Biological Weapons

Chemical Weapons

Caused by Napalm

Nuclear Weapons
Arguments For To keep up to date with weapons. Vulnerable They act as deterrent Defence Makes the country greater/more powerful Huge profits to be gained in the manufacture of NW Arguments Against
Innocent people could get killed. It might kill you too so its pointless far-reaching consequences Goes against the principles of the Just War Terrorists may get hold of the weapons May see a country as a threat and so attack them first Taxes could be used on NHS, education

Nuclear Weapons
Arguments For It would act as a deterrent(would stop another country attacking you ) Self-defence (would eliminate a threat) Vulnerable without them Profit to be made in manufacturing and selling NW arms sales Arguments Against
Dangerous in the wrong hands eg. terrorist organisation Goes against the principles of the Just War They destroy the environment The effects cant be reversed Cost millions not cost effective money could be spent on NHS, education etc All religions are against NW CND

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

National security does not rely on military strength. More arms mean less security for ordinary people. Increasingly, armaments serve to secure the positions of those in power. Military expansion by a country or group provokes similar expansion by others, and reliance on threats tends to increase the hostility and distrust that lead to war. We believe that nations need to move toward general and complete disarmament, both domestically and internationally. We urge both gun control and arms control to reduce the dangers of personal, conventional and nuclear weapons. Arms proliferation is rooted in the false premise that one can control one's enemy; it is also perpetuated by immense profits in arms sales and unhealthy dependence on military employment. We urge negotiated worldwide disarmament, supported by conversion of military industries to peaceful production and political settlements under world law. At the same time, based on our understanding of Christian principles, we urge unilateral disarmament, believing that other nations will respond affirmatively. We are prepared to take the risks of such a course, convinced that they are far smaller than the risks involved in the current course of endless weapons development.

Roman Catholic Church

Catholic teaching begins in every case with a presumption against war and for peaceful settlement of disputes. In exceptional cases, determined by the moral principles of the just-war tradition, some uses of force are permitted. Every nation has a right and duty to defend itself against unjust aggression. Offensive war of any kind is not morally justifiable. It is never permitted to direct nuclear or conventional weapons to "the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their populations. . . ." (Pastoral Constitution, #80.) The intentional killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants is always wrong. Even defensive response to unjust attack can cause destruction which violates the principle of proportionality, going far beyond the limits of legitimate defense. This judgment is particularly important when assessing planned use of nuclear weapons. No defensive strategy, nuclear or conventional, which exceeds the limits of proportionality is morally permissible.

Roman Catholics Continued

The arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race; it is to be condemned as a danger, an act of aggression against the poor, and a folly which does not provide the security it promises. Negotiations must be pursued in every reasonable form possible; they should be governed by the "demand that the arms race should cease; that the stockpiles which exist in various countries should be reduced equally and simultaneously by the parties concerned; that nuclear weapons should be banned; and that a general agreement should eventually be reached about progressive disarmament and an effective method of control." (Pope John XXIII, Peace on Earth, #112.)

Roman Catholics
Under no circumstances may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass slaughter be used for the purpose of destroying population centres or other predominantly civilian targets. Retaliatory action which would indiscriminately and disproportionately take many wholly innocent lives, lives of people who are in no way responsible for reckless actions of their government, must also be condemned.

Islam - Statement of Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi

We must say to ourselves first and then to the world that we want a total and universal ban on the possession and production of nuclear weapons. All countries, starting with those that have the largest amount of nuclear weapons, should destroy these weapons. There should be a total ban on their production and testing. Nuclear technology should be used only for humanitarian and peaceful purposes.

Islam stands for peace and protection of all human beings and their environment. Islam is against any war in which the innocent and the non-combatants are made to suffer.