Lesson video

Hello fine, and wise and noble and mighty theologians.

And thank you for joining me, for another religious education lesson.

Today, we are going to look at, the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And have a look at religious views on, whether or not is ever acceptable to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Now, before we get going on that really interesting work, I would just like you to make sure, you have the essential four things with you, please.

They are a pen, a different colour pen, some paper to work on, and of course, your Theology brains.

If you need to go and get any of those things, please go and get them now for me.

So just before we get started, a warning, that the lesson we're about to complete, contains references to war and the use of weapons of mass destruction.

There'll be a particular focus on World War Two and the use of nuclear weapons in Japanese cities.

For some people, that may well be a sensitive topic.

And if that applies to you, you may want to do the rest of the lesson, with a trusted adult nearby, who can support.

So we're looking at weapons of mass destruction today.

And if you look at the title on your screen, you can see an abbreviation WMD.

Wherever you see that abbreviation on your screen today, that's what it's referring to, weapons of mass destruction.

So the first thing we want to do, is define weapons of mass destruction, and the different types of weapons of mass destruction.

Then we're going to have a look, at an historical example of the use, of a weapon of mass destruction.

And then we're going to look really carefully, at the Christian and Islamic views, against weapons of mass destruction.

So let's start off by getting some definition.

So by weapons of mass destruction, what we mean, are weapons that kill large numbers of people, and or cause great damage to the natural environment.

Beneath that you can see two examples.

So weapons of mass destruction could be nuclear weapon, could be a chemical weapon.

There are also things like biological weapons, that would, would fall into this category too.

Now a nuclear weapon is a weapon, that involves a nuclear reaction.

And that weapon would devastate a huge area and kill large numbers.

Hence a weapon of mass destruction.

And a chemical weapon is a weapon that uses chemicals to poison, burn or paralyse human beings.

And they can also cause great damage to the natural environment.

Can you please just pause the video and note down those three definitions.

Then unpause the video once you've finished that for me.

So we're going to look at a historical example now, and look at the use of weapons of mass destruction on two Japanese cities during the Second World War.

And here you can see some fairly shocking pictures.

These pictures capture the use of nuclear weapons, by America on Japan.

We're going to explain, a little bit about the context and history, that led up to the moment these weapons being used.

So during the Second World War, America was also in conflict with Japan.

And this included, a surprise military attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii by the Japanese.

And between 1941 and 1945, American scientists worked really hard, in an effort to try and develop a nuclear weapon, and an atomic bomb.

And the decision to make the bomb, was clearly going to be a really difficult decision.

Because the consequences of using it, as you can see in these pictures here, we're going to be utterly catastrophic.

And if you're making a weapon, at least makes it possible, then it can be used.

And the consequences of its use, are always going to be really, really appalling.

And on the sixth of August in 1945, the first atomic bomb, codenamed Little Boy, was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and three days later, on August 9, a second bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

And a few days after that, on August 14 1945, the Japanese surrendered.

But before we get to that point, I think it's useful as well, to think about the preceding events, and in the years preceding the use of these bombs.

As I mentioned, the Americans had been involved in a conflict, and had been involved in strategic bombing campaign, against Japan.

And the precision bombing they were trying to utilise, hadn't been very successful at all.

In the last seven months of the campaign, they switched to a tactic called Fire Bombing.

And that's literally using devices, which are designed to start fires.

And throughout these years of fire bombings, about 67 Japanese cities were destroyed.

And about half a million were killed, and 5 million people left homeless.

In the meantime, Japan was preparing to fight an invasion from the Americans.

They'd build up of millions of trips.

The Americans feared that invading Japan, that action, that invasion, would cost them a million casualties.

And actually prolong the war that they were in.

And the president at the time, President Truman, didn't want those consequences.

He didn't want the million plus soldiers of death, and nor do you want the war to extend into 1946, and potentially even further.

So, on the 21st of July 1945, President Truman received a report which confirmed, that the atomic bomb had been successfully tested.

And therefore America had the capability to use an atomic bomb if it wanted.

