That Religious Studies Website

Violence, War and Conflict

• Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 1): Introduction, the nature of humanity, religious attitudes
• Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 2): Weaponry and nuclear bombs
• Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 3): The cost of war and pacifism

Applied ethics

• Abortion
• Capital Punishment
• Charity
• Euthanasia
• Gender
• Marriage and Divorce
• Race and Racism
• Violence, War and Conflict

Recently added to the site

• The Ontological Argument: Introduction and Overview (Video)
• Visit to a Cathedral (Roman Catholic)
• Revision quiz: The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)
• Revision quiz: Design arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): Part 1
• Revision quiz: Martin Luther King Jr.: Key facts
• Worksheet: Martin Luther King Jr.: The Early Years

Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 2): Weaponry and nuclear bombs

Information: This article discusses issues related to the matter of violence, war and conflict. In Part 1 we considered the nature of humans, whether they are inclined towards an aggressive or non-aggressive disposition (and why), and also some religious perspectives. In Part 2 we consider the issue of weaponry, how modern weapons have led us to de-humanise the 'enemy', and nuclear weapons. In Part 3 we look at the cost of war and pacifism. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Weaponry

'Whether they are intended for offensive or defensive purposes, weapons exist solely to destroy human beings.' (Dalai Lama)

The 20th Century saw radical changes in the type of weaponry used in combat. Probably the most significant were the introduction of aircraft, the invention of the self-loading gun (aka machine guns), and the atomic bomb. Prior to this, the use of weapons in combat had been mainly limited to those on land (canons, tanks, hand-held guns/rifles) and those on water (boats, ships and primitive submarines), with a significant amount of close armed-combat. Yet as weapons began to get more sophisticated, so did their ability to inflict harm and kill people from a greater distances. Of course, an advantage in this is that the further away a soldier is from the 'enemy', the less likely they will be killed. However, this has also resulted in the gradual dehumanisation of the 'enemy', and as such we can easily forget the human cost involved in any war.

To dehumanise someone is to remove (or overlook) the essential qualities which make them human. Military training might be said to be an example of a de-humanising process, because its aim is to turn men and women into fighting machines. One also needs to be able to de-humanise the 'enemy' in battle, in order to be capable of maiming and/or killing them.

Something to do: Take a few moments before reading on to review the Faces of the Fallen website. Can you find anything similar for Iraqi and Afghan soldiers?

Nuclear weapons

Probably the most feared weapon ever designed has to be the nuclear bomb, and it is common to find people suggesting that if there were to be a World War III that it would bring about the end of civilisation as we know it, due to the use of atomic weapons. Even though many of the major world powers have decommissioned large numbers of their nuclear missiles, there is still a real concern that nuclear weapons will get into the wrong hands.

The 'father of the atomic bomb' is Robert Oppenheimer (1904-67). In the early 1940s, he led a group of scientists to create the atomic bomb. The first successful test (known as Trinity), was on the 16th July 1945. Oppenheimer recalled that upon seeing this explosion he thought of a verse from the The Bhagavad-Gita: 'If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the mighty one... Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'. He later became increasingly concerned about the danger nuclear weapons posed, and (along with other eminent scientists, including Albert Einstein) established the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (1957) and the World Academy of Art and Science (1960); the former seeking ways to reduce armed conflicts and address global security threats, the latter seeking ways to avoid misuses of scientific knowledge in the future.

'The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking; and thus we are drifting towards unparalleled catastrophe… A new type of thinking is essential if [humanity] is to survive.' (Albert Einstein)

By the time the Cold War ended in the 1990s, it was believed that the USA and the USSR (Russia) had between them about 50,000 warheads, which together had a destructive power one million times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb (see below). The end of the Cold War led to a number of arms reduction treaties (START - Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), and a proposal to ban testing nuclear weapons (adopted by the UN assembly in 1994). In 1995, 178 nations pledged to work for total global nuclear disarmament.

Advertisement

Much of the desire to disarm and decommission nuclear weapons is clearly based on what we now of their destructive capability. This was no more clearly demonstrated than on August 6th 1945, when a nuclear bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima in Japan and around 80,000 to 140,00 were killed in an instant, with 100,000 people seriously injured.

'Suddenly a glaring whitish, pinkish light appeared in the sky accompanied by an unnatural tremor which was followed almost immediately by a wave of suffocating heat and a wind which swept away everything in its path. Within a few seconds the thousands of people in the streets in the centre of the town were scorched by a waves of searing heat. Many were killed instantly, others lay writhing on the ground screaming in agony from the intolerable pain of their burns. Everything standing upright in the way of the blast… was annihilated… Hiroshima had ceased to exist.' (Lord Mountbatten)

'"As the bomb fell over Hiroshima and exploded, we saw an entire city disappear. I wrote in my log the words: "My God, what have we done?"' (Captain Robert Lewis, crewmember on the Enola Gay)

Due to the massive amount of damage and the significant loss of innocent life these weapons cause, it is unlikely we will ever see a nuclear weapon being used in warfare again. Of course, that begs the questions as to why nations such as the United Kingdom and the USA continue to hold onto them. Some argue that even if a nation is not going to use them, they are still a significant deterrent. On the other hand, if other nations come to realise that you have no intention of ever using the nuclear missiles you possess, how much of a deterrent will they continue to be?

'[As long as any nuclear, chemical and biological arms remain in any country's arsenal, "there is a high risk that they will one day be used by design or accident".' (Taken from Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission report, quoted by http://abolition2000europe.org)

Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 3): The cost of war and pacifism

Back to top