Ethics Finder

Nuclear Deterrence

The general idea of nuclear deterrence is that possessing weapons of great destruction, and stating a willingness to use them under certain circumstances, makes it less likely that an opponent will initiate or resort to aggression. Defenders of this policy claim that it has prevented wars between major powers because each is deterred by the threat of the other’s nuclear weapons. Critics, however, claim 1) that major powers have still engaged in conflict but through proxy parties (as in the Vietnam war); 2) that the policy has been escalatory leading to the threat of mutually assured destruction; and 3) that if the threatened attacks would be on innocent civilians then they would be murderous, and that it is wrong to intend to do what it would be wrong to do. This last claim has been the focus of much discussion with defenders of deterrence arguing either that it is not wrong to threaten what it would be wrong to do, or that since the threat is conditional on what a prospective enemy does, then were they to attack they would have lost the right not to be assaulted.

Related Topics