The complex morality of Nuclear Weapons

In 2017 a politician in the UK was asked if he’d be prepared to push the “red button” in the (unlikely) event of a “first strike” by a nuclear armed hostile state. Such a question has no easy answer. Say yes as you’re a heartless monster who wants to kill defenseless women and children, but say no and your weak and unqualified to be responsible for the defense of the nation. Welcome to the complex morality that is the modern nuclear military deterrent.

I wouldn’t be surprised if most people went days, weeks, months or even years without pondering the fact that several of the worlds states have the capability of destroying our planet several times over at the mere push of a button.

Not since 1945 were such weapons used in war. At that point in history the US had a total monopoly on the technology. One could argue that the deployment of the atomic bomb was as much a message to future rival the Soviet Russia as a means to ending an already won war with an isolated, surrounded and outnumbered Japan.

Nonetheless, despite the massive and almost exclusively civilian casualties (over 150,000) it was greeted with cheers and parades in the US. Even if thousands upon thousands of defenceless innocent civilians had lost their lives, it was seen by the victors as justified, as it brought with it, a speedier end to the Second World War.

Today the proliferation and the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons means that no one nation has a monopoly on the technology and that the power of each weapon has increased several thousand fold. The justification for the possession of these weapons appears quite clear. If they (the baddies) have them, then we (the goodies) need them too. Such logic makes sense. However we’ve all heard how two wrongs cannot make a right. Yet have we not the responsibility to defend ourselves and those that we love.

All of this is not understandable without first addressing a concept called “Mutually Assured Destruction” aka “MAD”. It goes something like this; a state cannot launch a nuclear strike without the direct and proportional retaliation of another. Even if one state launch a successful preemptive strike annihilating another state, the second state could still launch an equally destructive counter attack via land, air or submarine based nuclear missiles.

Key to understanding this “M.A.D.” concept is deterrence and the bluff of making the other state believe your resolve to follow through in the event that they should attack first. Not to threaten mutual destruction would merely invite an attack. A state must bluff, even if the bluff is the will to commit mass murder on a genocidal scale.

Which brings us back to the question; “Do two wrongs make a right?” Well how about do two  bluffs makes peace?. To which the answer is a resounding yes, evidently so as we are all still here as proof. But is this moral, do the ends justify the means?

I certainly hope so. Even North Korea, or perhaps some day a nuclear armed Iran, is a rational actor. They know that such weapons give them influence and assurance against a conventional invasion (just look what happened to Iraq) but they also know that should they ever use those weapons, it would certainly spell their own doom, no matter how successful their first strike was.

We no doubt live in a world where evil is all around us. To sit idly by and allow would-be tyrants acquire nuclear weapons or even worse, disarm ourselves in a gesture of good-willed principled pacifism would no doubt result in the largest hostage situation in world history. 

There is no world police (and nor should there be) and therefore the last resort of any dispute is war. Thankfully this happens less and less often but the gloomy specter of war always lies in the background whenever states interact.

Granted the greatest threat from nuclear weapons lies in non state actors like terrorist organisations acquiring misplaced nuclear stock in times of political instability (eg the collapse of the USSR). These groups need not worry about retaliation as terrorists groups have no borders, rather choosing to integrate themselves into innocent civilian populations.

All of this might sound like machiavellian realism but it is important to remember that we have a responsibility to defend our own countries, communities and families. To intentionally initiate a nuclear war is indisputably immoral, but to deter such a nuclear war by a Ronald Reagan style policy of “peace through strength” is a noble goal with a good success rate. But it is impossible not to return to the fact that it is founded on the determination to reply in kind to any attack and not turn the other cheek.

It is not however immoral to prioritize the safety of one's own family over others or one's nation over others. The problem is that our concept of wartime morality is rooted in an era when only conventional weapons were available to armies. Nuclear weapons do not fit so easily into this worldview. 

Recently Pope Francis traveled to Japan. There, he met the descendants of the until recent persecuted underground Catholic community. During his trip he also visited Nagasaki, the site of 1945 nuclear bombing. In his speech he said that “peace and international stability are incompatible with attempts to build upon the fear of mutual destruction or the threat of total annihilation”. Indeed he is right if we are speaking about peace in a deeper way, a total peace where no one wishes ill will on his neighbour. But the idea of total peace on earth is unrealistic as we do not live in such a world. Furthermore we survived the cold war, which demonstrates on a practical level (peace being the mere absence of war) that M.A.D is compatible with peace. 

There exists evil and evil would conquer good if but given the chance. If every state were to hold to the principles that the Holy Father outlines then such a plan would be feasible. However if but one were not to do so, that state would find itself capable of holding the rest of the world at ransom, their will being law. If this state wished to subjugate the world then nothing could stop them. 

Many treaties have sought to limit the development and production of such weapons but such efforts were doomed to fail as only one party chooses not to take part. The differences between states and the benefits of obtaining or maintaining nuclear weapons means that this issue could well go unresolved for some time. 

This is not a new question just being raised today in a post-cold war era. One of the best debates on this topic came in the form of a June 1985 Oxford Union debate on the motion “that all Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible". In that debate  David Lange (Methodist preacher and Prime Minister of New Zealand) challenged Jerry Falwell (Baptist celebrity television preacher) to justify his Christian beliefs and stance on nuclear weapons. His response was simple, he said that he’d rather die on his feet rather than live on his knees. 

Many rightly point out that the vast sums of money spent on weapons (nuclear and conventional) could be spent on feeding and housing the poor. However they do not stop and think about the negative consequences of such disarmament, namely the loss of freedom. Which begs the question; what is the price of freedom? I would argue that it’s priceless, worth more than any idealism. Freedom is the prerequisite for any charity and for any genuine peace. There exists only one overnight path to peace and disarmament and that is surrender. Surrender to those who don’t care so much for freedom, for justice or even for mercy.