The financial cost of warfare is overwhelming. Developed countries pay out over twenty-five times more on their military programmes than on support to poor countries of the world where millions face starvation. Beyond that the cost of war in human terms is just tragic.
Most countries manage well without their own nuclear weapons suggesting those countries that do, do not need them either. However if a country was to disarm, they run the risk of nuclear weapons spreading to other countries that want them, like Iraq. This would make disarming extremely dangerous.
After the Second World War, a soviet advance into Europe appeared likely. As the USSR hadn’t withdrawn from the countries it occupied during the war, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that it wanted to expand its communist empire further. The soviet Premier Khrushchev said, “We will bury you,” to the people of the Western world.
The western alliance of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) decided on a deterrence policy. From their development during the 1930’s and being used during wars such as Vietnam and the beginning of the cold war, nuclear weapons were built up and targeted on cities and military centres of the USSR, the aim being to scare the Soviet Union so that it would not attack the West. The threat was “mutually assured destruction.”
Many Christians believe that there is such a things as “just war.” This is a war, which it is morally right to fight. For a war to be just, it must comply with the conditions set down by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century and then expanded upon by Francisco de Vitoria two centuries later. They are;
- The war must be declared by a proper authority such as a government and not by individual groups
- There must be a good reason for the war that does not include greed.
- The intention of the war must be to promote good and avoid evil. The war must do more good than harm and cannot be carried out for revenge or to intimidate people.
- War must be the last resort and all other ways of solving the problem must have been tried first.
- There must be a reasonable chance of success. If there is no hope of victory, lives should not be risked by going to war.
- Fair methods must be used. Only enough force to achieve your goals should be used and only military people and not innocent civilians should be involved.
Although Christian opinion on war is incredibly varied, each and every Christian is affected by what they are taught through Jesus’ teachings in the Bible, and by their churches. Generally Christianity is known to be a loving religion in which its followers care for everyone around them, and do their best to live their life in the way they think God wants them to.
The majority of Christians do not agree with war because the Bible teaches them to love their enemies. However the Bible also suggests that God commands some wars.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) argues that we do not and did not ever need nuclear weapons. Many Christians agree with this and many are members of a branch of Christian CND. Pope John XXIII supported this view in the letter “Pacem in Terris” which also said that the arms race should end and all nuclear arms be banned.
If a nuclear war broke out millions of people, possibly the whole world would be killed, and the balance of nature would be destroyed maybe forever. Any war in which nuclear weapons were used could easily become an all-out war.
Christians that do not agree with war may use the just war theory if they feel a certain war does not follow the theory’s rules. For example a nuclear war would be similar to terrorism in that it would definitely break more than one ‘Just war’ rule. Nuclear war would most certainly not intend to do more good than harm as is stated that it must be done in rule three. The second part of rule three also states that the war must not be carried out to intimidate people. Yet, surely the threat of a vast amount of their land being destroyed, perhaps forever, is to intimidate the rival force. Perhaps the most important rule that would be broken by a nuclear war is the sixth. Stating that only fair methods must be used and only enough force to achieve your goals. Only military people and not innocent civilians should be involved. In this instance a nuclear war would completely go against this rule as a nuclear bomb would kill thousands, if not more innocent people, and injure countless numbers of further blameless civilians. The long term consequences of a nuclear war would also involve innocent people as any land that had been in contact with nuclear weapons would probably not be healthy to live on for many years if ever again.
In the same light, although terrorist attacks are not ongoing wars, Christians could never support such activities for the fact that they break any theory for a just war. Terrorism could never be justified through the just war theory because it breaks all of them. These attacks are intended to harm many innocent civilians and do extensive damage to the enemy’s property and habitat. Individual groups, not proper authorities, control terrorist attacks, which goes against the first just war rule. They plan and carry out these attacks either out of revenge or for greed, and to provoke a reaction from the enemy by making their aim to create as much damage as possible. These facts utterly defy the second, third and sixth just war rules. Rule five is disregarded as there is no question as to whether there would be a reasonable chance of success, as terrorist attacks are planned to go ahead when an enemy least expects it and can do nothing about it. Terrorist attacks are a way of getting revenge not trying to solve a problem, but to create many for the enemy. Therefore such attacks disobey the fourth and last rule to be broken. These are the focus reasons for why most Christians would definitely not agree with a nuclear war or with terrorism, since they are intentional and aim harm a lot of people or to gain some type of power. Pope John XXIII stated, “It is impossible to conceive of a just war in a nuclear age.”
Most Christians would agree with Archbishop Renato Martino, permanent overseer of the UN who in 1997 said, "If biological weapons, chemical weapons and now land-mines can be done away with, so too can nuclear weapons. No weapon so threatens the longed-for peace of the 21st century as the nuclear. Let not the immensity of this task dissuade us from the efforts needed to free humanity from such a scourge...since nuclear weapons can destroy all life on the planet, they imperil all that humanity has ever stood for and indeed humanity itself." The main reason for such diversity in Christian attitude is the way in which God’s followers choose to interpret religious texts. Different churches interpret some teachings in different contexts so for each Christian their attitude is heavily affected by which church they belong to. Certain bible texts would support Christian’s religious beliefs for or against the idea or fighting and warfare. For example one of the Ten Commandments, which are like guidelines for Christians to live by, reads “ Thou shall not kill,” so Christians who take the Bible very seriously would follow that rule.
Another example of a Bible text that promotes non-violent protest instead of war, is Matthew 26 51-52 in which Jesus orders,“put up again thy sword for all who take the sword shall die by the sword.”
However there are occasions in the Bible when people are told by god to attack those who oppose them, such as Exodus 21:23-24,”if there is serious injury take life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth…” This famous expression is seen by some Christians to limit revenge but by others to encourage it.
All that is left is the hope that government leaders can come to a sensible conclusion over present matters, but what will happen will not remain a mystery for much longer. What will it take for humankind to learn its lesson; I would not like to know.
