Toward the Abolition of Strategic Nuclear Weapons: A Just War Analysis of Total War By Jason Jones, John Whitehead and Aimee Murphy August 6, 2016
Published by Life Matters Journal and I Am Whole Life www.rehumanizeintl.org/nukes
Introduction The continued possession of nuclear
Percentage of Total Global Nuclear Weapons, 2015
weapons by the United States and other nations must be tempered by a
United States Russia France United Kingdom China Pakistan India Israel North Korea
comprehensive understanding of Just War Theory. Despite being reduced from their Cold War-era peak, nuclear weapon arsenals still have such sheer destructive power as to threaten humanity’s future while also violating basic principles of military ethics. The tradition of military ethics known as Just War Theory holds that uses of military force 1) must discriminate between military personnel and civilians and 2) must not cause so much harm as to outweigh whatever good the use of
Deployed Strategic Nuclear Weapons, 2015
military force is intended to achieve. Nearly all conceivable uses of nuclear weapons fail to meet either of these United States Russia France United Kingdom
Just War requirements. To remedy this situation, strategic nuclear doctrine needs to be radically changed and the sizes of nuclear stockpiles need to be dramatically reduced. Nuclear nonproliferation also needs to be given top priority. The United States has an important role to play in all these efforts and can benefit from their success.
Rationale
military one, the bomb’s effects would take a staggering
Stockpiles of nuclear weapons, both deployed and non-
toll on surrounding civilian populations. This kind of
deployed, held by the 9 known nuclear powers stand
indiscriminate destruction violates the principles of
at roughly 10,300 warheads.1 Many existing nuclear
discrimination and proportionality, as understood in
warheads—including a large number of warheads in the
Just War Theory.
arsenals of the United States and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers—have yields in the hundreds of kilotons.
Just War Theory is a venerable school of ethical
Of the United States’ deployed nuclear warheads, more
philosophy meant to regulate the circumstances under
than three-quarters have explosive yields of 100 kilotons
which and the means by which war can legitimately be
or more.2
waged. Just War Theory tends to be associated with Christian tradition—versions of the theory have been
Given that the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and
articulated by Christian thinkers such as Augustine,
Nagasaki had yields in the range of 15-20 kilotons, using
Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin—but
almost any warhead in current nuclear arsenals against
it also has points in common with other religious and
a populated area would cause massive indiscriminate
philosophical traditions.4 In particular, the notion that
death and destruction.3 Even if the target were a purely
even in wartime limits or restraints need to be put on the
use of military force is one that can be found not only
The Just War principle of discrimination has been
in Christianity but also in faiths such as Hinduism and
expressed in contemporary international law through
Islam.5 This requirement of restraining military force’s
the Geneva Convention governing treatment of civilians
use is reflected in contemporary Just War Theory in the
in wartime.7
principles of 1.
2.
discrimination, which dictates that military force
Nuclear weapons make a mockery of these ethical and
should be directly and intentionally used against only
legal principles, however. As long as the United States
opposing military personnel and not civilians of the
and other nations maintain their current nuclear weapons
opponent nation; and
arsenals, they are guilty of planning and preparing for
proportionality, which dictates that military force
indiscriminate and disproportionate uses of force—in
should not cause more harm than good—killing
effect, for committing war crimes. Such military postures
enormous numbers of civilians unintentionally (what
are an injustice not only against the millions of civilians
is euphemistically called “collateral damage”) is a
targeted by nuclear weapons but against members of
prime example of the disproportionate use of force.6
nuclear nations’ armed forces: maintaining current nuclear arsenals implicates thousands of
Status of World Nuclear Arsenals 2015 Deployed Deployed Weapons in Country Strategic Nonstrategic Storage United States 1900 180 Russia 1780 0 France 290 n.a. United Kingdom 150 0 China 0 unknown Pakistan 0 n.a. India 0 n.a. Israel 0 n.a. North Korea 0 n.a. Total: 4120 180
military personnel in unethical and criminal behavior.
