Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, chemical or biological weapons capable of causing large-scale, indiscriminate death and destruction. This topic looks at the moral arguments about whether a country should possess or use such weapons, including the idea of deterrence, and considers religious and non-religious responses to the ethical problems these weapons raise. It deals with the ethics only, not with how any such weapon works or is built.
Method
- Learn the definition of a weapon of mass destruction and its three main categories (nuclear, chemical, biological), with no technical detail.
- Learn key vocabulary: deterrence, indiscriminate, disarmament.
- Learn religious teachings on the sanctity of human life and how they apply to the ethics of these weapons.
- Learn the main arguments for and against deterrence as a strategy for safety.
- Learn a non-religious (Humanist) argument about the ethics of these weapons.
- Practise writing an answer that explains two contrasting views on possession, each with an accurately cited source.
- Practise structuring a longer evaluation that reaches a justified conclusion, keeping the questions of possession and use distinct from one another.
Worked example
A newspaper headline claims a proposed weapon can 'target only military bases with no risk to nearby towns.' Using the definition of a weapon of mass destruction, explain whether this weapon, if the claim were true, would count as a weapon of mass destruction, and why.
- Recall the definition: a weapon of mass destruction causes large-scale, indiscriminate destruction, unable to distinguish combatants from civilians.
- Compare the headline's claim, that it targets only military bases with no risk to nearby towns, against this definition.
- Note that the claim describes a weapon able to discriminate between military and civilian targets.
- Conclude that, if the claim were true, the weapon would not meet the 'indiscriminate' part of the definition.
- Final answer: no, by definition a weapon of mass destruction is indiscriminate, so a genuinely precise weapon as described would not count as one, though many would be sceptical that such precision is realistic in practice.
Practice questions
Try each question, then tap to reveal the answer.
Exam-style questions
Written in the style of a GCSE Religious Studies exam paper, with a full mark scheme.
A disarmament treaty requires two countries to each reduce their stockpile of a banned weapon type by an equal percentage. Country A holds 800 units and Country B holds 500 units. If both agree to cut their stockpiles by 25 percent, calculate how many units each country would have left, and explain one reason critics might argue that equal percentage cuts do not necessarily make the world safer.
Justify the view that a country's decision to keep weapons of mass destruction purely for deterrence, with no intention of ever using them, can be treated differently, morally, from a decision to use them.
Free printable worksheet
Turn this topic into printed practice: pick it in the Book Builder with any other topics a student needs and generate one printable PDF pack. No sign-up, no email wall.
Next topics
Build a full practice pack.
This topic is one of hundreds in the library - pick the ones a student needs and generate a printable PDF in minutes.