ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author believes that the only realistic and ethical approach to coping with the nuclear dilemma is mitigation. Among armed adversaries with access to nuclear weapons, the state must act on the premise that the nuclear dilemma cannot be completely overcome but only mitigated in various ways and different degrees. There are three principal ways of mitigating this dilemma: Make deterrence effective, reduce its dependence on nuclear weapons, and limit the use of nuclear weapons under effective political control if deterrence fails. In some circumstances these three objectives would coincide; in others they would conflict. One can best approach the art of striking the optimal balance among them by appraising them in the context of the maximalist/minimalist spectrum of mitigation as it pertains to the central issues of coping with the nuclear dilemma. The most contentious issue at stake in competing maximalist and minimalist moral claims is nuclear first-use in support of extended deterrence.
