The moral argument for lethal weapons

The moral argument against sales of lethal weapons overseas has been turned on its head with the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. Since the eruption of war, the raison d’etre for the West’s arming of the Ukrainian military has been simple: to enable the Kyiv government to defend the country and its citizens against the Russian invaders. So it's a justified and noble effort to protect the weaker of the two protagonists without actually getting involved as a direct participant. No wonder the anti-arms trade campaigners have been so quiet since the war began. Selling arms is big business and there are arguments both ways on whether this global trade in weapons plays a role in creating greater stability or inflaming a dangerous and volatile situation. It comes down to selling arms to the good guys or the bad guys. Unquestionably, the Ukrainians are regarded by most countries as the good guys who need help to survive against a military superpower armed with superior weapons. As a result, the US and 14 other nations have been pouring weapons into Ukraine, notably anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems. Without them, the Ukrainian forces would have been overwhelmed. With them, they have been able to destroy significant numbers of Russian tanks, fighter aircraft and helicopters. Nato has applauded. The most recent comparison on the other side of the moral argument was the sale of air-launched missiles to Saudi Arabia by the US and UK which have been used against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the long-running war in Yemen. Until Russia invaded Ukraine, war-torn Yemen was the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. About a quarter of a million people have been killed in the Yemen war since it started eight years ago, and American and British weapons have been partly to blame for the appalling slaughter. There was little moral justification this time. President Biden has withdrawn US support for offensive operations in Yemen but has yet to stop missile sales. The UK has sold weapons worth £8.4 billion to the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis since the bombing attacks began in 2015. The rush of western weapons to Ukraine has not stopped the war or stemmed the violence. Indeed it can be argued that they have generated more violence and possibly even prolonged the war. But the cause is a noble one, and it has been Nato’s only option bar joining the fight against Russia. However, there is one worrying scenario. Vladimir Putin has already said that the West’s sanctions against Russia are almost an act of war. Moscow has also warned that Nato’s arms convoys into Ukraine would be a legitimate target for attack. What if Putin decides that the supply of weapons which are undermining his invasion plans and helping Ukraine’s resistance is tantamount to a declaration of war?