And Truman insisted that, the Japanese should be given the opportunity to surrender, before the bomb was used.

So on the 26th of July 1945, the British, the Chinese and the Americans, all called on Japan, to surrender unconditionally.

The 28th of July, Japan refused to surrender unconditionally.

And on the third of August, rather than surrendering unconditionally, they asked for a negotiated peace deal.

And then on the sixth of August, because unconditional surrender still hadn't come forth, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

And it exploded with the force , of about 20,000 tonnes of TNT.

The temperature at the centre of the explosion, would have reached somewhere between, 3000 to 4000 degrees Celsius, three times hotter than volcanic lava.

Everything within a mile at the centre of the blast, was flattened.

Fires spread and around 67% of Hiroshima buildings, were destroyed.

On the ninth of August, so three days later, the Americans dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki.

On the 14th of August, Japan surrendered unconditionally, and that the human cost of these actions were immense.

The Americans estimated the number of deaths, as a cause of these bombs, would have been around 117,000.

And the Japanese estimated to be 250,000, a quarter of a million.

And many more people suffered terrific injuries, and survivors developed serious health conditions, for years to come.

I think it's important, when we talk about those numbers.

An estimate between 117,000 and 250,000.

It's important to also remember, President Truman's prediction, that had it gone on to a land invasion, he feared the death of up to, one million American soldiers deaths.

So now we've looked at this historical event, of the nuclear weapons being used by America on Japan.

I'd like you please to read, this following six statements.

Identify, from what you've just heard, whether that statement is true or false.

If a statement is true, just write the word True, followed by the statement.

If it's false, write the word False, followed by a correction of the statement.

So please pause the video now and have a go at that.

So let's do some feedback.

The first one was true.

So during the Second World War, America did drop two nuclear weapons on Japan.

The next two were false, needed correcting.

So this was in fact, the first time nuclear weapons had been used.

And America was worried, a land conflict, would cost the lives of 1 million soldiers, and extend the conflict well into the next year.

It's true that Japan refused to surrender unconditionally.

Remember they wanted a negotiated peace deal.

It's true also to say, that the bombs had a terrible consequence for human life, somewhere between 117 and 250,000 people were killed.

But that also needs comparing with the estimates of President Truman, that perhaps a land invasion would have cost up to a million lives.

And it's, the final one was false.

So Japan did surrender unconditionally, days after the second bomb was used.

So please pause the video, check your work against the statements, you can see on the screen now.

And correct, add or amend your work, to make sure that you've got absolutely everything you need to, please.

So, I'm using information you've just written down, and your own thoughts about weapons of mass destruction, that you may have generated throughout hearing about their use.

Then, I would like you, please, to give two reasons to support the use of weapons of mass destruction, and two reasons to oppose the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, you can refer to your own ideas here.

And in particular, you may also find it useful to refer back to some of the things we've covered already, in this unit on the Oak National Academy.

To take religious ideas then, which could be applied to this topic.

So please pause the video now and have a go at that.

So let's have a look at some some general arguments, both for and against the use of weapons of mass destruction.

So some reasons to support: Bring a conflict to an end.

We saw that in our example, didn't we? A few days after the nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan by America, they surrendered unconditionally.

As well as it had a huge human cost, it did bring the conflict to an end.

And therefore, potentially managed to save lives.

The second one is actually possession of weapons of mass destruction, and use of weapons of mass destruction, on different things.

If countries possess weapons of mass destruction, that can actually prevent conflict.

If countries know that you possess a weapon of mass destruction, they may be much less inclined to instigate a conflict.

So the possession of these weapons, might actually reduce the number of conflicts in the world, helping to maintain peace.

Because people don't want other states, to use weapons of mass destruction against them.

Because the causes and effects of it could be catastrophic.

And now let's have a look at some reasons to oppose.

So we know that they cause fast death and destruction to innocent civilians.

We saw that with the statistics on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Somewhere between 117,000 and 250,000.

We know, that they destroyed environment and infrastructure.

