Source: Thinking About Strategy
In Thinking about Nuclear Weapons, Sir Michael Quinlan wrote:
"It cannot be right to acquiesce uncritically for the rest of human history, in a system that maintains peace between potential adversaries partly by the threat of colossal disaster. Any serious moral stance must recognize a duty, alongside that of striving to reduce the costs and risks of nuclear armouries and maximizing their war-prevention benefits so long as they continue to exist, to work towards a world in which security can be maintained without incurring at all the burdens which they entail."1
The moral stance to which Quinlan referred has much to do with the doctrine of Just War. Indeed, in 2007 Quinlan and Charles Guthrie published a monograpgh on the topic: Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare. This continued Sir Michael's long effort to reconcile doctrines and policies of nuclear deterrence with ethical principles he cherished as a conscious Catholic.
The present essay seeks to extend the dialogue between the imperatives of war prevention - specifically the role of nuclear deterrence in it - and justness. In doing so I look beyond the ethical tradition that Sir Michael explored so intently and thoughtfully. I draw briefly on research in evolutionary biology, psychology and politics to widen the meaning and importance of justice, while reflecting on recent developments in international security that narrow the utility of nuclear weapons in deterring war. I conclude by suggesting that these new perspectives add weight and feasability to the imperative that Quinaln recognized to work toward a world without nuclear weapons.
1. Michael Quinlan, Thinking about Nuclear Weapons, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 54.
