The Nuclear Necessity Principle

Description

This academic paper discusses the ethics of U.S. nuclear policy in relation to the law of armed conflict and the principles of just war doctrine. In 2013, the Obama administration stated that their nuclear war plans sought to inflict the least possible to civilians and civilian objects. The authors of this paper however, have doubts about the feasibility of that statement as it contradicts the current United States policy of deterrence. 

Nuclear deterrence has historically been used as a tactical form of punishment that results in a high amount of civilian casualties. This is in conflict with the Obama administration’s statement that the U.S. will not target civilian populations or objects. Even when targets are primarily of military use, there is often a secondary reason for the target that includes damage to civilians in order to strike fear and erode morale in the population. Furthermore, in 2013 the Joint Targeting guidance stated that military targets can be anything currently in use or any civilian object that has the potential for military use. This also includes civilian objects that can be classified as “war-sustaining”, such as industrial facilities or other objects that support the economy of our adversary. This creates a problem such that “…the fundamental concept of nuclear deterrence through threatened punishment to civilians is incompatible with just war principles”. There is also some legal opinion supporting this thought as the International Court of Justice noted on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons the threat of nuclear weapons is contrary to international and humanitarian law. 

In order to mend this ethical dilemma and satisfy the Obama administration’s tension between nuclear deterrence and a desire to minimize civilian casualties, the paper suggests creating a doctrine of the principle of necessity. This would mean that the United States would create a policy where nuclear weapons would only be used in cases where conventional means would not be effective. This would severely limit the use of nuclear weapons, which makes many adversaries to this policy question the effectiveness of deterrence. It is argued, however, that the credibility of deterrence would in fact increase under this policy because under current conditions “nuclear weapons struggle to deter because the threat of their use is so incredible, since the consequences would be so terrible”. Therefore a necessity principle would increase the credibility of deterrence while also minimizing potential civilian casualties and more closely following the laws of just war. 

Citation

Provenance

Topics

Document entry started by Jordan Cory on August 11, 2020. Entry last updated by Jordan Cory on August 11, 2020.