Lesson video

Hello, and welcome to today's lesson.

I'm so pleased that you're going to join me.

My name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm going to be your RE teacher today.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain what nuclear weapons are and give different views on their use and on disarmament.

Keywords that we'll be using today are disarmament, nuclear weapons, and nuclear deterrence.

Disarmament is reducing or eliminating weapons.

Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, which use a nuclear reaction to cause widespread damage and loss of life.

A nuclear deterrence is having nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation and nuclear war, possibly leading to mutually assured destruction.

Today's lesson will form two parts.

We'll be looking at nuclear weapons and arguments about nuclear weapons.

So let's get started looking at nuclear weapons.

A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction, which uses a nuclear reaction to cause widespread damage and loss of life.

Nuclear weapons work by releasing enormous energy through nuclear reactions with devastating consequences for people and the environment.

Let's check your understanding.

What is a nuclear weapon? Pause the video, take a moment to write down your answer and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said something like a weapon of mass destruction which causes widespread damage and loss of life.

Well done if you've got something like that.

You might even have included some extra detail.

In this photograph, we can see smoke rising over Hiroshima following the atomic bombing on the 6th of August, 1945, which killed approximately 140,000 by the end of that year.

Nuclear weapons first entered human history in August, 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The devastation was immediate and unprecedented.

Tens of thousands were vaporised in seconds, and by the end of the year, the death toll had climbed to around 140,000.

For many survivors, the suffering was just beginning.

Radiation exposure led to cancers, genetic mutations, and lifelong health consequences.

The effects of a nuclear explosion unfold in terrifying stages.

Instantly, temperatures at the heart of the blast reach several million degrees Celsius, vaporising all living things nearby.

At Hiroshima, people caught in the open left only their shadows burned into stone.

Next, intense heat and blast waves destroy buildings, ignite fires, and kill those both outdoors and within collapsing structures.

Survivors may suffer horrific injuries, severe burns, blindness, and fatal wounds from flying debris.

Days later, radioactive fallout begins to poison the air.

Radiation sickness causes hair loss, bleeding, fever, vomiting, and eventually a slow decline into coma and death.

Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable, often miscarrying or giving birth to children with severe disabilities.

Over the following decades, survivors face an increased risk of cancer, especially leukaemia and thyroid cancer.

The damage does not stop at human lives.

Ecosystems are devastated.

Soil and water are contaminated, and entire regions may become uninhabitable.

Despite this legacy, the world has not abandoned nuclear weapons and still lives under the shadow of nuclear fire.

As of 2025, there are over 12,000 warheads, mostly held by Russia and the United States.

China is quickly increasing its stockpile.

Other countries with nuclear weapons include the UK, France, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Modern nuclear weapons are extremely powerful, and some are estimated to be eight times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

A single mistake could bring about unimaginable destruction.

Nuclear weapons raise many ethical concerns.

They cannot be precisely targeted, so they inevitably kill large numbers of people.

They cause long-term environmental damage.

The destruction is disproportionate and far exceeds any military goal.

They only maintain peace through the threat of mass destruction.

What is the missing word? Nuclear weapons cannot be precisely meaning they often kill civilians.

Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause if you need to, come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put the word targeted, that's a really important issue with these weapons.

The United Kingdom is a nuclear arms state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.

Any use of nuclear weapons will be governed by international humanitarian law, including the laws of war and the principles of proportionality and distinction.

Let's have a look at the treaty.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 limits the spread of nuclear weapons and it commits nuclear powers to disarm.

It promotes peaceful nuclear use.

Who signed it? Well, 191 countries including the UK, the US, Russia, China, and France.

In 2017, there was a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

So this is different in its scope.

What it does is it fully bans all nuclear weapons.

That includes their development, their testing, their use.

93 countries have signed this treaty, so no nuclear arms state has signed.

So that means that the UK has not signed the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Is this state true or false? The United Kingdom has signed a treaty that completely bans the use of nuclear weapons.

Take a moment, pause if you need to, have a think as well about why.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put false, but why is it false? Well, the UK signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which limits the spread of nuclear weapons, but they did not sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which bans nuclear weapons.

So, well done if you also got the explanation there.

This data from a YouGov survey of 2024 reflects the views of those asked on nuclear weapons.

66% said no one should have nuclear weapons.

23% said nuclear weapons should be limited to countries that already have them.

4% said other countries should be able to develop nuclear weapons, and 7% said they didn't know what they thought.

So how much support is there for banning all nuclear weapons compared to allowing some countries, perhaps those that already have them, to keep them? Pause the video.

Have a good look at the chart.

Come back when you are ready to move on.

So 66% support banning all nuclear weapons.

That would mean countries like the UK disarming.

23% support limiting to countries that already have them.

So countries like the UK.

So the difference between the two is 43%.

So that's a comparison between those two views.

There's a range of views on nuclear weapons.

We have some views that are more permissive and some that are more opposed.

So it could be that some people argue their use is justified in extreme cases, a last resort only if absolutely necessary to end a major war.

