In today's WaPo two former Secretaries of Defense make a moral case for conventional warheads on Trident D5 and Minuteman missiles. In stating the need for replacing some nuclear warheads Harold Brown and James Schlesinger implicitly state their case in moral terms. They posit a scenario of preemptive strike against a terrorist group preparing for a nuclear attack on the United States:
Would the president order a preventive nuclear strike in such circumstances? It's conceivable, but very unlikely. There would still be doubts as to whether the intelligence was accurate, and even if it was, the consequences of an unprecedented action of this kind might well be regarded as unacceptable -- in terms of the risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world. More than likely, the president would order U.S. intelligence and military forces to try to track the terrorist group and seek later opportunities to hit it with Special Forces or aircraft armed with conventional weapons. This might work, but if it didn't the consequences could be catastrophic.
Note that, while they avoid mentioning them, they suggest that a nuclear strike would fail some of the criteria of the just war theory. The president would not order a preemptive nuclear strike because
There would still be doubts as to whether the intelligence was accurate,
Given the uncertain nature of our intelligence there can be no assurance as to whether the probability of success criteria would be met.
Even if successful,
the consequences of an unprecedented action of this kind might well be regarded as unacceptable -- in terms of the risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world.
In just war terms, such an attack would fail the criteria of discrimination, proportionality, and minimum force.
Schlesinger and Brown do argue that in such a situation the criteria of just cause would apply. If a later conventional attack on terrorist forces did not work
the consequences could be catastrophic.
Even if one accepts their argument for substituting conventional warheads, Brown and Schlesinger fail to address the just war criteria of Legitimate Authority:
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
Nor do they address the related question of reconciling preemptive attack with constitutional restrictions on the President’s power to start a war as set forth in Article 1, Sec. 8(11).
One hopes that a few church leaders, opinion writers and politicians will take up these questions.
Comments