On the justifiability of nuclear weapons

International politics can be viewed as a realm beyond the scope of traditional ethical analysis. Either a different morality is seen to hold sway between societies than within them, or it is erroneous and even dangerous, to talk of morality in the governance of inter-societal actions. Likewise, the way we act towards our fellow citizens, co-religious, those of a shared ethnicity or other form of common identity has often differed widely from the way we treat barbarians, infidels or Untermenschen. Either the “other” is not entitled in normative terms to equal consideration, or it is impractical to extend such considerations beyond the boundaries of our own communities. Yet the supposed value-neutral conditions pertaining to international interaction no longer hold up to scrutiny if they have ever actually done so. Morality has increasingly been placed at the center of interstate actions, nowhere more so than in the justifications for the use of force. As the most destructive and symbolic use of force, the use of nuclear weapons has crystalized debate. Rather than being viewed as beyond the realm of ethical analysis, the use of nuclear weapons is now hotly debated from competing epistemological perspectives. This article will consider the normative arguments for and against the development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons from realist and communitarian considerations of national interest, from legalistic and systemic perspectives of international peace and security, and from liberal and cosmopolitan human rights and just war perspectives. It will attempt to establish an overlapping consensus between competing epistemological perspectives on universal human wrongs and going beyond the responsibility to protect (R2P).