Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of war
Ethics of war
The Effects of Weapons of Mass Destruction ______________
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics of war
Christian’s Approach to Nuclear War
A Christians approach to Nuclear is entirely based on the opinion of
the person. Although in this essay I will try and generalise this and
try to find reasons as to why this might be.
In my view; yes, a Christians approach to nuclear war should be
different to other war. Any war goes against the teachings of
Pacifism, but in the world, unless you can get everyone to listen and
obey these teachings, then a more practical scheme should be adopted.
This then makes the basis of any war; that your enemy will not listen
to reason, so war being the last resort, you commence in battle.
Although this is different for nuclear war, because when you decide to
include ‘weapons of mass destruction’ we assume that your enemy is
evil, that other options and methods have been considered and that
this is the only way to stop them from harming other beings,
environment and lives.
In war, many people die for a cause that they believe is right and
some innocent people may. The war carries on until the opposition
forces are defeated. In Nuclear war this is different. When a nuclear
weapon is dropped on a certain area, it is not completely guaranteed
that every person you bomb is bad. Therefore in Nuclear war many more
innocent people die than in a war not containing nuclear warheads.
This is a reason why Christians may feel differently about types of
war.
Although one of Jesus’ commandments, “Love thy neighbour”, tells us
that no one should not kill another human being and this may justify
going to war. This is because if a dictator has many innocent people
under a strict regime, and if he was harming and killing undeserving
people then some form of action should be taken. This has applied to
everyday life when Saddam Hussein’s regime was defeated and his power
taken away. This would be an example to show that some war has good
intent and therefore cannot be generalised into saying that all war is
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
Morals are an often talked about matter, but what is morality? Not everyone is instilled with the same morals, so who’s morally right? Morality is an extremely difficult subject to grasp, which is why there is no set basis for it. What many may accept as morally right, others may view as morally wrong. Parents, media, and teachers affect many of us, but who is to say that they themselves are correct? I constantly question society, but I allow others to freely express their views. Who am I to judge when no true consensus of morality has been reached? August 6th, 1945, the United States became the first to release nuclear warfare, killing 80,000 lives of God instantly. Many staunchly defend the decision and believe the drop was both necessary and unavoidable. I myself listen to the infinite list of reasons, but I disregard it all. Regardless of the billions the United States spent creating the bomb and the saving of soldiers’ lives, neither of the two ...
On August 6th 1945 the first atomic bomb as dropped in an attempt to end the war efforts in the pacific. This year will mark the 69th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb, and even after all this time there is still much debate over if dropping the bomb was the right thing to do or not. One of the main reasons I have seen arguing for the dropping of the bomb was that it saved American lives, and that it saved more people than it killed. However, saving American lives was not the only motivation for dropping the atomic bomb, the argument could even be made that saving the lives of soldiers was not even first on the list of reasons for dropping the atomic bomb. Among the reasons for dropping the bomb was to justify the cost of the Manhattan Project, to impress the Soviets, a lack of reason not to use the bomb, and responding to Pearl Harbor.
If you were to follow deontological views, it would result in many innocent lives being lost. As long as you aren’t breaking the law, or following the rules, your actions are ethical, even if it involves nuclear war.
Harry Truman (1884-1972) was the most influential person in the race for the super bomb. As President Roosevelt’s Vice President, he knew nothing about the development of the atomic bomb. But within months of assuming the office of President of the United States on April 12, 1945, he became the first and only American leader to authorize the use of atomic weapons against an enemy target. Truman’s era only marked the beginning of the race for nuclear weapons. The development of nuclear weapons is still an issue today, decades after Truman left office.
For hundreds of years, the controversy of how the earth was created has been a hot topic among people of all beliefs. Do you have an opinion about how the earth was created? Hopefully, giving all of the information stated in this paper, you will firmly believe that God created the earth. The Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (To, A. God-Centered Approach). Science says that the earth was created by a massive explosion of light and energy, known as the “Big Bang Theory” ("Did God Create the Universe?”). According to the Bible, God made us, we did not make ourselves. According to science, there was a hydrogen atom that steadily grew over many centuries, and man developed. The Bible says
The cold war was named so because between the USA and Russia, there was hardly any direct combat just a pile of tension, hostility, and potential violence. They were heading towards mutually assured destruction; using weapons of mass destruction which were the nuclear bombs and assuring inevitable destruction for both sides if there bombs were to go off and ultimate victory for none at the end. Each set of alliances, the Warsaw Pact and NATO competently created nuclear weapons to threaten the other one. Just in case either one of the countries decided to attack using their fatal nuclear weapon, then the other one wouldn’t just stand empty handed. Both USA and Russia found it their first priority to keep themselves as secure as possible by creation of nuclear arms. This resulted in a competition to be the most prepared and powerful, known as The Nuclear Arms Race.
When it come to be publicly acknowledged that the United States government planned on using atomic bombs to fight the war against Japan, a group of scientists who had worked on the atomic bomb for many years, felt the need to protest the idea. Leo Szilard who was a head of the group of scientists came up with a petition for the president for his associated scientists to look over. In his petition he asked the President “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs” (Szilard, par. 1). Szilard’s thoughts mentioned in the petition sought the strength and persuasion needed to sway the President that the use of the atomic bomb was uncalled for because of the shortage of facts presented, their poor reasoning found in the writing, and the failure to communicate the significance that their arguments held in the decision.
wouldn't be in the Bible. If God wanted us to live by his rules, why
Should all countries in the world be able to develop their own nuclear weapons? More importantly, if so, can these countries be trusted? Richard Rhodes, the author of the essay entitled “Living with the bomb,” believes that they can. With cooperation and negotiations Rhodes believes nations can secure the deadly materials from which weapons of mass destruction are made of (Rhodes). He also believes that this will help reduce arsenals which will help eliminate possible future risks (640). The author somehow believes that regardless of the tensions in the Middle East and its surrounding countries, they are worthy of our trust in a matter as great and serious as their development of nuclear weapons. Throughout his essay, Rhodes cites several cases throughout history where there have been direct threats due to the fact that certain countries simply cannot be trusted. Nuclear weapons are an extremely big deal in our world today, especially when it comes to terrorism. The idea of relying only on cooperation to secure the materials required to build nuclear weapons is outrageous, and the only program that would eliminate all threats would be by disarming all countries of their nuclear programs.
Religion has its shares of promoting violence. Many will argue that a cause of religion wars is for economic and political reasons, but others argue that those who start wars are, by definition, not religious. In reality, separating religion out of economic and political motives can be involved in such a way finding religious motives innocent of much. Excuses for Christianity responsibilities cannot be accepted whether the person has misappropriated the message of Christ. The primarily set of doctrines is not Christianity, but by living through past background it personified the visible actions of Christians. In other words, Christianity, Islam or any other religion has no intention of excusing from survey. Given certain conditions, Christianity, Islam or any other religion can and do cause war.
In the book of Genesis, it tells us that God created the world. He put
War is such a debatable topic of whether it is just to wage a war on our neighbours or invade a country.One thing is very clear there are consequence and a cost. Martin Luther once stated,“War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity, it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families”. This was exactly what did. War was not a fun game like what Jessie Pope described it as in her poem, ‘Who’s for the game’. What war did was it changed people and society. The war caused soldiers to suffer from PTSD, it left families to face the feeling of grief and it crippled the economy.