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 inclu...