In his excellent post on evangelicals and nuclear abolitionism, Brian Auten notes that “it is important for, again, non-experts—national security and theological alike—to see that there are other, in some cases radically different and yet still Christian, perspectives to many of [Two Futures Project]’s and [Baptist minister and a nuclear policy expert Tyler] Wigg-Stevenson’s claims.”
Theological reflection on the use of nuclear weapons has always been lacking within the evangelical community. But since the end of the Cold War, almost no thought has been given to the subject at all. This unfortunately leads to the acceptance of positions—such as complete nuclear abolitionism—that are strategically and theologically problematic. For example, one of the questions that Auten recommends we consider is:
Are nuclear weapons inherently sinful? Wigg-Stevenson insists that all nuclear weapons are “un-justifiable” and sinful because they are categorically indiscriminate and therefore fail the jus en bello requirement of noncombatant immunity. Wigg-Stevenson’s assertion rises or falls on whether all nuclear weapons are equally and completely indiscriminate in how they are used and who they are used against. His theological argument for nuclear abolition would appear to require the total exclusion of nuclear weapons from the just war framework.
Like many other evangelicals, I believe that the use of force against evil is not only in keeping with God’s ethical mandate but can even be a positive act of love. For this to be true, however, the use of military force must be justifiable under the parameters of just war theory, including the requirements for a jus ad bellum (circumstances for using force) and jus in bello (just means in using force). The issues of when and how nuclear weapons should be used fall under this category of just means and should be examined it that light.
Unfortunately, the emotional baggage we bring to the topic makes it nearly impossible to rationally discuss the use of nuclear weapons. For those who grew up in the Cold War era, the threat of global annihilation has so colored the debate that for many of us it is considered an axiomatic truth that the use of such weaponry for any purposes can never be justified. While we should empathize with the anxiety that leads to this conclusion, we cannot condone a stance that could lead to morally repugnant consequences.
Since the end of WWII, there has been a propensity to judge nuclear weapons by their maximal use rather than by the standards of jus ad bellum. Rather than asking under what conditions it would be morally acceptable to use, for instance, tactical nukes, nuclear abolitionists like Wigg-Stevenson appears to want to exclude the use on the basis of our emotional responses. Unfortunately, this approach can require accepting grave injustices in order to compensate for the reluctance to renounce an inferior principle.
The examination of an all too plausible scenario can help illustrate why this approach is tacitly immoral.
Imagine that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il announces he will finally implement his long-stated objective of unifying the Korean peninsula. To ensure that no one interferes with his invasion of South Korea, he has hidden his nuclear missiles in the tunnels beneath the DMZ. The dictator threatens that these weapons, which can quickly be moved out of the tunnels, will be launched against both Seoul and Japan if South Korea, the U.S., or any other nation interferes with his plan.
The Western democracies would be left with only two options. They can concede to North Korea’s demands and allow the enslavement of millions of people or they can launch a preemptive nuclear strike using bunker-buster tactical nukes. Would the abolitionists sacrifice the freedom of the South Koreans on the altar of the absolutist principle of nuclear proliferation?
As G.K. Chesterton claimed, “War is not ‘the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” By rejecting a legitimate and just means of using force, Wigg-Stevenson appears to be willing to allow others to settle our differences for us. By repudiating a valuable tool in the nation’s armament, nuclear abolitionists would acquiesce to a dangerous mindset that puts a weak theological justification above both justice and security.
December 4th, 2009 | 12:28 pm
After all, having a just deterrent to war greatly lessens the chance you will have to fight a just war. Just ask Ronald Reagan (and Maggie Thatcher and come to think of it, Winston Churchill) – he knew it and was proven right.
December 4th, 2009 | 12:44 pm
[...] this topic.Joe Carter explores the morality of nuclear weapons in a new posting at FirstThings.com (“A Jus In Bello Defense of Nuclear Weapons,” Dec. 4, 2009): For those who grew up in the Cold War era, the threat of global annihilation has so [...]
December 4th, 2009 | 2:03 pm
Nuclear weapons have been used twice, only by Americans, and only against civilian population centers. Both instances fail to meet the standards of “just war theory.” Since most American Christians (including many if not all at First Things) refuse “moral clarity” when it comes to precisely this issue, it’s probably best if we American Christians table proposals for the future “legitimate use” of nuclear weapons. If we cannot as Christians recognize, even retrospectively and with the benefit of hindsight, that the obliteration of civilian populations is gravely immoral according to Christian just war requirements, what makes us think we’ll have the wherewithal to do so in the future, especially in wartime when there’s always some party demanding more violence, and always in the name of peace, security, and the overall minimization of casualties?
