional weapons are ordinary weapons such as guns, tanks and non-nuclear bombs.)
Key terms:
Nuclear weapons have been used in war only twice. On 6 August 1945, near the end of the Second World War, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, it dropped a second on Nagasaki. Both cities were largely destroyed and very many civilians died. Others died later from burns and radiation sickness, and survivors suffered health problems for years. No nuclear weapon has been used in war since.
People still disagree about the decision. Some argue the bombs shortened the war and saved lives that a longer war would have cost. Others argue that targeting cities full of civilians can never be right.
Deterrence: if a country owns nuclear weapons, an enemy may be too afraid to attack it. During the Cold War, people spoke of mutually assured destruction (MAD): if both sides could destroy each other, neither would dare to start a war. Supporters say this has helped to keep the peace between the nuclear powers.
Just War: WMD can never meet the Just War conditions, because they cannot avoid harming civilians or keep force proportionate.
Cost: they cost huge sums that could be spent on food, health and homes.
Accident: a mistake, a fault or a stolen weapon could cause a disaster. The more countries that own them, the greater the risk.
This leads to two views on getting rid of them. Unilateral disarmament means one country gives up its weapons whatever other countries do, hoping to set an example. Multilateral disarmament means countries agree to reduce their weapons together, so nobody is left in danger. Critics of the first say it leaves a country open to attack; critics of the second say it is slow and countries may not trust each other.
International treaties already limit WMD:
Atheists and humanists do not believe in God, so they do not appeal to the will of God. They judge weapons by what they do to human beings and to the planet. Because WMD cause so much suffering and harm the environment, most humanists want them reduced and banned by international agreement. Some non-religious people, however, accept that owning them may deter attack, as long as they are never used. Religious believers also disagree among themselves, and each religion's own views are covered in that religion's lessons.
Terrorism is the use or threat of violence against civilians to create fear, in order to reach a political, religious or ideological aim. Ordinary people are targeted because the attacker wants to frighten a whole society or its government.
Why do some people turn to terrorism? They may feel their cause is ignored, believe that peaceful methods have failed, want attention for their aim, or be pulled in by an extreme ideology. This explains it, but does not excuse it. Terrorism has been used by groups of many political, nationalist and religious kinds, so it must never be linked to any one religion, people or country.
Why is it condemned? It deliberately harms innocent people. Governments condemn it as a crime. Non-religious ethics condemn it because it treats people as tools to make others afraid. The mainstream of every religion condemns it too, and most believers see it as a betrayal of their faith, not an expression of it.
How do societies respond?
Key terms:
(a) Identify three types of weapon of mass destruction. [3 marks] (Paper 1, AO1)
(b) Outline two reasons why some people want to keep nuclear weapons. [4 marks] (Paper 1, AO1)
(c) Explain why some people say weapons of mass destruction can never be justified. [6 marks] (Paper 1, AO1 and AO2)
(d) 'Countries should give up all their nuclear weapons.' Evaluate this statement, showing you have considered different points of view. In your answer you should refer to at least one religion. [12 marks] (Paper 1, AO1 and AO2)
(a) 1. Nuclear weapons (1) 2. Chemical weapons (1) 3. Biological weapons (1)
(b) One reason is deterrence (1): an enemy may be too afraid to attack a country that can hit back with nuclear weapons (1). Another reason is that owning them stops a country being bullied or invaded (1), because a country with nuclear weapons can show that an attack on it would be met with a devastating response, which helps it to keep its independence (1).
(c) One reason is that WMD cannot tell soldiers from civilians. Just War theory says civilians must not be targeted and force must be proportionate, but a weapon that harms everyone in a wide area cannot meet those conditions. A second reason is that the effects last. Radiation, poison and disease can go on harming people and the land long after an attack, so the damage is far greater than the aim of any war. A third reason is the risk and cost: an accident or a stolen weapon could cause a disaster, and the money could be used to help people instead. This means that, for these people, no cause could ever make owning or using WMD right.
(d) Plan. For: the weapons can never meet the Just War conditions, they risk accident and cost huge sums, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the suffering they cause. Humanists judge weapons by their effect on human beings and the planet, and most want them banned by international agreement. Against: deterrence and mutually assured destruction may have kept the peace between nuclear powers; if one country gave up its weapons alone (unilateral disarmament) it could be left open to attack; and countries may not trust each other to disarm together (multilateral disarmament). Judge each point: deterrence has worked so far, but only one accident or mistake would be catastrophic. The key word is all: it would need every country to agree, which is hard. Conclusion (example): giving up nuclear weapons is the right aim, but it is safest done step by step by international agreement, not by one country alone. In your own answer, add what the teachings of your own religion say about war, peace and human life, and contrast them with a humanist or other non-religious view.
In the 12-mark question, name the key idea each time (deterrence, unilateral, multilateral) and say who disagrees with it, then finish with a conclusion that picks a side and gives the deciding reason.