|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Nuclear Deterrence: Developing an Ethic of Means
| Article
# : |
16189 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1989 |
7,271 Words |
| Author
: |
Matthew F. Murphy
Matthew Murphy is a public information officer with the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and associate
member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. The views in
this article do not reflect the views of the United States or
of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. |
This paper discusses the ethics of nuclear deterrence in the context of the just war tradition. I use the term tradition, rather than doctrine, because while doctrine implies immutability, the two basic components of just war--the circumstances when the state may resort to force and what force it is or is not permitted to use--have evolved over centuries. For example, in the past, several reasons, including a religious crusade, were accepted as legitimating the resort to force. In the nuclear age, however, only one reason is generally accepted for resorting to force: defense of one's nation, or other nations, against unjust aggression.
Similarly, in the past, when combatants and noncombatants were clearly identifiable, the issue of discriminate use of force was simple to address. As society developed, however, and weapons' lethal radius increased, the issue of the discriminate use of force became more complex. Eventually, the concepts of primary and secondary effects and foreseen but unintended effects evolved to address the problem and so account for the intended deaths of the innocent.
In discussing the ethics of nuclear deterrence, I first summarize analyses of "just war" in the nuclear age written by the Catholic bishops of the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and France and by American Methodist bishops. I next outline their major criticism of U.S. nuclear deterrence and their present ethical judgment on this concept. I conclude by suggesting ways to negate the bishops' criticism and move toward an ethically acceptable policy of nuclear deterrence, an ethic of means; for the Catholic Church's criticism is not aimed at the right and obligation of the states to defend themselves, but at the means they intend to do so.
IUS AD BELLUM
The United States government defines deterrence as: "The prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction." This definition assumes both an adversary who must be deterred from taking some action and the means to deter him. The need to deter refers to the just cause (ius ad bellum) aspect of the just war tradition; the means to deter refers to the ius in bello concept of the tradition.
Do the United States and its allies face a threat to their lives and liberties that they need to deter? In the view of the Catholic Bishops of the United States, West Germany, and France,
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
