On Just War and Nuclear Deterrence

Respect for the sanctity of human life is the foundational commitment of the American Solidarity Party. We thus oppose any intentional attack on innocent human life. For this reason, we insist that military action must strictly adhere to just war principles. These principles require that any war, however legitimate its goal, never entails the deliberate killing of the innocent. Simply put, the end does not justify the means.

Some people, to be sure, argue that just war thinking no longer makes sense. Of course, just war theory can be readily abused. But, in fact, a straightforward application of just war principles makes excellent sense. Rather than giving a green light to any war waged for a legitimate purpose, it signals a red light to any war that treats innocent human beings as mere means to achieve its ends.

In light of just war thinking, how are we to judge nuclear weapons and the reliance on nuclear deterrence? Our party platform gives us a challenging framework for answering this question. It begins by recognizing that “Nuclear weapons signal a failure to create a world that values peace over warfare.” And what follows from this failure? The platform continues: “Our nation must lead the effort to rid the world of these terrible weapons.” Indeed, and how are we to do so? The platform proposes “through the use of arms control initiatives, non-proliferation treaties, and, where doing so does not diminish national security, unilateral steps to reduce our nuclear weapon stockpiles.” Moreover, it specifies that “we should reject first use of nuclear weapons and should not seek first-strike capabilities.” Regrettably, the U.S. pointedly does not reject the first use of nuclear weapons, and this stance suggests that it pretends to have first-strike capabilities. 

But challenging as our platform framework is, it remains incomplete. It needs to address the following line of argument: 

1. The use of nuclear weapons involves the deliberate killing of the innocent. 

2. This deliberate killing of the innocent is gravely wrong, so… 

3. …the use of nuclear weapons is gravely wrong.

4. But it is wrong to threaten to do what is gravely wrong.

5. Nuclear deterrence threatens to do what is gravely wrong, so…

6. …nuclear deterrence is gravely wrong.

The platform rightly recognizes the importance of our taking “unilateral steps to reduce our nuclear stockpiles,” but it immediately adds the proviso that doing so “does not diminish national security.”

There are two responses, and together they are decisive, to the “national security” stipulation. The first response is broadly prudential and, in a sense, probabilistic. The continuing proliferation and development of nuclear weapons, at great monetary cost, only increases their likely use, whether by design or by accident. As a result, the deterrence policy does not enhance our security. Rather it gives rise to a global mentality of fear. With the coming of artificial intelligence this mentality is worsening.

The second response is that in light of the sanctity of human life the threat to kill the innocent precludes any utilitarian calculations. To use or to threaten to use nuclear weapons is already morally self-destructive. Such actions and policies will never serve the peace that is, in the language of our party’s platform, the fruit of justice and a solidarity among peoples and nations. 

A blog post, of course, has limits. For a comprehensive and compelling development of the line of argument this post presents, I recommend the analysis of John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., and Germain Grisez in their book Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (Oxford, 1987). 

I will allow myself to ask, however, two more questions. We well know that our commitment to the sanctity of human life is not widely shared. It is an affront to the power politics of realpolitik. Should we not, then, speak up clearly and often about why we affirm this sanctity? And, finally, have we thought much, or at all, about nonviolent resistance as an alternative to war? The late Gordon Zahn perceptively outlined the strategy of nonviolent resistance in a nuclear world. His Alternative to War (Council on Religion and International Affairs, 1963) is a slender classic which merits our close study. It’s available for free on the Internet Archive.