ABSTRACT
This chapter begins with some significant features of the choice situation in which nuclear threats are adopted as policy. A wide variety of discussions of nuclear deterrence, by both consequentialists and deontologists, agree that the strategy can be justified only if it is more likely than other available strategies to prevent some markedly greater evil. Leaders choose between one strategy—nuclear threats—that has an unknown greater probability of preventing Soviet domination but an unknown greater risk of nuclear devastation, and a second strategy—unilateral disarmament—that has an unknown greater probability of avoiding nuclear devastation but an unknown greater risk of Soviet domination. Choice of a nuclear strategy most closely resembles decisionmaking under uncertainty, yet the choice often is presented as if it were decisionmaking under risk. Nuclear devastation involves more deaths and probably more physical pain. Under Soviet domination, death will be less equally distributed, occurring more frequently among the US wealthy and the powerful.