Moving further over towards the middle of that continuum, maybe the argument will be that they should be kept for deterrence only.

This is the sort of view that the UK has.

A country should possess nuclear weapons to deter attacks, but must never use them.

Their value lies in a threat, not in action.

This is the view most commonly held by governments around the world, including the US and the UK.

Multilateral disarmament.

All nuclear powers should work together to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons.

So working together to get rid of their weapons.

This is also quite a commonly held view, and it's possible to hold this view and at the same time, to hold the view that they are useful for deterrence.

So the two can work together.

You can keep your weapons for deterrence, but you can also work towards, along with other countries, gradually eliminating all of them.

Unilateral disarmament.

So this view is less common.

A country should give up its nuclear weapons, even if others do not, to take a moral stand, reduce the global threat, and basically to set an example.

Nuclear disarmament is giving up or reducing nuclear weapons with the aim of eliminating the threat nuclear war and promoting global peace and security, often through international agreements or treaties.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament is when a country gives up its nuclear weapons independently.

An example of this was in the 1980s and early 1990s when South Africa chose to dismantle its entire nuclear weapons programme.

Multilateral disarmament is when countries agree to reduce or eliminate their nuclear weapons.

For example, in the 1990s, the US and Russia agreed to cut their nuclear stockpiles through START treaties.

Nuclear deterrence is having nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation and nuclear war, possibly leading to mutually assured destruction.

The idea is that if attacked, a country would respond with nuclear weapons, causing massive destruction.

And therefore, a country with nuclear weapons is not attacked because of the fear it would use those nuclear weapons.

Peace is maintained because both sides know that using nuclear weapons would lead to total destruction.

So we can see here, see the balance of power with keeping nuclear weapons.

Let's check your understanding.

What is nuclear deterrence? Pause the video, write down your definition and come back when you're ready to check.

So you should have said something like: Having nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation and nuclear war, possibly leading to mutually assured destruction.

Well done if you've got something along those lines.

For Task A, I'd like you to complete the table below by indicating whether each statement is true or false, and explaining why.

Nuclear weapons were first used during World War I and have been used in several major world wars since.

The UK keeps nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent attacks.

Unilateral disarmament means all countries agree to give up their weapons at the same time.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament.

So pause the video, think back through what you've learned.

Are they true or false? And why? Come back when you're ready to check your work.

You could have said: for the first point, that nuclear weapons were first used during World War I and have been used several times since.

This is false.

They were used in 1945 during World War II and have not been used in war since.

For the second, the UK keeps nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent attacks.

This is true.

The UK maintains nuclear weapons to deter threats and prevent conflict through the threat of retaliation.

For the third, unilateral disarmament means all countries agree to give up their weapons at the same time.

This is false.

That describes multilateral disarmament.

Unilateral means one country disarms even if others do not.

And finally, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament.

This is true.

The treaty which was signed in 1968 was to limit nuclear weapons and to encourage disarmament and allow for their peaceful use.

So, well done if you managed to explain whether those were true or false, and if you got that explanation of why.

Let's move on to the second part of our lesson, arguments about nuclear weapons.

There is an ongoing debate about how best to reduce the threat of nuclear war.

Some argue that nuclear weapons deter conflict, while others believe true safety can only come through complete disarmament.

We're going to look at two organisations: CND, which is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a UK-based peace organisation, and NATO, which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, a military alliance, which includes the UK.

In terms of nuclear deterrence, CND does not agree with it because deterrence relies on threatening mass destruction and therefore increases global risk.

NATO on the other hand, accepts that deterrence is essential for preventing war and protecting allies.

When it comes to nuclear disarmament, both organisations support it.

CND supports unilateral disarmament.

So the UK should disarm even if others do not, and NATO supports multilateral disarmament; only disarm when all nuclear powers do the same thing.

So what is the main disagreement between NATO and CND amount nuclear weapons? Is it A: whether nuclear weapons are too expensive? B: whether the UK should build more nuclear weapons? C: whether keeping nuclear weapons makes the world safer? or D: whether the UK owns nuclear weapons? Pause the video, have a think, jot down your answer.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Excellent work if you put C.

It's about whether keeping nuclear weapons actually makes the world safer or not.

One way to decide on whether nuclear weapons should be used or kept as a deterrent is to apply an ethical theory.

Kantian ethics ask whether an action in itself is right.

If every country relied on nuclear threats, any conflict could lead to global destruction.

So using or keeping nuclear weapons as a deterrent cannot be universalized.

Kant's theory relies on the idea of universalization, which means that when you do something, you should also will that it becomes a universal law.

So everybody does the same thing.

And the point here is that if everyone relied on nuclear threats then there's that potential of global destruction.

So you can't really universalize nuclear deterrence.

Utilitarianism judges an action differently.

It's based on its consequences.

Now, you could argue that nuclear deterrence might prevent a greater harm, such as a global war, but a utilitarian would always say the actual use of such weapons will cause too much suffering to be justified.

So what is the missing word? Something judges whether keeping or using nuclear weapons is right by looking at the consequences it would produce.

