Many people say that disarmament is the only way to keep the balance of nature. Modern nuclear weapons are so powerful that they are many times more damaging than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there was ever an all out war, huge landmasses would be devastated and entire species of animals and plants would be wiped out. It is argued that it is immoral to posses these weapons that are capable of such destruction. Christians would say that such damage to the Earth is not acceptable and that we not being good stewards of God by letting people posses the means to destroy His world.
Pope John XXIII believes that nuclear weapons are immoral and do not benefit anyone. He would say that unilateral disarmament would be a good idea as it is not ethically correct to own such weapons, “it is impossible to conceive of a just war in a nuclear age”. This sums up many peoples’ view that it wrong to kill people in order to save others. Whilst the Pope acknowledges that this could have been justified before the atom bomb, it is immoral to kill potentially millions of innocent people, regardless of however many would be saved.
The Church of England is in favour of unilateral disarmament and showed it’s support in “The Church and the Bomb” in 1982. Despite this the General Synod was not in favour of unilateral disarmament and preferred multilateral disarmament. It could be argued that while unilateral disarmament could save lives, the General Synod saw this as a big risk and it could kill more than it saved, as countries would still possess nuclear weapons. Although it would be harder to obtain, The General Synod believes that more lives would be saved if there were multilateral disarmament.
The main reason for most countries possessing nuclear weapons is deterrence. Many people would say that Britain should not undertake unilateral disarmament because it leaves them wide open to attacks, specifically from Iraq and Al Qaeda. Just because Britain would have abolished its arsenal, this does not mean that other countries would follow. We must remember that it is a huge risk and the chances are that every other nuclear power will keep its weapons. Many people would say that Britain disposing of its nuclear capabilities is the perfect chance for extremist countries to attack, and that only a fool would support such a policy.
It could be argued that because countries have nuclear weapons a world war has been prevented since 1945. Many say it is acceptable to possess nuclear weapons if they are not used, or only use them if they are used against us solely for the purpose of deterring other countries. It could be argued, that for the safety of it’s people, that Britain must not undertake unilateral disarmament and remain to be seen as a nuclear power.
There are many parts of the Bible that are in support of peace, “Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6), “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called Sons of God”. Although these authors clearly favour peace, it is hard to say if they would want Britain to undertake a policy of isolation. It is down to a matter of opinion as to whether Britain following a policy of unilateral disarmament is in the best interests of peace. Personally, I believe that unilateral nuclear disarmament is very foolish and that it will do more harm than good. Although it works in theory, it is idealistic and in reality it is potentially catastrophic. We would be vulnerable to attacks and if we were attacked, the government would retaliate by sending in troops or warplanes. This would inevitably result in hundreds of thousands of deaths- possibly on both sides. The fact is that we need nuclear weapons to deter other unstable countries from taking advantage of us and other countries without nuclear capabilities. Ultimately, these deterrents save lives.
