Arguments Against Nuclear War

1702 Words 7 Pages
1. The United Nations defines chemical and bacteriological weapons as chemical agents or chemical substances that are either gaseous, liquid or solid and are use due to its toxicity and harmful effects towards animals, plants and humans. Furthermore, bacteriological agents of warfare are living organism, that as well as chemical weapons, are intended to cause disease or death in animals, plants, and humans. The difference is that bacteriological weapons “depend for their effects on their ability to multiply in the person, animal, or plant attacked” (p. 203). The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention prohibited the use of biological weapons, and it was signed by 103 nations. The nations that signed the treaty agreed that the use, development, as …show more content…
There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives. The long-term dangers of radioactive fallout and environmental contamination potentially affect innocent people, allies, enemies, or even one’s own population. Hence, since the side effects of nuclear weapons can’t be measure or controlled, can’t be ever justifiable. The psychologist Eric Fromm supports part of this view by claiming that logic of the way that wars back in the day used to be, are not the same, nor hold for the same standards for modern nuclear wars. The pacifist position argues that the use of nuclear weapons will always be morally wrong because: “1) their use will result in widespread noncombatant deaths and 2) the destructive effects of such weapons will necessarily be out of proportion to any political or military objectives achieved” (p.208). Yet, there are some objections against the pacifist position. First, an argument against the view that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it’s inevitable and will eventually escalate to nuclear war, is that since 1945 there is not a single case recorded with the use of nuclear weapons. Second, by taking this pacifist’s position

Related Documents

Related Topics