Total 2680 2700 10 65 260 125 115 80 <10 6045
4760 4500 300 215 260 125 115 80 <10 10365
Note: Numbers are approximate and may not add up precisely due to rounding. Numbers are taken from estimates by the Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Maintaining such arsenals also undermines any moral high ground the United States or other nations might wish to hold in the eyes of the world. Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda or ISIS and various tyrannical regimes kill or threaten civilians and are rightly
Status of World Nuclear Weapons, 2015 3000
# of Nuclear Weapons
2500 2000
Deployed Strategic Deployed Nonstrategic Weapons in Storage
1500 1000 500 0 Russia United Kingdom Pakistan United States France China India Nations with Nuclear Weapons
Israel North Korea
condemned for this. Such condemnations ring hollow,
nuclear powers appear hypocritical when coming from
however, coming from nations whose own defense
nuclear-armed nations that plan to keep the full range
posture rests on threats of killing millions of civilians. If
of their own nuclear weapons indefinitely. Moreover,
nations wish to be convincing in their condemnation of
continued maintenance of existing arsenals is a
terrorist groups and tyrannical regimes and to use public
provocation to non-nuclear powers, some of whom might
diplomacy effectively to undermine such groups and
feel they must acquire nuclear weapons simply to protect
regimes’ legitimacy, then the injustice of current nuclear
themselves from current nuclear powers.
arsenals must be ended. Even if all these ethical and political considerations are set In the same way, continued maintenance of current
aside, however, nuclear weapons still pose a larger threat
nuclear arsenals undermines efforts to prevent additional
to humanity. Use of most or all of the weapons in current
nations from trying to acquire nuclear arsenals of their
global stockpiles in a major nuclear conflict would cause
own. Efforts to prevent new nations from becoming
death on an unprecedented scale and devastate the global environment. This alone is
Potential Plan for First Stage of Nuclear Weapons Reductions Implementation Deployed Deployed Weapons in Total Country Strategic Nonstrategic Storage United States 0 ≤10 2370 Russia 0 ≤10 2240 France 0 ≤10 140 United Kingdom 0 ≤10 97 China 0 ≤10 120 Pakistan 0 ≤10 52 India 0 ≤10 47 Israel 0 ≤10 30 North Korea 0 ≤10 ≤10 Total: 0 ≤90 5096 Note: Because both estimates of current arsenals and the proposed reductions are approximate, numbers may not add up precisely.
reason for trying to dramatically reduce, and end the strategic use of, nuclear weapons. When 2380 2250 150 107 130 62 57 40 ≤10 5186
this and the other reasons given above are taken together, our task becomes imperative. To pursue nuclear reduction and non-strategic use does not mean world leaders must embrace outright pacifism or refrain from protecting their nations and
Potential Plan for First Stage of Nuclear Weapons Reduction Implementation 2500
# of Nuclear Weapons
2000 Deployed Strategic Deployed Nonstrategic Weapons in Storage
1500
1000
500
0 Russia United Kingdom Pakistan United States France China India Nations with Nuclear Weapons
Israel North Korea
“For too long humanity has been threatened by the catastrophe of nuclear war.”
national interests. Nations’ interests and policies will
1.
The first goal to be sought should be an across-
almost inevitably come into conflict—although one always
the-board reduction of current nuclear weapons
hopes violent conflict can be avoided—and leaders
arsenals by 50 percent. For all nine nuclear powers
can legitimately and reasonably adopt various national
to cut in half the number of nuclear warheads in
security policies to deal with such conflicts. Nevertheless,
their possession will send a clear message about
defending national interests or even national survival
the nuclear powers’ commitment to reducing their
must be kept within ethical limits such as discriminating
arsenals significantly. At the same time, it would
between combatants and civilians in wartime. Nuclear
still leave nuclear powers with sufficient deterrent
weapons render such discrimination nearly impossible.
capabilities while they build trust and refine
Reducing these weapons and restricting their usage to
verification and monitoring procedures. Such trust
tactical maneuvers will enable world leaders to bring
and procedures will build confidence for making
national defense within the limits of discrimination and
additional arms cuts.
proportionality defined by Just War Theory.
Blueprint for Nuclear Abolition
2.
