Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism/A Fighting Chance:

...A FIGHTING CHANCE: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons Joseph P. Martino Ignatius, $15.95 paper, 283 pp...

...The book is so well written and its argument, within the framework staked out for it, so compelling, that it hardly matters that it is wrong...

...On this point the crucial move is Finnis-Boyle-Grisez's conflation of this principle (which is historical, contingent, and derives from prudential considerations quite apart from religion) with the absolute moral principle, "Do not slay the innocent and righteous" (as stated in Exodus 23:7...

...while clearly written, this book's argument lacks the literary polish of the first book...

...Like Walzer, I also question the absoluteness of the noncombatant immunity principle in Western moral doctrine on war...

...In a more leisurely discussion of Fin-nis-Boyle-Grisez's method, it would have to be shown how, compared to Ramsey, these authors fudge the "direct and intentional targeting" standard by insisting that targeting (direct or indirect) is not the major question...

...Neither utilizes or engages the full range of writing on this subject, and neither attempts to address non-Catholic entries in the religious debate...

...The task of this review, then, is to identify the shortcomings and strengths of each and to argue that both books should be read, and their analyses and arguments considered in tandem...

...It is time, though, to bring into the debate the second book on which this review is focused...

...Against this is set the authors' own method of moral argument by analysis and deduction from stable principles...

...In brief, both books have shortcomings...

...James Turner Johnson The first of these books has produced a sharp buzz of activity among Catholic intellectuals debating the morality of nuclear deterrence, as well as a certain amount of attention among non-Catholics engaged in that same debate...

...Paul Ramsey, in War and the Christian Conscience (1961) and subsequent works, argued against countervalue targeting via the "principle of discrimination," his preferred term for the need to avoid direct, intentional targeting of noncombatants...

...The crucial locus on the question in Finnis-Boyle-Grisez's argument is chapter IV, where the authors attempt to draw the two principles together and, in my judgment, reason eloquently but not persuasively...

...Martino, by contrast, knows that MAD (mutually assured destruction) is but one stage—and one component—in nuclear strategic doctrine, and that nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are neither monolithic in nature nor frozen into set forms but continue to evolve...

...A Fighting Chance shares with Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism its moral method of reasoning from principle to conclusion (though Martino also employs consequentialist reasoning), its use of just war theory (though Martino's use attempts to be comprehensive, while Finnis-Boyle-Grisez's is restricted to Ihe jus in bello principle of noncombatant immunity), and its melding of moral argument with an assessment of both nuclear strategy and the capabilities of contemporary nuclear weapons...

...But these books arise directly out of the contemporary Catholic debate over nuclear weapons and are aimed to contribute to that debate...

...It should be noted, though, that the dispute is neither new nor likely to be settled soon, and that the particular application of both methods to nuclear weapons is also not new...

...I believe they are wrong on both matters...

...They expand the concept of inten-tionality beyond what Ramsey would have accepted—to include foreknowledge about the nature of the target (e.g., Moscow's population, not merely its military targets...

...Like Ramsey, I find a significant moral difference between directly targeting noncombatants (as in the case of counter-value strategy) and aiming at legitimate military targets even while knowing (but not intending) that indirectly, noncombatants are likely to be killed as well...

...While Finnis-Boyle-Grisez would agree with Martino's argument that "if war breaks out, the last thing we want is to be programmed for holocaust," the former authors—despite attempting to be hard-nosed about the possibility of Soviet domination of a denuclearized West—argue for strategic nuclear disarmament without examining the nature of the forces that—they admit—could still morally be employed for deterrence and/or defense...

...Nor would such a reader learn from either book that just-war theory is in fact an organically developing historical moral tradition, not a set of a priori rules or principles...

...A Fighting Chance lacks the credentials that almost immediately made the first book so attractive to Catholic nuclear intellectuals: while its author is a concerned Catholic layman, he is not among the stars of moral theological and philosophical debate...

...The comparative strengths, however, are exactly opposite...

...The two principles certainly overlap, and the historically developed principle of noncombatant protection clearly depends, in Western culture at least, on the continuing strength of the absolute religious principle against harm to the innocent...

...The prudential judgments these latter authors make (and both books are all about prudential judgments) are thus founded on a poor assessment of the relevant military issues—a problem which does not flaw the moral argument as such but would, even without the above-mentioned problem in that argument, seriously fault the judgments that are made on its basis...

...rather, means are justified by whether they conform to the relevant principles...

