Notes on Douglas P. Lackey's 'Missiles and Morals: A Utilitarian Look at Nuclear Deterrence'

Missiles and Morals: A Utilitarian Look at Nuclear Deterrence

Douglas P. Lackey's analysis in "Missiles and Morals" explores the moral and prudential implications of nuclear deterrence, arguing primarily from a utilitarian perspective. His work discusses how U.S. military policy has remained associated with the concept of nuclear deterrence since 1945, reflecting on its complexities and paradoxes.

The Concept of Nuclear Deterrence

Lackey begins by stating that post-World War II, American foreign policy fluctuated but consistently leaned towards nuclear deterrence. The use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of nuclear warfare, establishing that such weapons could never again be justified for use. However, the strategic value lies instead in the threat of nuclear use. This strategy acts as a check on potential aggressors, primarily aimed at deterring Soviet potential expansion and preventing future nuclear conflicts.

Bernard Brodie's assertion serves as a fundamental pillar for this discussion, advocating that the primary function of military force transformed to averting war, rather than winning them, emphasizing the role of deterrence. However, Lackey points out that the deployment of deterrence faced skepticism regarding its actual effectiveness, questioning whether nuclear threats indeed staved off various Soviet actions throughout the Cold War.

Effectiveness of Deterrence

Lackey presents compelling cases where nuclear threats failed to deter aggressive actions by the USSR, including events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This inconsistency leads to the inquiry into whether the fear of nuclear warfare actually contributes to global stability or inadvertently perpetuates cycles of aggression and proliferation. He proposes that the assumption detractors of nuclear weaponry represent a phenomenon of fear-driven outcomes, where deterrents fail to create a genuinely secure geopolitical climate and could even escalate tensions, leading to accidental conflicts.

Decision-Making Principle: Utilitarian Calculations

The essay delves into specific decision-making principles under uncertainty, as Lackey proposes four rules: Minimax, Dominance, Disaster Avoidance, and Expected Value Maximization.

  1. Minimax Principle: This principle suggests that policies should be chosen to ensure that the worst possible outcome is better than any alternative policy’s worst outcome. In utilitarian terms, Lackey argues that utilizing nuclear disarmament can minimize the destruction of human life, thus aligning with the moral calculations prioritizing the preservation of life.

  2. Dominance Principle: This principle favors choices yielding outcomes that cannot be improved, regardless of others' actions. Lackey contends that this principle showcases the moral superiority of nuclear disarmament, as it reduces potential catastrophic events compared to strategies maintaining nuclear arsenals.

  3. Disaster Avoidance Principle: In contexts where probability assessments of outcomes vary, involving high uncertainties regarding nuclear conflict, the focus should shift to minimizing the chance of disasters occurring. Here, lack of precise probabilities affirms that complete disarmament could curtail the odds of global nuclear conflict, weighed against the potential for unilateral aggression by a nuclear power.

  4. Expected Value Maximization: This principle encompasses a broader assessment of outcomes based on their respective probabilities and impacts on overall utility. Despite the difficulty in quantifying nuclear conflict scenarios, Lackey emphasized that every possible approach aligns against the construction of a nuclear arsenal, advocating that disarmament could logically reduce the chances of devastating wars.

Pragmatic Considerations: Real-World Implications

Lackey debates that despite the philosophical arguments favoring nuclear disarmament, a significant challenge lies in political feasibilities shaped by constituents’ fears and historical contexts prompting nuclear armament proliferation. Examples illustrate how conventional military forces deteriorated as nuclear strategy advanced, leading to potential vulnerabilities in the ability to conduct effective ground operations when needed.

Although the moral argument clearly sides with disarmament on utilitarian grounds, the political environment often resists it. Historically, this resistance manifests as a preference for maintaining nuclear deterrents over pursuing disarmament, driven by fears of the unknown and potential vulnerabilities.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The essay culminates with a call for rigorous analysis and consideration of ethics in geopolitical military strategy, posing the hypothesis that unilateral nuclear disarmament may yield superior outcomes for international peace, especially amid complex multilateral scenarios. The focus must shift to addressing the fears surrounding disarmament, promoting an informed discussion on successful diplomatic resolutions towards disarmament, allowing nations to break free from the cycles of aggression and nuclear arms races.