[Question:]{.underline} Can the use of nuclear weapons in time of war ever be justified?
[Answer:]{.underline} The traditional principles of Catholic morality manifestly forbid all use of nuclear weapons in time of war. The reason for this is that, as all the authors say, the slaying of the innocent is an illicit and immoral act, that cannot be justified for the winning of a war. Noncombatants, who do not contribute either directly or indirectly to the success of the enemy’s war effort, must be considered as innocent. To directly attack them for any reason at all, such as to destroy a nation’s morale, is an immoral act. It is understood that the killing of the innocent can often happen as a byproduct of war, not directly willed in itself. This is not immoral, for as long as it is not desired but simply an unavoidable side effect of an aggressive offensive or of a bombing of military targets.
However, nuclear weapons cause mass destruction of entire civilian populations, nor can they be used to attack localized military targets. Hence the killing of innocent civilians and non-combattants is not just an unavoidable side-effect. It is what is directly willed. This is manifestly immoral, no matter how just the war might be.
This response must, nevertheless, be modified by the changing nature of war in the modern world. A new barbarism has emerged, which goes by the name of total war. Starting with the American civil war, and becoming increasingly intense ever since, modern wars are not a conflict simply between the combattants of both sides. The whole resources of a people are now committed to the war effort and to the total destruction of the enemy, including industry, education and all the infrastructure of a society. This is manifestly an immoral concept of war, and cannot possibly be used to justify the killing of the innocent, of non-combattants.
The difficulty arises when an enemy nation employs the techniques of total war. It might happen that the only way to defend oneself against an unjust aggressor in such an immoral war would be to oppose like force to like force, mobilizing all of a country’s resources and attacking the enemy’s civil targets. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason, p. 572) The justification for such a response would be that there are no such things as non-combattants, and that since the entire population is involved in the enemy’s war effort, all can be the target of aggressive defense. Although this might be admitted as a theoretical possibility, it would certainly be an absolutely frightening decision to have to take.
Hence, the situation could be imagined in which the death of a large number of civilians through the use of nuclear weapons could be justified through the principle of double effect, as a necessary means to win a just war. However, even in such circumstances there would have to be a proportionate reason for the evil of the death of the innocent, namely the good intended. It is my contention that, in the modern world, such a proportionate reason could never be imagined. The use of one nuclear weapon would bring about the release of other nuclear weapons by the enemy or their allies, and a cycle of unbelievable destruction would be created, which would be a much greater evil than even losing a just war.
Consequently, it seems to me that even allowing the possibility of the theory of total war having to be replied with total war, in practice the use of nuclear weapons is never permissible.
It is manifestly obvious that the 1945 use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. At that time there was no threat to civilian populations in the allied countries, nor could there truly have been said to be total war. There certainly was no proportionate reason for the civilian suffering, destruction and misery that resulted, not to mention the public scandal and horror that a “civilized” nation would perpetrate such a barbaric act against the innocent.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.