The nature of weapons of mass destruction, the arguments for and against their use as a deterrent, and religious attitudes to them.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain what weapons of mass destruction are, the arguments for and against keeping them as a deterrent, and religious attitudes towards them. The key distinction for the evaluation is between possessing WMD as a deterrent and actually using them.

What are weapons of mass destruction

What sets WMD apart from conventional weapons is scale and indiscriminacy: they cannot easily distinguish soldiers from civilians, and their effects (radiation, contamination) can last for generations and cross borders, which is central to the moral arguments about them.

Arguments for and against

The deterrence argument is the strongest case "for", but critics reply that deterrence relies on a willingness to use weapons that would be immoral to use, and that an accident or miscalculation could be catastrophic.

Religious attitudes

Most religious believers strongly oppose using WMD because of the sanctity of life and the duty to protect the innocent, "do not take life, which Allah has made sacred" (Qur'an 17:33). Many faith groups and leaders campaign for disarmament, and some Christians cite Jesus' teaching of peace. A number of believers accept that possessing WMD as a deterrent might be justified to prevent war, while still opposing their actual use, so they distinguish deterrence from use. Few, if any, mainstream religious voices support actually using such weapons.

For the exam, the decisive distinction is between possessing WMD as a deterrent and using them, and the best evaluations keep these separate. It is logically possible to argue that keeping nuclear weapons deters war and so saves lives, while their actual use would be immoral because it would kill innocents indiscriminately and breach the just war condition of proportionality. Link this dot point to the just war theory and to the sanctity of life, both of which run through Theme D. You can also raise the practical and environmental dimension: WMD cause lasting contamination and harm future generations, which believers connect to the duty of stewardship over creation. A nuanced conclusion might accept deterrence as a regrettable necessity in an imperfect world while firmly rejecting any first use, or it might argue that even possession is wrong because it rests on a willingness to do something gravely immoral.