ABSTRACT
U.S. nuclear defense policy seeks to combine and compromise the competing strategies of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and Counterforce. MAD recommends the deployment of nuclear weapons capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on an adversary's industrial and population centers. US nuclear defense policy endorses Counterforce for a limited attack and MAD for a massive attack, thereby attempting to secure the credibility of Counterforce to deter a limited attack and the credibility of MAD to deter a massive attack. Counterforce recommends responding to nuclear attack in a manner that is proportionate to the severity of the attack. Any discussion of moral constraints must presuppose one of the most fundamental principles of morality, namely, the "ought" implies "can" principle. For Gregory Kavka, a policy of threatening massive nuclear retaliation is justified provided that a nation threatens to retaliate with a massive use of nuclear weapons only to prevent the occurrence of those circumstances in which it would so retaliate.
