• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Can a Christian justify the use of Nuclear Weapons?

Extracts from this document...


John Burns 10H Can a Christian justify the use of Nuclear Weapons? When answering the title of this essay, you have to first look at why countries retain and develop nuclear weapons. The first reason and most obvious of all is to use the nuclear device to destroy an enemy. A good Christian however can never justify this, because no matter how accurate your weapons are you will undoubtedly kill innocent civilians. If you look at the Ten Commandments laid down by God you will see that God was opposed to war, violence and any form of mistreatment. We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat our enemies, as we would want to be treated." If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified and if you do provoke a nuclear war you should be punished. ...read more.


It is difficult to imagine that people find it acceptable that 75,000 to 100,000 die unnecessarily every day from lack of food, water, shelter, sanitation etc (not from war) while the world's most privileged governments pour even more billions into 'security.' I agree with them, and I feel that there are far more important things throughout the world that need our help like those listed above. Spending huge amounts on developing nuclear weapons is very unnecessary and the money should be aimed at ending death and pain rather than creating it. However, it is not only Christians that believe retaining nuclear bombs, as a deterrent, is wrong and that dropping nuclear bombs is unjust. I asked Canon Michael Evans (A priest at my local Roman Catholic Parish) ...read more.


The most obvious approach a Christian would take to nuclear warfare would be the unilateral approach. That is never to retain nuclear weapons and certainly never to use them. This would be the most just way, because you can spend money on things that are important like health, education and transport. By not retaining nuclear arms, no one would try to attack you, because they would not find you as a threat. But of course you can never rid everyone of knowledge. Therefore any one person could have the know how to design and manufacture nuclear bombs for use of a destructive nature. I feel that the forth approach is the best and most just way of using nuclear weapons- not to use them at all. You are not threatening anyone, you follow all of the Ten Commandments and you follow the Just War Theory. 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. International Relations Assess the arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons

    Sagan goes further with this argument against the proliferation of NWs, in his article The Commitment Trap23 he says that there is a 'logical inconsistency' on the half of the pro nuclear argument, and in relation to this he misses an essential point of the MAD argument: ...the mere existence

  2. Do nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are they just ...

    dangerous situation- with in 1955 the world facing a stand off between N.A.T.O (North Atlantic Treaty Operation) and members of the Warsaw pact (Soviet union) (Scott.2001,p.81).However, instead of these organizations resorting to war the threat of a nuclear conflict forced compliance between the two super powers through treaties such as

  1. "The possession of nuclear weapons can never be justified." Discuss.

    According to philosophers such as Aristotle and Cicero, a war of self-defence is just. 'Possession' itself isn't really the problem; the real problem is whether a country is willing to use its weapons in warfare. Some people may agree to war if it challenges a countries religious beliefs and practises, such as Christian thinkers St.

  2. Everyday Use

    partially correct since she her name comes from her great-grandmother whose name at one time had been changed by slave owners. Nevertheless, her great-grandmother faced hardships in this country and survived strengthening her family. Dee's claim is shallow only to think that the name came from a white oppressor, but

  1. WWII Atomic Weapons Were Justified

    This caused Japan to further the war and fuel its people to fight. The Japanese had also been using barbaric war tactics through out World War II. They believed the war would be over once they eliminated their target or every one of their soldiers was dead.

  2. Explain Christian beliefs about justice, forgiveness and reconciliation.

    The first rule explains that The war must be started and controlled by the authority of the state or ruler and this ties in because the war was against Germany and Hitler and started and controlled by Britain. There was a reason to destroy Hitler before he achieved his aim

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work