Nuclear Deterrence: Behind the Strategic and Ethical Debate
Michael Joseph Smith
Confusion, dissensus, and anxiety pervade our consideration of the complex issues surrounding nuclear deterrence. Disagreements abound: does the Soviet Union still "have a definite margin of superiority," as President Reagan stated in 1982, or does the very concept of superiority mislead us into a dangerous arms race? Have arms control agreements acted to slow down the arms race or have they merely sanctioned a continuous military buildup? How important are they to our mutual security? Does the expensive new defense initiative popularly known as Star Wars really offer the opportunity to "render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete"? What are the merits of the the various proposals for a nuclear freeze or for a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Faced with a seemingly endless and irresolvable debate over such issues, one sighs with depression and skips to the book review's latest article on the Bloomsbury set. But the discussion has extended beyond the oxymoronic "strategic community" with an urgency that commands attention. Beginning, perhaps, with Jonathan Schell's eloquent plea in The Fate of the Earth (1982), we have witnessed a resurgence of ethical concern about the implications of nuclear weapons. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops published their influential pastoral letter on deterrence in 1983, and, most recently, the bishops of the United Methodist Church have raised their voices "in defense of creation" to condemn the strategy of nuclear deterrence outright.
