*Originally published pre-2020 and preserved as part of our archive project. Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work.

One of the most important political cleavages in contemporary international society is marked by the lack of consensus on the continued reliance of nuclear weapons by some states for their security. On one side of this debate, it is argued that nuclear deterrence remains an important instrument of international security given (1) the stubborn nuclear security dilemmas in East Asia over North Korea and in the Middle East over Iran and (2) the increasing tensions between the United States and Russia over a number of controversial security issues. Even U.S. President Barack Obama holds this view. Additionally, Washington has begun a significant nuclear weapons modernization effort despite Obama’s 2009 Prague commitment to move towards a nuclear-weapon-free world. Other nuclear-armed states too, have followed suit. And as renewed great power tensions intensify, a chorus of commentators has warned that emerging new nuclear threats, such as those posed by North Korea, will further necessitate the retention of nuclear deterrence.

On the other side, prominent global civil society groups, along with a few non-nuclear-weapons states, have argued for a nuclear-weapons-free world in order to avoid the projected catastrophic humanitarian effects that even a limited nuclear war might have. Anti-nuclear advocacy of this kind is grounded on a cosmopolitan and morally-informed notion of human security as well as a firm belief that nuclear weapons are not merely taboo (Tannenwald, 2007), but implicitly proscribed by several international agreements, such as the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Indeed, our knowledge of nuclear accident history  in the United States (Schlosser, 2013), and elsewhere (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi) suggests that the prospect of nuclear catastrophe is much more likely than what is typically admitted. If a nuclear catastrophe were to occur, whether as a result of an accident or deliberate (series of) nuclear detonations, the extent of medical and other humanitarian resources needed is not known. The urgency of nuclear abolition advocacy has grown since the now infamous deadlock at the quinquennial 2015 NPT Review Conference. By the end this past December, at least 127 states had signed the “humanitarian pledge” to work towards stigmatizing and formally banning nuclear weapons, even though none of the nuclear-armed states joined the legal agreement.

It is important to recognize that the ground of the debate between nuclear deterrence and abolition advocates is not limited to differences in political considerations or commitments. Rather, it arises from differences in ethical commitments which advocates on both sides of this debate have not resolved. As it happens, both sides make arguments which invoke moral values to justify their respective positions (Nye, 1986). And the irreconcilability of these two positions on nuclear weapons reflects directly the ethical........

© E-International