...One is religiously based, the other need not be...

...Broadly, this means that the end does not justify the means...

...With such negative credentials, it hardly matters that this book offers a far more knowledgeable analysis of contemporary nuclear weapons, a subtler understanding of deterrence, and a serious attempt to connect a moral argument based on traditional modes of reasoning to the ongoing evolution of nuclear weaponry and modes of defense that take account of such weaponry...

...Applied to moral analysis of nuclear deterrence, this means that a deterrent resting in whole or in part on an intention to kill enemy noncombatants cannot be justified, in the authors' view, by the claim that only this kind of deterrent keeps nuclear war from happening...

...fanny howe is the author of The Lives of a Spirit and Deep North (Sun & Moon Books...

...and the burden of its argument is not for nuclear disarmament but for a counterforce/war-fighting option and a deterrent built on that...

...See, for example, pp...

...Most readers of the one will tend not to be attracted to the other...

...both have strengths...

...242ff...

...Martino's emphasis instead is to present the case for a war-fighting option based on ' 'usable'' nuclear forces (that is, low yield, high accuracy weapons, used with d:?ciim-ination), missile defense, conventional forces, and civil defense...

...associated with nuclear weapons...

...Such, after all, is what is meant by the concept of an intellectual debate...

...Michael Walzer's "supreme emergency" argument in Just and Unjust Wars (1977) is often cited (as it is by Finnis-Boyle-Grisez) as a favorable example of consequentialist reasoning applied to what is allowable in war...

...For them, the issue is rather the inevitable harm done to noncombatants in the area of a nuclear blast...

...Nonetheless, these two books make informative and worthwhile new contributions to the continuing debate over morality and military policy...

...Finnis-Boyle-Grisez is as much about how to carry on correct moral reasoning as about nuclear deterrence and realism...

...the publisher is not an Oxford...

...I will leave to others a stringent analysis of the argument over method in moral reasoning...

...Rather, the intention to kill noncombatants is morally wrong as such, following from a principle in the "common morality of the Judaeo-Christian tradition" that excludes intentional killing of the innocent...

...See chapters IV-VI...

...When nineteen missiles are aimed at military targets in Moscow, Finnis-Boyle-Grisez argue these are distinctions without a difference...

...Martino's analysis of the available, the possible, and the likely in nuclear weapons, though, is educated, up-to-date, and informed by his military background, while the corresponding aspect of the Finnis-Boyle-Grisez book is focused on a more popular but less accurate conception of the military issues REVIEWERS James turner JOHNSON's books include Can Modern War Be Just...

...While I share their preference for moral argument that moves from principles to judgments rather than backwards from consequences to means, what they have in the principle of non-combatant immunity is a historically freighted concept not identical with the absolute Judaeo-Christian principle, "Do not slay the innocent and righteous...

...Finnis-Boyle-Grisez is at its best in its elegant moral argument, while Martino's book is less an argument than a collection of quotations from the moral arguments of others, organized under the various rubrics provided by the just-war tradition...

...It would also have to be shown how, in comparison to Walzer, the central issue is not really consequentialism in method but a dispute over the absoluteness of noncombatant immunity as a principle...

...Its target is "consequentialism" or "proportionalism," especially (but not only) as present in contemporary Catholic moral theology...

...This is a book that deserves to be read and reflected upon...

...I disagree...

...Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism is a rare combination of thoughtful and well-focused practical, political analysis, finely reasoned moral argument, and high Christian principle...

...But the concepts are not identical...

...Finnis-Boyle-Grisez's position on this correlates, I think, with their tendency to disregard the moral importance of technological changes toward smaller nuclear warheads and delivery systems of higher accuracy, both of which make more credible—and morally significant—the official United States position that noncombatants are not targeted as such by our deterrent forces...

...the title sounds bellicose, lacking the air of superior detachment of the first book...

...and The Quest for Peace: Three Moral Traditions in Western Cultural History...

...The attention is well deserved...

...it treats just-war theory (as a whole) as still a meaningful resource for making military judgments in the nuclear age...

...A reader approaching these books with a tabula rasa would learn about the American Catholic bishops' pastoral, The Challenge of Peace, and a bit about papal and other Catholic teachings, but not about the official and semi-official positions taken by American Protestant groups, such as the Methodist bishops' In Defense of Creation or the statement of the American Council of Evangelicals...

...There is obviously much more that could be said, given greater space, about such a rich and provocative work of moral analysis as this one...