This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by CHURCHILL, R. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Nuclear Arms as a Philosophical and Moral Issue

Philosophical concern over nuclear armaments raises questions about the logical and conceptual basis for deterrence theory as well as the effects of threats of nuclear annihilation on our common humanity. However, most philosophical concern centers around the morality of nuclear deterrence. It is sometimes thought that the doctrine of just war can provide a moral justification for nuclear deterrence based on threats of massive retaliation. Yet attempts to apply the doctrine of just war lead to a moral dilemma: although nuclear deterrence seems justified as self-defense, there are compelling reasons for concluding that threats of retaliation are immoral. Alternative deterrence policies might be thought to overcome the moral dilemma. However, counterforce strategy and antimissile defense, as recently proposed by President Reagan, must still depend upon immoral threats of retaliation. Proposals for a nonviolent national defense offer a possible solution, and serious attention should be given to claims that nonviolent defense would deter aggression.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 469, No. 1, 46-57 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716283469001006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?