The development of thermonuclear weapons, together with fantastically powerful and frightfully accurate means for their delivery upon a global range of targets, has affected human thought in more ways than man usually recognizes. The results of this impact upon human culture will be felt for a long time. Christian thinkers and writers have felt the force of this shock to mankind with special weight in the field of social ethics. It may be helpful to notice something of the manner in which writers in this area have responded to the new problems which our modern technological development has posed.
Christian social ethics, in both the conservative and liberal wings of Christendom, has been concerned for a decade with the deeper implications of possible thermonuclear war. The past five years have shown a remarkably frank and forceful facing of the problems implicit in such policy decisions as are reflected by such terms as “massive retaliation,” “deterrence,” and the like.
There has been, first of all, a study of the possible objectives of a war fought with thermonuclear weapons. It is usually recognized that wars are fought to secure certain ends which are regarded as desirable. World War I was ostensibly fought “to make the world safe for democracy.” World War II was pursued with the hope of eliminating the drive toward dictatorship which threatened Western civilization. The fact that neither of these objectives was achieved (at least as they were envisaged) has led to a more sober appraisal of the possibilities of future wars.
In his volume Christianity and World Issues T. B. Maston concludes that the only possible good which might come from a war fought on the modern scale is the saving of a nation from enslavement by a foreign power. This sums up what many have been feeling; modern warfare can at best be defensive. This raises the further question: Can a war of defense of national values or of natural security be other than self-defeating? While such a consideration may seem to be largely or wholly negative, it does seem to have the positive value of stripping men of illusions concerning warfare as it may be waged in our time. It will be increasingly difficult for thoughtful persons to view a future world war as a crusade.
Equally significant is the reconsideration by writers in Christian social ethics of the question of a “just war.” It would have seemed inconceivable two decades ago, that Thomas Aquinas’ discussion at this point would be revived in the twentieth century. But so it has been; and a scholar of the stature of Paul Ramsey has given the most careful attention to the significance of the meaning of “just war” for our time.
This phase of the discussion represents an attempt to cultivate the wide field which lies between two extremes of the frank advocacy of a war to “get it over with” and to rid the world of the menace of communism once for all, on the one hand; and that of the pacifist who would be “rather red than dead” on the other. It is felt by writers who seek to explore this middle position that the advocates of both extremes fail to grasp many of the realities involved, and that it is the part of wisdom to seek to discover under what conditions a war involving the use of thermonuclear weapons might be waged with some semblance of justice.
The discussion in this matter usually turns around the traditional questions of means and objectives. In the treatment of the question, the powerful book by Dr. Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, is never far out of sight. Kahn’s approach is, that it is easily possible to overestimate the effects of nuclear warfare in terms of the number of lives lost. His objective is, of course, to secure such policies as would serve to reduce the number of deaths in such a conflict, and to preserve the largest possible measure of capacity to recuperate. His work is a corrective to much of the irresponsible speculation concerning an instantaneous destruction of the entire human race.
Writers in the field of social ethics are concerned, not so much with the statistics of Kahn’s work, as with its failure to take into consideration the loss of spiritual values which a thermonuclear conflict would bring, and the loss of the structures of human community and human freedom which would ensue. These considerations vastly complicate the discussion of a “just war” in our time. But it is generally agreed among Christian writers that such a war should be “counter-forces” warfare—that is, that it should be directed against military objectives and not against civilian populations—and that it should be for limited objectives, and not for the purpose of securing world domination.
In other words, the writers under study seek to project into the discussion that which they feel the Christian message has to say in such a world at such a time. This is, we judge, designed to present an alternative to the proposals of the secular humanist, who would have as a guiding-star in all discussions of modern warfare “the preservation of the human race above any and all partial interests” (John H. Hertz, “International Politics and the Nuclear Dilemma” in John C. Bennett [ed.], Nuclear Weapons and the Conflict of Conscience.)
This does not mean that discussions of the question of nuclear warfare are always pursued in the light of man’s deep need for spiritual regeneration, or in view of the providential significance of history’s events. It does mean, however, that such basic questions as man’s obligation to view his fellowmen as God’s creatures, and to regard human life as sacred, are projected into the thinking of an age which thinks all to easily in terms of impersonalisms—in terms of reducing the loss of life from (say) 50 millions to merely 30 millions. Most discussions of the quality of life which would exist in a post-thermonuclear war area seem to neglect the possibilities of any positive role to be played by Christians who might survive such attack.
There is, finally, considerable emphasis placed upon the question of the strain which the nuclear arms race places upon the economies of today’s nations. This is, of course, a prudential matter, but one which has relevance in a world in which the Black and Pale Horses of hunger and death stamp about with such abandon. Current discussions do serve to keep alive an awareness of these things in the minds of men and women in affluent societies.
Thus, the possibility of thermonuclear war is provoking serious discussion upon the part of today’s Christian writers. Not all of this discussion is held within an adequate frame of reference. But it does serve the vital purpose of maintaining a conscience amid the perplexing events of our time. This conscience is one of the precious assets of a people longing to remain free.
