Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseIn Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism you learned that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that can kill huge numbers of people at once. The problems are the mass death, the long-lasting harm and the fact that they cannot choose their targets. The benefit people point to is deterrence: the fear of such a weapon may stop an attack. This lesson looks at what Judaism teaches about them.
Judaism has no single sentence about nuclear weapons, because they did not exist when the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible) was given. Instead, Jews look at principles in the Torah and in the writings of the rabbis (Jewish teachers and scholars) and apply them to new situations.
Pikuach nefesh means "saving a life". It is the duty to save life, and it is so important that it overrides almost every other commandment. Jews believe every person is made in the image of the Almighty (God), so a weapon that destroys life on a vast scale goes against this value.
Bal tashchit means "do not destroy". It comes from Deuteronomy 20:19-20, which forbids cutting down fruit trees when a city is under siege, because the trees provide food. The rabbis widened this into a ban on needless destruction of any kind.
Key terms:
If the Torah protects fruit trees in war, many Jews argue, then it surely forbids weapons that wipe out whole cities, fields and water supplies. A weapon that destroys far more than any military aim needs is a clear case of needless destruction.
Many Jews and rabbis argue that weapons which cannot tell soldiers from civilians can never be used justly. In Judaism, a war that is fought must still protect innocent life. A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon harms children, the elderly and the sick as much as soldiers, so this view says it cannot be used.
Jews do not all think the same, though. Some argue that holding such weapons can deter attack and so protect life, which is pikuach nefesh. Jewish history matters here: Jews have been attacked many times, including in the Holocaust, and some Jews say a people must be able to defend itself. The difference is between using a weapon and having one to prevent war. Those who accept deterrence usually stress that the weapon must never actually be used on civilians.
They cannot tell soldiers from civilians, so they break the duty to save life and the ban on needless destruction.
Holding them may deter an attack and so protect life. Using them is still seen as wrong by many who hold this view.
The concept of Purity of Arms comes from the code of ethics of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the army of the State of Israel. It is a stated principle: force should be used only as far as is needed for the mission, and never against people who are not fighting, such as ordinary civilians. Note that this is a principle written in a code. This lesson does not judge how far any army keeps it.
The principle links closely to the teachings above. Using force only as far as needed is the same idea as avoiding needless destruction. Protecting people who are not fighting is a form of saving life. Many Jews say that a weapon which cannot be aimed at soldiers alone could never meet Purity of Arms.
Exam questions ask how far these ideas have a spiritual basis, meaning a basis in religion. You can argue that they have a strong one. Pikuach nefesh rests on the belief that people are made in the image of the Almighty. Bal tashchit comes straight from a verse in the Torah. The rabbis then explained and widened these teachings, so the ideas are rooted in scripture and rabbinic tradition. A different point is that Purity of Arms is written in an army code, not in the Torah, so its link to Judaism is by shared values rather than by direct command. Some Jews would say that all these ideas are simply good ethics that anyone could reach, and that the religious reasons add extra weight.
As the shared lesson explained, atheists and Humanists do not use religious teaching. They judge by human suffering and reason, and most are against the use of WMD because of the harm to innocent people. Some accept deterrence as a way to prevent war, while others want all such weapons given up.
Saying that the Torah mentions nuclear weapons (it does not: Jews apply principles to new situations). Mixing up the two terms: pikuach nefesh is saving life and bal tashchit is the ban on needless destruction. Saying that all Jews agree on deterrence. Describing Purity of Arms as a rule in the Torah, or writing about particular present-day conflicts: this lesson is about the teachings only.
(a) Identify three types of weapons of mass destruction. [3 marks]
(b) Choose one religion. Outline two teachings about weapons of mass destruction in this religion. [4 marks]
(c) Choose one religion. Explain why there are different attitudes to weapons of mass destruction in this religion. [6 marks]
(d) 'Nobody should ever use weapons of mass destruction.' Evaluate this statement, showing you have considered different points of view. In your answer you should refer to at least one religion. [12 marks]
(a) 1 Nuclear (1). 2 Chemical (1). 3 Biological (1).
(b) In Judaism, pikuach nefesh is the duty to save life (1), so a weapon that kills huge numbers of people goes against this duty (1). Bal tashchit is the ban on needless destruction (1), taken from Deuteronomy 20:19-20, which protects fruit trees in a siege, so destroying whole cities is wrong (1).
(c) Jews have different attitudes because they apply the same teachings in different ways. Many say that weapons which cannot tell soldiers from civilians can never be used justly, because of pikuach nefesh, the duty to save life, and bal tashchit, the ban on needless destruction. This means they oppose using WMD at all. Other Jews say that holding such weapons may deter an attack and so protect life, which is also pikuach nefesh. Jewish history of persecution makes some Jews stress the need to defend a people. These Jews usually still say the weapons must never be used on civilians. Attitudes also differ because there is no Jewish text about modern weapons, so people reach different conclusions from the same principles. (6 marks)
(d) Plan. For: WMD cannot tell soldiers from civilians; pikuach nefesh and bal tashchit; Purity of Arms says force is used only as far as needed and never against non-combatants; they cause long-lasting harm. Against: some Jews and others say holding them deters attack and so protects life; a people with a history of persecution may feel it must be able to defend itself. Contrast: a Humanist would judge by human suffering and mostly oppose use, but may accept deterrence. Conclusion: the statement is strongest about using WMD, where Jewish teachings and Humanist reasoning are close, but less clear about holding them, where views differ.
In the 12-mark question, split using a weapon from holding it. Many Jews say no to using but are divided on deterrence, and showing that gets you into the top levels.