Pause if you need to, jot down your answer, come back when you are ready to check.

Excellent work if you put utilitarianism.

That is a theory that's looking at the outcome rather than the action in itself.

Here are two arguments for and two arguments against nuclear deterrence.

Arguments for: Nuclear deterrence prevents direct conflict between nuclear powers and encourages countries to solve problems through negotiation and is rather than through war.

Arguments against: It creates constant global fear.

It promotes continual buildup of nuclear arsenals, increasing the risk of conflict.

Mark is an agnostic.

He's talking about why he agrees with nuclear deterrence.

Mark says, "I believe in protecting peace through practical means.

Nuclear deterrence is not ideal, but it works.

The threat of retaliation has helped prevent major wars between nuclear powers from decades.

In a dangerous world, getting rid of our weapons while others keep theirs will be risky.

I support gradual disarmament, but only when it's realistic and balanced.

Until then, deterrence keeps us safe." So why does Mark think the arguments for nuclear deterrence are stronger than the arguments against? If you are able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Well, Mark says, "The threat of retaliation has prevented major wars between nuclear powers for decades." So this is why he thinks that the arguments for are stronger than the arguments against.

What is one argument for nuclear deterrence? Is it A: It creates constant global fear? B: it encourages countries to solve problems by negotiating? C: it promotes the buildup of weapons? Or D: it increases the risk of conflict? Pause if you need to, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put B.

It encourages countries to solve problems by negotiating.

Here are two arguments for and two arguments against disarmament.

Arguments for: Disarmament reduces the risk of nuclear war, preventing mass destruction and saving lives in the long term.

It sets an example to other nations, showing a commitment to peace.

Arguments against: Disarmament may leave a country vulnerable, as others could still have nuclear weapons.

It removes a powerful deterrent, potentially encouraging aggression from hostile states.

Brandon is a humanist.

He's talking about why he supports disarmament.

Brandon says, "I try to make moral decisions based on consequences.

From a consequentialist point of view, nuclear weapons make no sense.

They risk massive loss of life and long-term environmental damage just to maintain a threat.

I don't think peace built on fear is real peace.

We should lead by example, move towards disarmament and invest in diplomacy and conflict prevention." So why does Brandon think the arguments for disarmament are stronger than the arguments against? Again, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have noticed that Brandon says, "I do not think peace built on fear is real peace." What is one argument for nuclear disarmament? Is it A: it removes the country's main defence? B: it shows a commitment to peace and sets an example? C: it ensures military superiority? Or D: it encourages fear-based peace? Pause, jot down your answer.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Excellent work if you put B.

It shows a commitment to peace and sets an example.

For part one of our task, I'd like you to complete the table to set up some arguments in support of the statement and some arguments to support a different point of view.

The statement is: "Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world." So take your time, think back through what we've learned, the different arguments that we've considered.

Write up your answer, come back when you're ready to see what you could have said.

You could have said: For arguments in support, nuclear deterrence stops countries with nuclear weapons from attacking each other because they're scared of being attacked back.

And it gives protection while countries work towards getting rid of nuclear weapons together.

On the other hand, arguments to support a different point of view.

You could have said nuclear deterrence creates peace through fear, not through trust or real agreement.

And that one mistake or accident could lead to huge destruction and loss of life.

Now, you might have put down different arguments, but well done if you've managed to put two on each side.

For the second part of our task, here is the same evaluation question in full: "Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world." Evaluate this statement.

In your answer you: should give reasoned arguments in support of this statement, should give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view, should refer to religious arguments, may refer to non-religious arguments, should reach a justified conclusion.

I'd like you to use your table of arguments to write either a paragraph to support the statement or a paragraph to support a different point of view.

You can choose which you do.

So take your time, write up your answer, come back when you're ready to see an example of what you might have done.

You could have said, either in support for the statement: Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world, because it stops nuclear countries from attacking each other.

They know that if they start a war, they will be attacked back with even more force.

Since nuclear weapons were developed, there has not been another world war.

This shows that deterrence works.

It also gives countries protection while they try to make agreements to reduce weapons in the future.

Or for a different point of view: Nuclear deterrence creates peace through fear, not real trust or friendship between countries.

If one small mistake happened, it could lead to millions of deaths.

True peace should come from talking, solving problems and building good relationships, not from threatening to destroy each other.

That is why some people believe we should aim for complete nuclear disarmament instead.

So well done if you've managed to develop those arguments and to put them into a paragraph to support one of those points of view.

In today's lesson, we have learned that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, that release huge energy through nuclear reactions, causing massive loss of life and environmental damage.

They're kept by countries like the UK for deterrence, aiming to prevent attacks by threatening massive retaliation.

Many people raise ethical concerns, including civilian deaths, long-term harm, and peace based on fear.

Disarmament can be multilateral, countries disarm together, or unilateral, one country disarms alone.

Views vary widely with some supporting deterrence for security and others calling for disarmament to reduce global risk.

Well done for working with me on these challenging issues today.

Thank you for all of your efforts.