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

Even if conventional war is acceptable in Catholic teaching, the possession and use of nuclear weapons could never be

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Even if conventional war is acceptable in Catholic teaching, the possession and use of nuclear weapons could never be" There are two obvious stances on this question. The first is that nuclear war with its potential for continuing destruction and damage to future generations can never be acceptable. The second is that which prevailed at the end of the second World War which was that it was acceptable in order to prevent further and prolonged mass destruction of both Japanese and European civilians and Army personnel in particular prisoners of war. To some degree I tend to agree that it was acceptable at that time because the prolonged effects were unknown and they were unpredictable at that time. ...read more.

Middle

However the criteria also require that 'the methods used in the war must be morally legitimate' and in view of the long term consequences that can be seen as doubtful; the criteria also require that 'it must not result in disproportionate evils to the enemy population to the home population or the international community'. Again, I wonder whether in the light of later events whether this criteria was fulfilled. However, some Catholics will agree on conventional wars but not nuclear wars, this is because nuclear wars are never to be justified. Nuclear war can cause innocent deaths in seconds after the explosion while conventional war can be controlled to not kill the innocent. ...read more.

Conclusion

Unilateral disarmament and militarily disarmament can be done to reduce threats of war from each nation to another reducing risk of using violence to solve problems, especially nuclear weapons, which can cause deaths as well as damage to nations. In conclusion, I think that if conventional war is acceptable or not acceptable nuclear war should never be allowed anyways, this is because it causes innocent deaths and too much damage to the victims, however, if nuclear war is a possibility of ending a conflict conventional war or any other solution should be considered and used first, it should be considered like a just war. Haakam Sandhu Poetry Re ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Morality of War 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 GCSE Morality of War essays

  1. For a Christian, Nuclear War Can Never Be Justified

    Another reason for them to justify the keeping and using these weapons, is that if they did not keep or use these weapons, and a group of fundamentalists from that country got hold of such weapons. This group could now have enough power to take over this country with no nuclear weapons.

  2. Free essay

    The Role of the Accident Compensation Corporation in the Prevention of Family Violence in ...

    backgrounds other than Tangata Whenua or Pakeha3 and a completion rate of approximately half (Ministry of Justice 2004D). Research into the effectiveness of these programmes indicates that 70 to 80 percent of men who complete the programmes do not return to using physical violence.

  1. Christian views on a just war.

    King's actions, and experiment with them for themselves, which in effect will discourage these Christians in using weapons, resulting in deaths and casualties. Martin Luther King was just as successful in speaking and protesting, than the army's who fight to kill.

  2. Biological weapons

    Cole says that there is "a moral repugnance of these weapons" because it is (or at least it was!) considered as completely inhuman. Cole uses the example of the use of gases during wars, especially World War I and World War II.

  1. Domestic violence.

    Results were printed in clearly labeled tables making reading and understanding of the main findings of the study easier. A well-balanced discussion was included and the conclusion supported the findings from the research and made recommendations for change of practice.

  2. Barrington Dyer and develops the inception of this report, its thesis, and motivation as ...

    Supremacy translated into a deadly game of "who holds the most nukes" where the objective of the game was not to destroy your opponent but rather to intimidate them with your ability to destroy them such that they would not attempt to destroy you.

  1. Gandhi did not claim to be a prophet or even a philosopher. "There is ...

    On my side, I have nothing but my conviction of right and truth, the unquenchable spirit of man, who is prepared to die for his convictions than submit to your brute force. I have my comrades in armlessness. Here we stand; and here if need be, we fall."

  2. Examine the arguments for and against Britain going to war to disarm Iraq of ...

    However, Saddam should know by now that any use of these types of weapons would lead to the total annihilation of not only his regime, but likely much of his country as well. Observers in the Middle East know that Saddam is aware that he cannot defeat the U.S., even with weapons of mass destruction.

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