And the infrastructure cost a lot of money to repair and the damage to the environment, could take years and years and years, decades to recover after the use of such a weapon.

Long lasting poverty as a resort.

If you destroy infrastructure in a city, jobs go, hospitals go, schools go.

And that can create intense poverty.

And that poverty can last for generations.

And you may have also identified that it goes against religious teaching such as sanctity of life, and the just war theories of both Islam and Christianity.

Remember, sanctity of life is a belief, that all life is holy.

It's created by God, and therefore it needs to be protected and preserved.

Clearly weapons of mass destruction go against that.

Within the just war theory and the concept of blessed Jihad, there's an expectation, from both Christian thinkers and Islamic thinkers, that any force in war, sorry, should be proportionate and minimal in its damage.

And clearly a weapon of mass destruction from the name alone, you can tell doesn't seek to cause minimal damage.

And finally, you may appoint it out, that reconciliation may be really difficult to achieve, after such an attack.

Can you imagine trying to hold a peaceful conversation between the leaders of America and Japan after the use of that weapon? It would have been a really challenging thing to do, wouldn't it? When you use such excessive force, it makes reconciliation really difficult process.

And if you can't reconcile, it makes the chances of long lasting peace more challenging.

So another useful point for you to pause the video here, check your work against what you can see on your screens, and add or amend to your answers accordingly, please.

So now we're going to have a look at, Islamic and Christian views on the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And to start off with, we're going to have a look at some general views, on the use of weapons of mass destruction, that would exist within Christianity and Islam.

So we know religious teaching seek to protect innocent life.

We mentioned a moment ago that, that position is supported by the views on the sanctity of life.

The idea that life is highly sacred.

It's a gift from God.

And because it's holy and sacred as it's a gift from God, life needs protecting and preserving.

And weapons of mass destruction, clearly don't protect and preserve life.

Instead, many religious teachings will point to their catastrophic consequences on human life, and use the sanctity of life to argue against it.

And we know as well, don't we, from the work we've done in this unit, that religious teachings tend to promote non violence.

When we think about some of the teachings in Islam, there's that quotation they quote there, inclined towards peace.

We know that Muhammad only used force as a last resort in the Battle of Badr.

And one of Jesus's teachings as well, have the ability to be interpreted as pacifist teachings, urging people to always respond with a non violent response.

AnD clearly, weapons of mass destruction, are not supported by those teachings we've just mentioned.

Within Christianity and Islam now, just war theories and indeed the concept of blessed Jihad.

As I mentioned before, just war through the Christianity cause a force to be proportionate.

That means not excessive.

And the concept of blessed Jihad, seeks to minimise the damage cause to some.

We've got instructions about, not killing women, not killing children, not killing the elderly, not harming trees, not burning trees, not killing the enemy's flock.

None of those things are possible, with a weapon of mass destruction.

Because they're indiscriminate.

You can't target specifically, with a weapon of mass destruction.

Everything within the vicinity of the explosion, will be, unfortunately, severely damaged.

And then, as I've mentioned already, a condition of the Christian just war theory, is that force must be proportionate.

And the rules of blessed Jihad also stress that.

So, we're going to look through now, some more specific teachings, which can be used from Islam and Christianity, against the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Well to help us do that, can you please just pause the video and draw the table you can see on your screens.

Make sure it's a nice big table.

So aside of it four, would be a good bit of guidance for you.

So pause the video, and do that for me now, please.

So on your screen, you can see eight boxes.

Each box contains a teaching that's either, Islamic or a Christian teaching.

And these can be used to argue against, weapons of mass destruction.

So I'd like you to do two things with these, please.

Firstly, place the teachings in your table on the correct side, Islamic or Christian.

Secondly, then explain how the teaching can be used to oppose the use of nuclear weapons.

So please pause the video now, and have a go at doing that.

And then join me for some feedback in just a moment.

So let's start off looking at the Christian views, against nuclear weapons.

Some of you have already mentioned, in the lesson earlier, Aquinas' just war theory that states that, force must be proportionate, Then we could use that against weapons of mass destruction, by saying look, weapons of mass destruction are not proportionate.

