Nuclear Strategy: The Doctrine of Just War

It is essential that there be growth in a man's moral standing if he has to deal with the great powers given to him-the greatest being the power to destroy. The bequest of history, diplomacy and war is undeniably disconcerting for the evidence it provides on the role of morality in life. A return to the ancient and forgotten art of moral reasoning, especially while formulating strategic Policies, is de rigueur. The discovery of the nuclear weapons has indeed been serendipitous. And the environment in which one fashions the strategic doctrine for use of nuclear weapons is dynamic. The usefulness of these nuclear weapons is narrow and specific in that its sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack. History has been witness to strategies been woven around this central theme of deterring a rival or enemy nation, in the process forgetting the existence of the moral threshold. Deterrence is a policy that fashions a situation whereby war can be limited if not averted. It rests on the capability of a nation to deter the enemy and ensure that the credibility of the threat is maintained and respected and employed when necessary. Nuclear weapons deter but there is the pursuit of the absolute means to seek foolproof deterrence. Herein lies the dilemma. The stakes involved in a nuclear varied and worried debates. To justify a war, arguments tend to get grounded on 'just war'. The doctrine of Just War is concerned not with what men did in war but when they ought to do or refrain from doing; the jus ad bellum or justification of war and the jus in bello or the limitation of war. The U.S. now stands as the sole 'super' power that is willing to use its military and technical might for 'just cause'. This has only ensured that though the uniquely perilous results of the use of nuclear weapons have been understood, its use remains entrenched in the mind while future policy decisions are being made. And nuclear weapons "explode the theory of Just War".