Toward the Abolition of Strategic Nuclear Weapons

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