After some preliminaries ("I") I examine the merits of an argument which is sometimes used in an attempt to show that nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable ("II-V"). This is the argument that deterrence is wrong because it involves a threat to do something which it is wrong to do. My conclusion is that there is something to this argument, that it is sufficient to establish a "prima facie" case against nuclear deterrence, but that it is not sufficient to establish a conclusive case against nuclear deterrence.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Journal||Journal of Religious Ethics|
|State||Published - 1985|
- Christian Ethics
- DETERRENCE (Strategy)
- MORAL & ethical aspects
- NUCLEAR disarmament