December 4th, 2009 | 2:07 pm
Charlie it’s probably best if we American Christians table proposals for the future “legitimate use” of nuclear weapons.
So by refusing to talk about the issue from a theological and just war perspective, we’re going to make their use less likely? I’m not sure I understand your reasoning. Past sins do not necessitate accepting future evils.
December 4th, 2009 | 3:52 pm
Joe: “Past sins do not necessitate accepting future evils.”
True enough. But failing to come to terms with sins one has already committed doesn’t inspire confidence about the ability to discriminate against those very sins in the future. And let’s ponder this: what’s more morally serious, to think about a course of action in the future that has to do with resisting other peoples’ evil? Or to come clean about one’s own past evil in the present? I’m sure you don’t want to have to choose, and I’m not insisting that you have to. But I haven’t met many folks gung-ho to defend American nuclear options who are at the same time willing to confess the evil of what America has already done with nuclear weapons. So the choice is already being made, and it’s the wrong one to boot. Lastly, if you don’t want to choose—i.e., you admit the evil of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even as you hold out for the possible legitimate future use of nuclear weapons—shouldn’t you be working at least as hard to bring America to justice for its actual murderous evildoing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as you are working to hold open a future nuclear option for some hypothetical adversary’s hypothetical evildoing?
December 4th, 2009 | 6:08 pm
Tom Clancy dealt with the theoretical aspects of abolishing nuclear weapons in Debt of Honor. More importantly, I am unwilling to concede that the use of nuclear weapons in WWII was “evil”. It was certainly horrific but it avoided a land invasion of Japan which would have been much worse. Evil is not the same as traumatic.
December 4th, 2009 | 7:14 pm
[...] Thoughts: A Jus In Bello Defense of Nuclear Weapons by Joe [...]
December 4th, 2009 | 7:43 pm
Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons to end the war in the Pacific was – in terms of net lives saved – one of the most humanitarian acts in the history of the world. Set aside all of the puerile revisionist rubbish about the Japanese being on the brink of a negotiated surrender in late 1945. The war was not going to end until the Japanese home islands were conquered by force of arms. Truman had two options: (1) a conventional invasion at a cost of well over a million allied (mainly American) lives and multiple millions of Japanese (mostly civilian) lives; or (2) breaking the Japanese’ will to continue fighting by the application of limited but overwhelming force. He rightly chose the latter. Now, if you want examples of failure to apply principles of jus in bello in WWII, they can be found (the fire bombing of Dresden leaps to mind), but Truman’s use of nukes is not one of them.
December 5th, 2009 | 4:41 am
Barry Arington,
You do realize that Just War Theory prohibits the intentional killing civilians, right? One can debate whether the theory itself is adequate, but Joe Carter’s argument above wisely steers clear of an incidence that is on pretty shaky ground, dealing instead with the use of tactical nukes against military targets.
December 5th, 2009 | 10:05 am
It’s in matters like this that we really miss Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, God rest him. He would have the skill to articulate the distinction between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and what could be justifiable use of nukes. He could have explained this in terms readily grasped by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, while I cannot.
There is a principle in Catholic moral theology that one does not do evil to bring about a good outcome. Such a principle, while hard to apply in some circumstances, is one which we must hold onto. Thus, we do not sacrifice the Son of Man to save the people of Judah from the Romans. We don’t abort our babies for the sake of financial security. Etc. We do not kill non-combatants (directly) even though it would seem to be expedient.
It is beguiling to balance off the fewer who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against the many who would have perished in an invasion (and I do accept that an invasion would have been necessary, and supremely more costly in lives than the Bombs.) However, this kind of thinking is part and parcel of moral relativism, which must be opposed for our spiritual and cultural survival.
I don’t rule out the idea of using Fat Boy and Thin Man to end the war with Japan. Is there not a militarily-justifiable way they could have been deployed?
December 5th, 2009 | 12:17 pm
I am much more concerned about the immorality of religious folk trying to co-opt American civic religion to find ways to declare the use of atomic weapons acceptable than I am about the remote chance that we might squelch a rare hypothetical instance where their use might somehow survive initial scrutiny. It’s sort of that ticking-time-bomb excuse to indulge in moral minimalism.
