The Ethics of Nuclear Deterrence

THE ETHICS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Name
Course Title
Institution Name
Course Instructor
Date
THE ETHICS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Introduction: The ethics of nuclear weapons including the doctrine of deterrence have risen to become issues of public reputation and entity introspection. The idea of deterrence can be described as the use of threats by one party to induce another party to desist from initiating particular course of actions. Despite the vital and significant changes, nuclear deterrence is apt to remain the trademark of security and defense in the post-World War II era (Hardin, 2004). For the nations which possess nuclear arms, these weapons will remain the crucial defender of national security. Numerous states which do not possess these arms today are nevertheless making resolute efforts to do so. Therefore, nuclear deterrence is doubtful to wither away, at least in the short and middle term time frame. Nuclear prevention is one of the campaigns that have hit the whole world in the recent past (Hardin, 2004). There has been need to reduce if not stop the number of nuclear operations and creations that nations have been carrying out in the recent past. There have been a number of ethical questions raised on nuclear deterrence. This paper will therefore, discuss the ethics of nuclear deterrence in regards to the just war doctrine. To arrive at the conclusions statistical analysis was carried out in relation to the topic of discussion.
Ethical Dimensions of Nuclear Deterrence
First Reflection: It will be morally acceptable for nations to hold the nuclear weapons and threaten to use them if the leaders communicate the need to produce and use them in particular situations. In essence, if nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity, their proliferation and threats should be justified accordingly. On that viewpoint, nuclear deterrence is morally wrong and unacceptable especially considering the elements of just war doctrine (The Just War Theory). Nuclear weapons are that of mass destruction. It is estimated that a nuclear bomb can be disastrous up to thousands of kilometers away from the point of impact. Basically, at this rational point of view, they may be considered to be immoral. Their decadent nature is attributed to how destructive they can be. However, it can be justifies that the nuclear weapons can be considered moral when the need to use them justly arises (Amstutz, 2008). Under the criteria of jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, the first element known as just cause justifies this. If the reason to hold the nuclear arms is just, then it will be morally acceptable, however if it is to compromise, punish or capture something then it will be immoral. Circumstances may prompt nations to create nuclear power and threaten the use of it, in that way, it is moral (Hardin, 2004). However, if they hold them and threaten to use them where circumstances do not prompt them, then it will be immoral. Circumstances include the fact that an aggressive nation may compromise other nation`s resources to an extent that war sparks out (Gutman, 1999). The ethics of deterrence which is comparative justice provides that such a case will require that the offended nation`s injustice surpasses that of the offender to a great extent that will ‘prompt the use of nuclear power`.
Second Reflection: It is ethically wrong to intend to do that which it would be morally wrong to do. Threats on nuclear weapons should not be intended to compromise the security status of other nations. It is against human ethics to do that which is morally wrong. A threat to war can be morally justifiable if it holds water on the basis of what the cause and reason for war are (Amstutz, 2008). However, if there is no justifiable basis, according to the international ethics, it is immoral and unacceptable. The threat of war is when one issues a notice or statement that they may engage another party in war either with or without reason. The threat to war and war itself have two different perceptions in regard to the ethics of the just war doctrine. War is evil. On the other hand, war itself is immoral if the outcome does not justify the means. If the war is not intended for the right outcome or is after a certain advantage, it will be immoral (Gutman, 1999). On the other hand, it can be morally justifiable if some moral conditions are met. For instance, if the good outcome outweighs the evils of the war, then it will be justifiable (Amstutz, 2008). However, in comparison a threat to war is immorally equal to war itself for one must justify the other. Similarly, nuclear deterrence and nuclear war hold the same moral ground if they are intended for the right purpose and justify the need and means. However, if the evil outcome of both aspects outweigh the intended outcome, then in the view of the ethics of just war doctrines, they are unacceptable and thus, immoral.
Third Reflection: Revenge and/or retaliation undermine the ethics that govern humanity (The Just War Theory). Ethically, the use of nuclear proliferation is not justifiable. Moreover, it undermines the moral justification of deterrence. It is common that nuclear deterrence is bound to fail at any given juncture depending o the compromising capacity and the ability to persuade other nations to avoid nuclear weaponry (Hardin, 20...