Once the initial 50 percent reduction has been made, the nuclear powers can proceed with negotiating further reductions, with a possible next goal being
Reversing the nuclear arms race as it has unfolded over
cutting the newly reduced arsenals by one-third. As
the past 70 years is an enormous undertaking, which will
nations cut their arsenals, they should emphasize
involve careful and intensive diplomacy that adapts as
not only reducing the absolute number of warheads
necessary to different circumstances. Nevertheless, the
but also eliminating warheads with the greatest
broad outlines of how the nine current nuclear powers,
destructive powers: warheads with megaton yields,
and other nations, can gradually reduce the number of
followed by those in the higher kilotons, and so on.
nuclear weapons to zero can be defined:
The ultimate goal should be elimination of the
nuclear arsenals or at least their reduction to a tiny
indirectly kill civilians. Targeting of existing weapons should
number (perhaps 10 or fewer) of very low-yield warheads
be changed accordingly, and military law should be revised
(perhaps 0.3 kilotons) to be used only in tactical defensive
to require military personnel to refuse to obey any order to
maneuvers and never on civilian population centers. Such
use nuclear weapons against such targets. (This final step
minimal nuclear arsenals could theoretically be used within
will relieve the men and women of the armed forces from
the restraints of the discrimination and proportionality
the current shameful situation in which they are effectively
principles—if they were used against an opposing naval group in the open ocean, for example. 3.
All these steps should be linked to non-proliferation
Other steps to lower the risks of nuclear conflict and
efforts. As existing nuclear powers gradually eliminate their
violations of Just War principles can be taken in tandem
arsenals, non-nuclear powers should be encouraged to
with the reductions outlined above. One important step
reaffirm their rejection of nuclear weapons in all relevant
is to lower nuclear weapons’ readiness for use: take
treaties and conventions. The monitoring and verification
them off alert status; de-couple warheads from delivery
procedures adopted as part of the nuclear powers’
vehicles; put warheads and delivery vehicles in storage;
negotiations can be used for checking the compliance of
and otherwise gradually increase the time and number of
non-nuclear powers as well.
procedures necessary to make the weapons operational.
4.
expected to commit war crimes.) 5.
These steps would decrease tensions among nuclear
Conclusion
powers and lessen the risk of nuclear weapons being used
For too long humanity has been threatened by the catastrophe
because of accident or misunderstanding.
of nuclear war, and for too long the existing nuclear powers
Nuclear doctrine should be revised according to the
have been ethically compromised by maintaining nuclear
principles of discrimination and proportionality. Nuclear
arsenals that can be used only in indiscriminate and
powers—ideally in concert but individually if necessary—
disproportionate ways. We must begin the work of removing
should make official declarations that they will never use
the nuclear threat and bringing national military policies into
nuclear weapon against cities or other civilian population
accord with Just War principles.
centers or against military forces whose targeting could
0: the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons after the first stage of the proposed reduction plan
Citations 1 “Status of World Nuclear Forces,” Federation of American
Scientists, accessed November 16, 2015, http://fas.org/issues/ nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/. 2 For details on the arsenals of the major nuclear powers, see Hans
M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “The British Nuclear Stockpile, 1953-2013,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69 (4): 70; Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71 (4): 78; Kristensen and Norris, “Indian Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71 (5): 79; Kristensen and Norris, “Pakistani Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71 (6): 61; Kristensen and Norris, “Russian Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71 (3): 85; Kristensen and Norris, “US Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71 (2): 108. 3 “The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History,” U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Resources, accessed November 20, 2015, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattanproject-history/index.htm. 4 See, for instance, Augustine, City of God, Book XIX; Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40; Martin Luther, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved; and John Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 20, 9-13. For a secular account of Just War Theory, see Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977). 5 Manoj Kumar Sinha, “Hinduism and International Humanitarian
Law,” International Review of the Red Cross 87, no. 858 (2005), 291-293; Sheikh Wahbeh al-Zuhili, “Islam and International Law,” International Review of the Red Cross 87, no. 858 (2005), 282-283. 6 For one contemporary list of these and other Just War principles,
see Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2005), 285. 7 “Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949,” International Committee of the Red Cross, accessed November 20, 2015, http://bit.ly/1X3IYkD, See, for example, Articles 3-5, 13-18, 27, 32-34, 146-147.
Make your voice heard: Sign our change.org petition and let President Trump know that nukes are not pro-life! As supporters of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings from conception to natural death, and the intrinsic right to life of every member of our human family, we call for an end to nuclear warfare. Nuclear weapons killed 100,000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;200,000 civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at their first use by the United States and threaten all humanity today. We demand that our executive branch of government be more accountable for our existing nuclear arsenal and sign on to the U.N. treaty for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons have no place in a culture that strives to affirm the lives of all, born and preborn. And with many pro-lifers around the world who understand that nuclear weapons can never be tools of a Just War, we call on the Trump administration and the governments of all nuclear-wielding nations to dismantle and destroy their nuclear arms! #NukesAreNotProLife
Sign online by going to www.rehumanizeintl.org/nukes