They kill huge numbers indiscriminately.

Second teaching with your place there, is the teaching of Jesus.

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

That phrase, 'Love your enemies' is important here, isn't it? Using weapons of mass destruction on your enemy, is not loving.

Showing love to enemies, is more likely to result in reconciliation, and therefore peace.

That's why Jesus calls on people to show love to enemies.

Because it helps establish, those long term goals of reconciliation and peace.

So just pause the video and check, that you've got those explanations for those two.

And then unpause the video once you're done and we'll have a look at the other two Christian views.

So the other two views, we had this quotation here, 'Happy are those who work for peace.

God will call them His children.

' And we can say currently that working for peace, cannot surely involve huge mass destruction and death.

They are not peaceful actions.

That's not to say that working for peace, can't involve some force in order to establish peace.

But it seems maybe to be a bit of an extension, to say working for peace can involve a weapon of mass destruction.

And secondly, as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, do everything possible to live at peace with everyone.

Making it perhaps clear here that, look, other alternatives are available to secure peace, that are much less damaging.

And that again, would involve the use of force.

And look, if you're thinking about establishing peace, we might recognise that it may be the case.

It's not possible to do that peacefully.

If we're aiming at establishing peace in the long term, we have to make sure reconciliation is possible after the conflict.

Because reconciliation helps the peace to be long lasting.

And if you use a weapon of mass destruction, instead of the other alternatives, than reconciliation and peace, is going to be much more challenging to arrive at.

So again, please just pause your video here.

Check to see that you've got similar explanations and then unpause the video once you're done.

We'll have a look at the Islamic views together.

So the first two Islamic views, the example of Muhammad in the Battle of Badr.

Hopefully you managed to remember, that Muhammad really cares for the Battle of Badr, only to use minimum force.

And instead of killing opposition forces where possible, he captured them.

And weapons of mass destruction don't copy that example.

They're not using proportional force and valuing the life of the opposition forces.

They kill huge numbers of people.

So we might say that weapons of mass destruction, do not follow the example of Muhammad, in the Battle of Badr.

And the second one is that quotation, And if they incline towards peace, then incline towards it.

And this makes it clear, look, in conflict peace, has to be kept on your mind, as the best possible resolution.

And using a weapon of mass destruction, is a significant act of aggression, making long lasting peace more challenging to arrive at, in the future.

So again, please pause the video.

Check you've got the information.

You can see and explain those teachings in a similar fashion.

Use a different colour pen make any additions, corrections or amendments.

And then unpause the video, to join me for the final two bits of feedback, once you've done that.

So the rules of blessed Jihad, was also something we're considering.

We know, the rules of blessed Jihad state things like, Do not kill a child or a woman.

And also tells Muslims not to harm trees, when they're in conflict.

The use of weapons of mass destruction, make those rules impossible to obey.

We said that they're indiscriminate, they devastate huge areas, and will kill people in that area, and harm the natural environment in that area.

So it's not possible to obey the rules of blessed Jihad, whilst at the same time using a weapon of mass destruction.

And then the final quotation we're looking at, Fight for the cause of God, against those who fight you, but do not transgress.

And 'but not transgressing' means not breaking the rules.

The rules of conflict will really conflict, with of blessed Jihad.

And you can see those above, can't you? Do not kill a child or a woman.

As mentioned above, it's not possible to obey those rules, if you're using a weapon of mass destruction.

So you would be transgressing, And here it says, look, you cannot transgress.

So you would be breaking the rules of conflict, if you're using a weapon of mass destruction, many Muslims would argue.

So again, just pause the video please, and check that your explanations are similar, to ones you can see on your screen.

So that your Theology is as wonderful as it possibly can be.

Some really terrific work again, today.

Well done.

Please make sure you attempt the summary quiz, to check you can recall all the key information, we have gone through.

If you wish to share your with Oak National Academy, please ask your parent or carer, to share your work on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter, using information you can see on your screens now.

Thank you very much for joining me again.

I hope you feel like you've learned a lot.

I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day.