Nuclear Arms as a Philosophical and Moral Issue

Robert P. Churchill

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1983, vol. 469, issue 1, 46-57

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1983
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716283469001006 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:469:y:1983:i:1:p:46-57

DOI: 10.1177/0002716283469001006

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().