Are Weapons of Mass Destruction Morally Justifiable?
Weapons of Mass destruction have been the subject of debate for decades. Many people believe that WMDs are a good idea, and vital to a nations defence. However, there are many others who believe that they are a waste of money, incredibly dangerous and that they should all be destroyed. In order to form a full opinion on the matter, I will look at arguments from both sides of the debate, including views from religious groups.
A weapon of mass destruction, or WMD is a weapon capable of killing a great number of humans and causing major damage to man-made and natural structures. They can be either nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological.
Nuclear bombs were first used in 1945. Two bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the Second World War. The bombs destroyed the cities, killed thousands of people, and left many …show more content…
In a survey for Britain’s nuclear defence program, trident 51% said they would want to keep the three nuclear warheads. The people in favour of these weapons also give valid reasons for wanting to keep them around. WMDs don’t need to be used in order to prevent war. Just the threat of using them is enough to diffuse a situation, and their presence in a country makes many of its people feel safe and secure. Furthermore, if a nation decided to get rid of their WMDs, how could they trust others to do the same? Some nations may keep them in secret then strike against the now nuclear free nations. Another reason for keeping WMDs is the possibility that they may need to be used for other purposes other than destroying other countries. If a massive asteroid was heading towards Earth, then the best way to stop it would be to blow it up with a nuclear missile. If we had destroyed them all the Earth would be
Weapons of Mass destruction have been the subject of debate for decades. Many people believe that WMDs are a good idea, and vital to a nations defence. However, there are many others who believe that they are a waste of money, incredibly dangerous and that they should all be destroyed. In order to form a full opinion on the matter, I will look at arguments from both sides of the debate, including views from religious groups.
A weapon of mass destruction, or WMD is a weapon capable of killing a great number of humans and causing major damage to man-made and natural structures. They can be either nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological.
Nuclear bombs were first used in 1945. Two bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the Second World War. The bombs destroyed the cities, killed thousands of people, and left many …show more content…
In a survey for Britain’s nuclear defence program, trident 51% said they would want to keep the three nuclear warheads. The people in favour of these weapons also give valid reasons for wanting to keep them around. WMDs don’t need to be used in order to prevent war. Just the threat of using them is enough to diffuse a situation, and their presence in a country makes many of its people feel safe and secure. Furthermore, if a nation decided to get rid of their WMDs, how could they trust others to do the same? Some nations may keep them in secret then strike against the now nuclear free nations. Another reason for keeping WMDs is the possibility that they may need to be used for other purposes other than destroying other countries. If a massive asteroid was heading towards Earth, then the best way to stop it would be to blow it up with a nuclear missile. If we had destroyed them all the Earth would be