December 7th, 2009 | 11:27 am
Steve, surely you realize that after our experience in Okinawa we knew with complete certainty that millions of Japanese non-combatants would die in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Assume a runaway train. You are standing at the switch between track A and track B. If the train goes down track A, it will run over and kill 10,000 people. If it goes down track B it will run over and kill 100 people. Surely you would pull the switch to send the train down track B, even though doing so is certain to kill 100 innocent people. Your decision is not an instance of doing evil to achieve good. It is a choice between the lesser of two inevitable evils. Truman’s choice was no different.
December 7th, 2009 | 11:39 am
Joe, states: “It is beguiling to balance off the fewer who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against the many who would have perished in an invasion . . .” The idea of saving millions of lives is more than “beguiling.” The justice of Truman’s choice is glaringly obvious. And if just war theory would lead us to sacrifice millions of lives at its alter, then so much the worse for just war theory. Thankfully, I do not believe that it does.
December 7th, 2009 | 11:44 am
Interesting metaphor, Mr. Arrington. Just war theorists will need to do some re-thinking if national militaries are in truth no more controllable than runaway trains. But that’s really beside the point, which again you fail to take. The just war tradition is not utilitarian. Combatants choose to be combatants, civilians do not. This is morally salient, to say the least. In just war theory, it is always better to see more combatants die than to intentionally target and kill the innocent. The former is legitimate killing, the latter is murder and, as a violation of one of the 10 commandments, nothing less than idolatry. There’s no escape hatch in the 10 commandments that makes none of them apply if you can somehow maximize some benefits by breaking them.
December 7th, 2009 | 12:18 pm
Mr. Collier,
I am certain that Truman would have been happy to trade the opprobrium of having failed to live up to your interpretation of just war theory for the gratitude of the millions of people whose lives were not snuffed out because he did what he did. My grandfather, for example, was in the Pacific awaiting orders to board the troop ships for the invasion. He died in 2008, not 1945, as would have been likely had Truman elevated arid theory over obvious justice. The alacrity with which some people will trade millions of real lives for the sake of their pet theory (e.g., Marxist-Leninism) never ceases to amaze.
December 7th, 2009 | 1:33 pm
And when that civilian population–old and young alike–is instructed, prepared, and commanded to fulfill their sacred duty and fight invaders to the death, the line between “innocent civilian” and “combatant” is not so blithe as some have here asserted.
Rather than the proper application of just war theory in relation to the use of nuclear weapons, this discussion has been primarily an exercise in begging the question.
December 7th, 2009 | 7:46 pm
Mr. Arrington: “The alacrity with which some people will trade millions of real lives for the sake of their pet theory (e.g., Marxist-Leninism) never ceases to amaze.”
How utterly depressing that you fail to notice that the “millions of real lives” saved is your own (theoretical!) projection, and that the real (and innocent!) lives that were actually “snuffed out” in 1945 came via Truman’s manifestly indiscriminate (and therefore unjust) use of nuclear weapons. With respect, this is not a question about Truman’s preference, or your grandfather’s. This is a question about the morality of intentionally targeting and killing non-combatants as a tactic of war. And this is not “my interpretation” of the just war tradition. Non-combatant immunity is at the very heart of the just war tradition.
DBP: what about the babies obliterated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were fair targets as well? And what question am I begging when I appeal to the significance of non-combatant immunity? Please educate me.
I hope Joe Carter is still paying attention, for this is just the sort of evasive logic that inspired my initial post.
December 8th, 2009 | 1:28 am
Mr. Collier,
You commit two serious errors. First, you assume my estimate of millions of deaths is high, but if anything, it is low. The Japanese Homeland Battle Strategy Plan called for “100 million people to arise from the vantage ground of their sacred land to strike the invaders dead.” The Japanese had 2.5 million soldiers in the field, and 32 million civilian militia sworn to fight with sticks, spears and bows and arrows if necessary. There were even plans to strap explosives to children who would throw themselves under American tanks. Projecting from Okinawa, the casualties could easily have run past the millions into the tens of millions.
Secondly, you assume a strict demarcation between combatants and non-combatants in Japan. The Japanese made no such distinction. They were willing to throw ever last man woman and child into the fight.
The militant fanatics in the Japanese cabinet wanted to on fighting even after Nagasaki. Even rational Japanese were grateful for the use of the atomic bombs. After the war one of the emperor’s close advisors said: “the presence of the atomic bomb made it easier for us politicians to negotiate peace. Even then the military would not listen to reason. The only reason the Japanese Army stopped fighting was because the emperor ordered them to do so.”
