WMD and Religion as a cause of conflict (AQA GCSE Religious Studies A): Revision Notes

Religion as a cause of conflict and weapons of mass destruction

Introduction to religious conflict and WMD

Religious differences are often viewed as a significant source of conflict throughout the world. In modern times, this issue has become more complex with the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These include nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can cause widespread devastation and massive loss of life. Understanding how different religious and non-religious groups view these weapons helps us examine the relationship between faith, ethics, and warfare.

Religion as a cause of conflict

Many non-religious individuals, including atheists and humanists, argue that differences in religious beliefs create conflict situations that religion itself cannot adequately resolve. They suggest that faith-based approaches fail to provide satisfactory solutions that lead to lasting peace between opposing groups. From this perspective, they might argue that a world with less religious influence would experience fewer conflicts.

Christian beliefs and teachings on conflict

While Christians acknowledge that some people view religion as a source of conflict, Christian teachings actually promote peace and reconciliation. The faith emphasises love, forgiveness, and peaceful resolution of disputes. Jesus's teachings provide clear guidance on how believers should respond to conflict and hostility.

Nuclear war, nuclear deterrence and WMD

Understanding nuclear deterrence

Nuclear deterrence represents a strategic approach where countries maintain nuclear weapons not necessarily to use them, but to prevent attacks from other nations. The concept works on the principle that if a country possesses nuclear weapons, potential aggressors will avoid attacking because they fear catastrophic retaliation. This creates a balance of power based on mutual assured destruction.

Perceived benefits of WMD

Supporters of WMD development point to several potential advantages:

• They may provide a stronger and quicker path to victory in warfare
• Military losses on the side using such weapons might be minimal compared to conventional warfare
• The threat of WMD can potentially deter other nations from starting conflicts
• They may prevent larger-scale conventional wars through fear of escalation

Perceived problems of WMD

However, there are significant concerns about WMD:

• Moral questions arise about whether the massive devastation caused can ever be justified
• The dangers associated with stockpiling these weapons create ongoing risks
• Use of WMD typically violates principles of Just War theory, which requires proportionality and discrimination between combatants and civilians
• The historical example of 1945 demonstrates these concerns, when the USA dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing widespread death and destruction

Christian responses to WMD

Most Christians hold a critical view of weapons of mass destruction, based on several key principles:

1. Problems outweigh benefits: Christians generally believe that the moral and practical problems associated with WMD far exceed any potential strategic advantages they might provide.

2. Biblical focus on peace: Christian teachings emphasise the peaceful messages found throughout the Bible and the examples set by Jesus Christ, which conflict with the destructive nature of WMD.

3. Concern for loss of life: Christians are deeply concerned about the enormous loss of human life that results from using WMD, viewing this as contrary to the sanctity of life principle.

4. Nature of modern warfare: Many Christians argue that the nature of contemporary warfare makes it impossible to justify the use of WMD under any circumstances, as they cannot distinguish between military targets and innocent civilians.

Non-Christian attitudes to WMD

Atheist perspectives

Atheists who have witnessed the devastating consequences of WMD use in conflicts are generally unlikely to support their development or deployment. Their opposition typically stems from humanitarian concerns rather than religious teachings.

Humanist viewpoints

Humanists, who believe that life is precious for non-religious reasons, are typically opposed to WMD because they threaten human life on such a massive scale. Their ethical framework emphasises human welfare and dignity.

Utilitarian considerations

Some people might approach this issue through ethical theories like utilitarianism, which focuses on achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. From this perspective, WMD should not be used because the massive suffering they cause cannot be justified by any potential benefits they might bring.