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

'War and Peace' - ' Is Lackey correct in arguing that anyone that justifies nuclear weapons is justifying tying a child to a bumper to prevent accidents. '

Extracts from this document...


Tom Gannon- A level Ethics 'War and Peace' ' Is Lackey correct in arguing that anyone that justifies nuclear weapons is justifying tying a child to a bumper to prevent accidents. ' In July 1945, America dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. For the first time the world realised the true devastation of nuclear warfare and its very real threat to mankind and to peace. This threat is the underlying proponent of the policy of deterrence - the policy that most nuclear powers/countries now hold in regard to their nuclear weapons i.e. a country will not attack another with nuclear weapons for the threat of nuclear retribution in return. The countries with nuclear armaments justify their preparation on the grounds that their very existence would protect an attack on themselves. ...read more.


However, in considering the policy of deterrence deontologically, Lackey reaches the conclusion that the use of an immoral threat as a prevention of an immoral act is intrinsically wrong in itself, as well as being seemingly pointless. Nuclear superpowers cannot endanger and violate the rights of a population to ensure a victory in much the same way we cannot tie a child to a bumper to prevent an accident. In as speech made in the House of Commons on 10 November, 1932, Stanley Baldwin said: 'The only defence is offence which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy can if you want to save yourselves.' In an age of nuclear weapons, does such a strategy make sense? ...read more.


Nuclear warfare would go beyond the means of achieving the victory Stanley Baldwin saw in his day. It would be total obliteration. The policy of obliterating cities was adopted by the Allies in the last war and was born largely out of the hunger for retribution. This in itself is intrinsically and morally wrong and is the ugly side of war. Nuclear warfare and it's subsequent mass destruction, fuelled by something so trivial as revenge, would be pointless and morally wrong. Conversely, one may argue that we must use any means to fight aggression, especially against those with little or no ability to compromise but with the advent of the nuclear age this is a dangerous argument to uphold. Now with the knowledge of nuclear warfare it is important that we recognise it's destructive possibilities and, ultimately, that we learn to protect ourselves from ourselves. INTERNET SITES USED www.tsas-re.freeserve.co.uk www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk www.rsweb.org.uk www.davidsemporium.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk/education www.guardian.co.uk/education/alevel ...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. WWII Atomic Weapons Were Justified

    The United States was looking for Japan to adhere to Unconditional Surrender. Japan would not coincide with the terms due to the feeling of loyalty towards their emperor. President Truman had promised an end to deaths of American soldiers and for the war to end.

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

    external consideration.20 Internal Politics of organisations contrary to purpose Sagan's argument expands to include the "multiple, conflicting goals"21 of internal organisational structures. These objectives, he states, are 'intensely political' and that some units within an organisation may be seen to be acting not in concordance with the organisation's leadership.

  1. Apart from the Second World War, there was peace in Yugoslavia between 1919 and ...

    The younger generation were turning against communism and there was less and less support for the country's government. Yugoslavia had no obvious successor - Tito did not have a deputy and no one was sure who should rule the country, as there were still many different ethnic groups, with different beliefs and wishes for the country's future.

  2. Rationality, Educated Opinion and Peace

    The paper will then look into the possibilities of peace, and how the three concur on the issue of education. Due to source constraints, this paper will draw on secondary references to the works of the three writers, where the primary sources are not available.

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

    Now that there is a continuous threat of a small confrontation escalating into a nuclear battle the amount of wars involving first world countries has dropped. With war being seen as a more defensive or protectionist role (i.e. Falklands war) with supra national bodies such as the United Nations (UN)

  2. Evaluation of a reading from a chapter of a scholarly text that justifies an ...

    Further, the author cites several incidents revealing a gross hypocrisy. In all, the author effectively expresses that the practices of immense impropriety shamelessly by the elites has far-reaching, long-term disastrous affects that eventually will be realized. In the course of the relatively recent past and the present, the mounting cases

  1. Can a Christian justify the use of Nuclear Weapons?

    Many Christians believe that retain nuclear bombs just for the use, as a deterrent, is ridiculous. They feel that there is no point in spending millions of pounds on producing nuclear weapons just for the use as a threat.

  2. Were Contemporaries Correct in Viewing Chamberlain as a Peacemaker?

    Never forget it... There will be vengeance for the shame of 1919." - From a German newspaper, 1919. The above source shows that Germany was obviously disgusted by the Treaty, and was planning to get revenge for it. A future war was a probability, and the below source from the

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