Despite you facile dismissal, my train metaphor remains apt. Truman knew the America people would not tolerate less than unconditional surrender in the Pacific. The allied armies were on track A, the invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would inevitably have led to millions, perhaps tens of millions, of civilian casualties. Track B was dropping the bombs, which led to approximately 160,000 civilian casualties. He pulled the lever for Track B. It was not murder. It was mercy.
December 8th, 2009 | 8:33 am
Charlie Collier:
Your first sentence in this discussion set the standard for your question begging: “Nuclear weapons have been used twice, only by Americans, and only against civilian population centers. Both instances fail to meet the standards of ‘just war theory.’”
You repeated your matter-of-fact assertion that these bombings were grave moral evils in nearly every post (including the necessity for morally serious people to insist that America be “brought to justice for its actual murderous evildoing”). When challenged, you counter with more assertions of a simplistic demarcation between “combatants” from “innocent civilians” and their indiscriminate murder.
Both of these are personally held assertions rather than obvious, unquestionable, or mutually agreed upon facts. That you hold these opinions with great fervor and passion is not in question. The matter of who in this particular situation was a combatant and who was not and to what degree these acts did or did not conform with just war theory are precisely what are in question and should be argued rather than self-referentially asserted.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:22 pm
DBP: Sigh. Everything is contested, and I never suggested otherwise. I made strong claims, to be sure, but they are rather easy to defend on the basis of the historical record, they are shared by editors of and contributors to First Things (e.g., Richard John Neuhaus and Oliver O’Donovan), and they therefore cannot be so glibly set aside as simply my “personally held assertions.”
If you want to demonstrate how the obliteration of babies and grandmothers is consistent with the just war tradition’s prohibition of attacks on noncombatants, be my guest. I rather think you bear the greater burden of proof. Indeed, it’s the sheer fact that arguments like yours continue to be made against the great weight of theological and historical evidence to the contrary (which Joe Carter, to his credit, at least appears to accept) that led me to make my original comment.
Here’s what Father Neuhaus had to say on the subject in 2006: “No one should doubt that Churchill was a great historical figure and that his cause was our cause and that cause was just. But the man was also possessed of a deeply shadowed side. In addition to condoning the reprisal killings of civilians, Churchill is also supposed to have said of the obliteration bombing of cities such as Hamburg and Dresden, ‘Bomb and bomb until you’re bouncing the rubble.’ This is barbarism of a low order, and the fact that it was waged against barbarism of a lower order does not mitigate the abandonment of the moral order upon which civilization depends. Just as casually, many people, including many Christians, have accepted the intrinsically evil bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as justified by the assumed shortening of the war.”
And here’s a quote from another First Things piece, written by Brian Graebe and published earlier this year, that connects this same line of criticism with the distinguished English philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. Notice that Anscome objected to the consequentialist justification of Truman’s actions: “Traditionally, people of faith have formed the vanguard against such consequentialist equations. Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, while a fellow at Oxford, famously protested the university’s decision to grant Harry Truman an honorary degree. Denouncing Truman for crimes against humanity, Anscombe rightly saw Hiroshima and Nagasaki as egregious violations of just war principles. Civilians can never be targeted as ends, and Truman’s rationale of a hastened victory and avoidance of further casualties rang hollow to Anscombe. If one cannot win a war justly, then one simply cannot win a war. Anscombe understood that the price of war is high, but it is not to be paid with one’s soul. Unfortunately, one finds Catholic theologians today–and I mean the good kind–who will yet obfuscate the clear principles of intrinsic evils when the desired end looms large.”
December 9th, 2009 | 7:26 pm
Mr. Collier, your condescending “sigh” betrays nothing but immaturity. Trust me on this. It does not add force to what comes after. You come off less arrogant when you try to argue for your case instead of assuming the pose of the world weary sophisticate swatting away the blitherings of your obvious intellectual and moral inferiors.
Your Churchill example is not germane. Look at my comments above. I suggested Dresden as a candidate for failure to follow just war theory. It is not in the same category as Hiroshima.
Also, the following statement “If one cannot win a war justly, then one simply cannot win a war.” is off the mark. No one doubted the US was going to win WWII one way or the other. Truman use of nuclear weapons was not an act of desperation to win an otherwise unwinnable war. It was, in a sense, an act of harsh kindness to bring the horror to an end as quickly as possible.
Finally, I am willing to grant that some people believe that Truman’s use of nuclear weapons in a bid to shorten the war and thereby save millions, if not tens of millions, of lives did not comport with traditional notions of just war theory. That those people would sacrifice millions, if not tens of millions, of lives to their theory of just war. That is a problem with their just war theory and their moral judgments, not Truman’s.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact