Weapons of Mass Destruction

What makes a weapon a WMD?

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) can cause death and destruction on a massive scale. Nuclear weapons release enormous amounts of energy; chemical weapons use toxic substances, such as the nerve agent sarin; biological weapons use disease-causing organisms, such as the bacteria that cause anthrax.

The ethical problem is not simply that these weapons are powerful. Their effects can spread beyond the intended military target, killing civilians and damaging the conditions needed for life. Nuclear radiation or biological contamination can continue to harm people after the immediate attack, including future generations. This makes it difficult to limit suffering or stop the effects when fighting ends.

Why some people argue for possessing WMDs

The main claimed benefit is deterrence: discouraging an attack by making its consequences too frightening. A government might argue that an enemy will not attack if it knows that devastating retaliation would follow.

With nuclear weapons, this can involve mutually assured destruction (MAD). If opposing countries could each destroy the other, neither could expect to attack without suffering catastrophic losses itself. Supporters argue that this threat can prevent war and protect a country's population. This is a claim about preventing conflict, not a guarantee that peace will last.

Other claimed benefits concern use: a devastating attack might bring a conflict to a swift end, avoid an invasion and reduce casualties among the attacking country's forces. However, reducing suffering for one side may mean imposing enormous suffering on the other. A quicker victory is not automatically a morally justified victory.

The key distinction is therefore between having a weapon and using it. Someone may support possession as a deterrent while opposing actual use. Critics reply that deterrence still depends on an enemy believing that the weapon might be used.

Muslim objections: protecting life and limiting warfare

Many Muslims oppose WMD use because human life is sacred and warfare must have moral limits. Even where fighting is justified, this does not make every weapon or action acceptable.

Protecting innocent civilians is central. A teaching attributed to Muhammad states: “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elderly or sick person.” WMDs cannot reliably distinguish civilians from combatants, so their widespread effects conflict with this protection.

Another concern is proportionality: force should not be excessive in relation to the legitimate aim of fighting. Destroying whole populations or causing lasting contamination can produce far more harm than is needed to defend people. Their continuing effects also conflict with the requirement to end fighting when an enemy surrenders: an order to stop cannot undo radiation exposure or disease.

Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, an influential Shi'a Muslim leader, has declared the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons haram, meaning forbidden. He describes protecting humanity from their effects as a public duty. This illustrates a Muslim response based on responsibility towards humanity, rather than only concern for one's own country.

Surah 5:32 and the value of each life

Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32 recalls a command given to the Children of Israel. It teaches that whoever takes a life—except as punishment for murder or “mischief in the land”—acts as if they have killed all humanity, while whoever saves a life acts as if they have saved all humanity.

Muslims draw on this passage to emphasise the seriousness of unjust killing and the importance of saving life. Applied to WMDs, its force is clear: if one unjust death is so serious, the killing of large numbers of innocent people is especially difficult to justify.

The verse contains qualifications, so it should not be presented as a simple ban on every possible taking of life. Nevertheless, those qualifications do not give unrestricted permission to kill civilians. A Muslim opposing WMD use can argue that indiscriminate mass killing violates the passage's protection of life.

Could Muslims support WMDs as a deterrent?

Some Muslim scholars distinguish possession from use. They refer to Qur'an 8:60, which tells believers to prepare the forces they can muster to frighten off their enemies. They interpret this as support for defensive preparedness and argue that possessing powerful weapons could prevent aggression and save lives.

Other Muslims reject this reasoning when applied to WMDs. Preparing a defence does not necessarily justify every kind of weapon. They argue that threatening indiscriminate destruction conflicts with protecting innocent life, and that the danger of eventual use outweighs the hoped-for benefit.

The disagreement concerns both interpretation and consequences: does possession genuinely protect life, or does it create an unacceptable threat to life? Supporting defence does not automatically mean supporting WMD use, even in self-defence.

Atheist, Humanist and utilitarian arguments

Atheists do not believe in a god, but atheism alone provides no single answer about WMDs. Humanists generally base moral decisions on reason and human welfare rather than divine commands. Many atheists and Humanists oppose WMDs because of civilian deaths, environmental destruction and harm to future generations. British Humanist Paul Simms has argued against possessing weapons with the potential to kill millions or billions and destroy humanity's home.

Others accept possession while other countries have such weapons, reasoning that giving them up could leave a population vulnerable. Their concern is security rather than approval of mass killing.

Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences for overall wellbeing. A utilitarian defence of acquiring WMDs argues that, if deterrence prevents a major war, the lives saved and suffering avoided could outweigh the costs of possession. Peace would benefit large numbers of people.

However, utilitarianism can also support opposition. The calculation must include the possibility of accidental use, escalation and catastrophic destruction, not just the hoped-for peace. If these risks outweigh the benefits, disarmament could produce better overall consequences.

Muslims may agree with non-religious opponents about protecting people, while grounding their response in Qur'anic teaching. Muslims who support deterrence may share the goal of preventing war, but those who oppose it argue that good intentions cannot justify threatening innocent lives.

Reaching a justified judgement

Consider the statement, “No country should have weapons of mass destruction.” The strongest argument against it is that possession might deter aggression and prevent greater suffering. The strongest argument for it is that possession creates the possibility of indiscriminate destruction and relies on a credible threat to use the weapons.

A justified conclusion weighs these arguments rather than merely choosing a side. For example, one could conclude that protecting innocent life outweighs the uncertain benefits of deterrence: peace is valuable, but a system that risks catastrophic civilian harm is too dangerous. Alternatively, a conditional defence of possession would need to explain why deterrence is likely to prevent more harm than it risks, while addressing the Muslim objection to threatening innocent life.