ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author presents an account somewhat different than James P. Sterba's of the deontological wrongness of nuclear deterrence. For Sterba it is the threat or intention to retaliate that is morally wrong with nuclear deterrence. The direction of US nuclear weapons policy toward a greater emphasis on counterforce targeting has caused great concern among members of the public and among many strategic theorists. Sterba claims that the implementation of his policy would be a form of minimum deterrence and that this policy avoids not only the moral liabilities of present policy, but the strategic liabilities as well. He does allow that a bluff of massive retaliation would be morally permissible if Soviet leadership in the future were to become more aggressive, but he believes that his argument shows that bluffing is morally excluded under present conditions.
