4. What is the Catholic attitude toward nuclear war?

“Traditionally, the Church’s moral teaching sought first to prevent war and then to limit its consequences if it occurred. To day the possibilities for placing political and moral limits on nuclear war are so minimal that the moral task, like the medical, is prevention: as a people, we must refuse to legitimate the idea of nuclear war.” U.S. Bishops. The Challenge of Peace (1983) 131.
“Our ‘no’ to nuclear war must, in the end, be definitive and decisive.” U.S. Bishops. The Challenge of Peace (1983) 138.

Reflections on nuclear war.
a) Why must we say ‘no’ to nuclear war?
b) What does it mean to “legitimate the idea of nuclear war”? What do people do who want to refuse to legitimate the idea of nuclear war?

5. Is nuclear deterrence an acceptable policy?

“In current conditions ‘deterrence’ based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion.” Pope John Paul II, Message to the UN Special Session (1982) 3.
“(1) If nuclear deterrence exists only to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by others, then proposals to go beyond this to planning for prolonged periods of repeated nuclear strikes and counter-strikes, or ‘prevailing’ in nuclear war, are not acceptable. (2) If nuclear deterrence is our goal, ‘sufficiency’ to deter is an adequate strategy; the quest for nuclear superiority must be rejected. (3) Nuclear deterrence should be used as a step on the way toward progressive disarmament. Each proposed addition to our strategic system or change in strategic doctrine must be assessed precisely in light of whether it will render steps toward ‘progressive disarmament’ more or less likely.” U.S. Bishops, The Challenge of Peace (1983) 188.

Reflections on deterrence.
a) When is nuclear deterrence considered morally acceptable?
b) Why is it wrong to plan for prolonged nuclear war?
c) Why is it wrong to count on winning a nuclear war?
d) What is the difference between the two strategies of nuclear sufficiency and nuclear superiority? Why is sufficiency acceptable and superiority unacceptable?
e) What is your view of the U.S. policy of deterrence: Does it conform to the conditions stated by the bishops?

6. Is it ever morally acceptable for a country to make the first strike in a nuclear war?

“We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare on however restricted a scale can be morally justified. Non-nuclear attacks by another state must be resisted by other than nuclear means.” U.S. Bishops, The Challenge of Peace (1983) 150.

Reflections on a nuclear first strike.
a) Why would it be wrong for us to start a nuclear war?
b) Suppose we were losing a non-nuclear war: Would it be acceptable for us to introduce nuclear weapons in an attempt to turn the war around? Why?