|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
World War II, Nuclear Arms, and the Just War
| Article
# : |
12796 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1987 |
6,100 Words |
| Author
: |
Stephen J. Sniegoski
Stephen J. Sniegoski is subscription editor of Continuity and
has recently competed a monograph on World War II
interventionists. |
In the recent debate over the morality of nuclear weapons, one argument has arisen that is especially compelling to traditionalists: that nuclear weapons inherently threaten the lives of innocent noncombatants and thus violate the doctrine of the just war. This just-war argument looms large in the American Catholic bishop's pastoral letter, "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response."
The immunity of noncombatants in war has not only been the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church but but has been the cornerstone of international rules of war. As Geoffrey Best writes in Humanity in Warfare: "Upon the distinction between civilian and combatant, after all, the whole idea of a law of war absolutely depends."
Traditional just-war doctrine categorically prohibits the deliberate killing of civilians. This does not rule out the unintentional killing of civilians resulting from an attack on a legitimate military target, but there must be a morally valid reason to justify civilian deaths. In short, the good intended end must be proportionate to the evil consequences. Anticipating huge civilian casualties to be the result of any conceivable nuclear war, even if such attacks are restricted to military targets, the American bishops reject the use of nuclear weapons as "morally disproportionate."
While this concern about civilian fatalities has led to much rethinking about America's nuclear posture, not much effort has been made to determine to what extent previous wars abided by the civilian immunity standard. Most significantly, Allied activities during World War II have been given little
... (1957 of 37826 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
