Reasoning on the morality of nuclear welfare: an introduction

1. Reasoning on the morality of nuclear welfare:an introduction December 20th 2005 Luciana Garbayo

2. Summary - Three parts: 1) On pre-moral reasoning: • Main facts and consequences of nuclear warfare. Recent history and strategy considerations on nuclear warfare. 2) Moral reasoning and nuclear war: • Just war tradition; • Realism; • Pacifism. 3) Our contribution: class deliberation • Exercise: adapting Rawl’s original position of equality for reasoning on nuclear warfare regulation.

3. 1) On pre-moral reasoning: the state-of-facts Main facts and consequences of nuclear warfare. • Game-theory before the n-bomb: win-lose or win-win games (the first one, characteristic of war activity (just or unjust), the second one, characteristic of peace/diplomacy) • Nuclear bomb development - nuclear war heading to nuclear winter - development of lose-lose game thus the emergence of new rules - end of the win-lose game for superpowers

4. Exception: games against players who have nothing to lose - ex, Kamikases; Jihad fighters. They act irrationally from a game-theory point of view - there is a failure of strategy if the opponent has nothing to lose.

5. WWII, Manhattan Project: uranium bomb - Hiroshima - August 6, 1945; plutonium bomb - Nagasaki - August 9, 1945. • Nuclear arms race - two super-powers US, Soviet Union: Cold War state-of- affairs.

6. Game-theory: new rules of the game -Emergence of nuclear deterrence strategy: the history of using nuclear force (as in Japan) and the projection of its power to kill all humanity deters the players to escalate the aggression.

7. International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents • “There are four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949, and the two additional Protocols of June 8, 1977. • Convention IFor the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Sets forth the protections for members of the armed forces who become wounded or sick. • Convention IIﾊFor the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,Geneva, 12 August 1949: Extends these protections to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of naval forces. • Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949ﾊlists the rights of prisoners of war.

8. Convention IVﾊRelative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Deals with the protection of the civilian population in times of war. • Protocol IAdditional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Extends protection to victims of wars against racist regimes, wars of self determination, and against alien oppression. • Protocol II ﾊAdditional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Extends protection to victims of internal conflicts in which an armed opposition controls enough territory to enable them to carry out sustained military operations.” source: society of professional journalists.http://www.genevaconventions.org/

9. 2) Moral reasoning and (nuclear) war • ‘Just war’ tradition; • Realism (or ‘militarism’); • Pacifism. • Source: Briand Orend ‘ War’ at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

10. The dominant view:‘Just war’ theory • War can be morally justified in some circumstances. • The moral agent of war are the states and they may ethically use mass violence for just reasons. • World War II, on the Allied side, is the used example of a just and good war.

11. Since there are just wars, there is a development of laws to regulate it and to distinguish when a war may be said just, considering three levels of justification:

12. 1) jus ad bellum - justice of resorting to war in the first place has to be morally justified; • 2) jus in bello - justice of conduct within war, after it has begun has to be morally justified; • 3) jus post bellum - justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war has to be morally justified.

13. Realism • Skepticism about the application at all of moral concepts, such as justice, to warfare. • Power seeking and national security motivate states during wartime for making the best of its opportunities. • Morality of warfare is a nonsensical notion regarding global politics. The strongest should prevail and each country should tend to defend its vital interests in security, influence over others, and economic growth and not to moral ideals that might hurt its interests. • Philosophy that is popular among social scientists, and have one of its most famous proponents in Macchiavelli and Hobbes.

14. Descriptive realism • States, as a matter of fact, either do not for reasons of motivation, or cannot for reasons of competitive struggle, behave morally. Thus moral discourse surrounding interstate conflict is empty. • States are simply not motivated by morality: it's all about power, security and national interest.

15. Prescriptive realism • States have to behave amorally in the international arena for the sake of self-protection. • Avoidance of being exploited by its morality or of offending other moral systems are major concerns in negotiations.

16. Pacifism • Moral concepts not only can but ought to be applied to international affairs. • The question on the morality of war is granted, but the answer is to deny grounds for it. • The solutions are thought as a resort to other means other than war for solving conflicts.

17. Consequentialist pacifism - justification based on the principle of utility: the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it; Deontological pacifism - justification is based on categorical imperatives (a priori moral law, based on reason): the activity of war is intrinsically wrong, for it violates the duty of not killing human beings.

18. 3) Our contribution: class deliberation An exercise in public deliberation, adapting Rawl’s ‘original position of equality’ thought experiment. We will deliberate on nuclear warfare as if we were states connected in a globalized world.

19. General Proposal of the activity 1 - To form at least three discussion groups in class: • First group: Just war proponents deliberate on a set of rules regarding nuclear war; • Realists proponents deliberate on a set of rules regarding nuclear war; • Pacifists proponents deliberate on a set of rules regarding nuclear war. 2 - The groups present their positions and debate among each other.

20. Nuclear warfare and justice: a proposal for deliberation • Within your group orientation (just war theory, pacifist or realist), imagine you are a representative of a country in the position to deliberate about the uses of nuclear power with other representatives from all over the world, but you in fact do not know if your country will have it or not, you don’t know how wealthy or powerful your state is, if you geography is privileged, if you have allies, and what is going to result if you are the least favored.

21. Important methodological note: • This is an adaptation of Rawl’s ‘original position of equality’, the idea that we should deliberate and make rational choices towards justice among the participants without knowing what amount of benefit will be our share after the system is in place. The point is to make people think about benefits without advocating for their immediate interests, implying a deeper understanding of fairness regarding justice.

22. General concerns for you to reflect beforehand: what kind of rules should you fight for, considering you might not have nuclear power to bargain in future conflicts? What kind of restrictions and control should you vote for? Should anybody have it? Should information be restricted?

23. Questions to guide the debate within the groups: 1 - Is it just or unjust to use nuclear weapons in war? What about its use in extreme cases of aggression as against Nazism and other non-compassionate, non international law abiding opponents? 1.1 - If it is just to use it, when would that use be justified? 1.2 - If it is not just: 1.2.1 - how to surely prevent a nuclear war if you are a pacifist? Do the consequentialist or the deontological approaches entail different responses in terms of regulations? 1.3 - if it is maybe not just, or maybe neither just nor unjust: how to regulate it if you are a realist? Do the descriptive and prescriptive approaches entail different responses in terms of regulations?

24. A suggestion within the final debate among groups • Now we distribute nuclear power to some of you - what does it change to be dominant in the game? Does it change anything? • What kind of regulations do you want to reinforce if you are the weakest or the strongest in the game, as a just war theorist, a pacifist, or a realist?

25. Cited Bibliography • John Rawls, A Theory of Justice Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971 • Society of professional journalists.http://www.genevaconventions.org/ Brian Orend, ‘War’ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ • Source for educators: • http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/course-syllabi/index.html