*Editor’s Note: The following is a thoughtful Christian perspective on a difficult topic. There isn’t one, official Christian view on war in general, or on nuclear war in particular. This article makes for a helpful response in that it articulates a well-grounded Christian perspective but makes room for differences of opinion.
The question of nuclear war is complex and touches upon several profound issues. First is the question of human lives and suffering. Nuclear war has the potential to cause unprecedented suffering and loss of life. Second, the environment will be catastrophically impacted, causing long-term damage and how we view our responsibility to steward creation both now and for future generations. Third, we must examine the moral obligations of nations and their leaders to their people and to the world around them—including foreign entities—to ensure global stability.
This question is even more immediate in my current ministry context. I serve at a church that is less than fifteen miles from Whiteman Air Force Base, where the B2 strategic bomber, a strategic nuclear platform, is based. Because of this, Whiteman AFB is high on the list of targets for enemies of the United States in the event of a nuclear attack. This realization causes several people in my church and community to have questions about the morality of nuclear war, how to view such an event before it occurs, and how to respond if we should survive an attack.
Ethical Views on Nuclear War
There are at least three different ethical views on the question of nuclear war. The first view is that of the proponents of the just war theory. Those who hold this perspective argue that nuclear weapons can ethically be justified if used in a manner that meets the requirements for a just war: just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, proportionality, and last resort.[1] In such a case, nuclear war can be used as a deterrent to prevent larger-scale conflicts and help maintain global stability. The reasoning behind this is that if the use of nuclear weapons can prevent a greater evil or prevent larger devastations, it may be morally permissible, provided that the criteria are met.
A second perspective is a pacifist perspective. Those who hold this view argue that nuclear war is inherently unethical because it causes indiscriminate suffering and violates the biblical principles of peace (Matthew 5:9; Romans 12:18) and sanctity of life (Genesis 1:27; Exodus 20:13). In this view, nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable under any circumstances, and nonviolent avenues toward conflict resolution are to be chosen.
“There are at least three different ethical views on the question of nuclear war.”
A third view is a realist perspective. In this case, the ethical considerations of nuclear war are secondary to the primary goal of national security. Nuclear capability is seen as a practical tool to deter other nations from aggression and to prevent a global conflict. In this case, the end justifies the means, and the good outweighs the negative consequences. Instances of short-term suffering are outweighed by the longer-term and larger-scale benefits of maintaining security and stability as a nation.
The Role of Government
The Bible teaches that a government’s responsibility is to maintain order, uphold justice, and protect its citizens. In Romans 13:1-4, Paul emphasizes that governing authorities are established by God as servants for the common good. They are charged with the responsibility of punishing wrongdoing and rewarding righteousness, wielding the “sword” for the common good. Peter describes the same responsibilities of leadership (1 Peter 2:14), again underscoring the role of authority to punish evildoers and commend those who do good. Passages such as these suggest that governments have a moral obligation to ensure stability for society and to protect life, and to do so through the pursuit of justice and peace.
In the context of war, these responsibilities take on a greater significance. While the Bible does not specifically address nuclear war, it does provide a framework for understanding the moral weight of any kind of warfare. Governments must carefully weigh their actions to ensure that they align with principles of justice and protection. The use of military force, including war, must be guided by a commitment to just causes, such as defending against oppression or preserving peace. The catastrophic potential of nuclear war only serves to intensify the impact of their decisions.
“The use of military force, including war, must be guided by a commitment to just causes, such as defending against oppression or preserving peace.”
The theory of just war, mentioned above, offers a framework that seeks to balance the realities of war with the ethical teaching of the Bible. This perspective acknowledges that, while war is a tragic consequence of human sinfulness, there are circumstances in which war may be morally justifiable in order to fulfill the government’s responsibility to maintain order and protect the innocent.
The principles of a just war theory can be divided into two categories: jus ad bellum (justice in going to war) and jus in bello (justice in the conduct of war). Jus ad bellum emphasizes that war should only be undertaken for a just cause, such as self-defense or protecting others from tyranny or aggression. War must be declared by a legitimate authority, one not bent upon seeking vengeance or conquest. And war must be pursued only after more peaceful attempts at resolution have been exhausted.
The second principle, jus in bello, focuses on the ethical conduct of war, ensuring that any actions taken in war are proportionate and discriminate. Proportionality dictates that a proper level of force is employed and that excess harm is avoided when possible. Discrimination mandates that military targets be identified and distinguished from civilian targets, striving to protect innocent lives as much as possible. Adhering to such principles reflects values such as justice, mercy, and the sanctity of human life (principles described in Deuteronomy 20).[2]
“Proportionality dictates that a proper level of force is employed and that excess harm is avoided when possible.”
Principles such as these provide a framework for engaging in war in a way that aligns with the government’s responsibility to uphold justice and protect the vulnerable. While this theory does not remove the tragic realities of war, and the catastrophic impact it can have on individual lives or communities, it does help ensure that war is conducted with moral restraint and a pursuit of peace, reflecting a biblical call for righteousness even in times of conflict.
As the church, most of us may not be called to lead in government, although those who do so should make decisions in accordance with biblical principles. We should, however, vote for laws, principles, and leaders that reflect biblical values, and we ought to pray for our leaders as they lead. But even with these limitations, how does our Christian faith form our view of how government ought to engage or not engage in nuclear war? To answer that, we must turn our attention to the following considerations.
Character: What Christlike character traits ought to form our view of nuclear war?
A person’s character is a matter of virtues and values. As Christians, our goal is to have the character of Christ—to cultivate his virtues and value what he values. There are several key biblical teachings that help provide a framework of virtues and values in considering our response to the possibility of nuclear war. These characteristics are essential to establishing a fully informed position about the ethical status of such an event.
First, the Bible frequently underscores the sanctity of human life. Beginning in the creation account of Genesis, the Bible describes mankind as being formed in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This is a foundational value that provides the basis for numerous ethical considerations. In addition, the commandment to not murder (Exodus 20:13) provides the basis for a high regard for human life and prohibits the unnecessary taking of human life.[3] In a nuclear war, the potential for massive civilian casualties challenges the biblical command to protect and cherish life.
Second, the Bible frequently advocates for the pursuit of peace and reconciliation as core virtues. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states that peacemakers are blessed (Matthew 5:9). Paul encourages believers to live at peace with one another (Romans 12:18). The Old Testament also looks toward a future of peace, when people turn their swords into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4). These passages seem to call for peaceful resolutions to conflict and the avoidance of unnecessary violence, although in view of the just war theory, certain responses of violence may be acceptable. In the case of nuclear war, the massive scale of devastation suggests that a morally superior choice is to pursue peace and reconciliation over conflict.
“These passages seem to call for peaceful resolutions to conflict and the avoidance of unnecessary violence, although in view of the just war theory, certain responses of violence may be acceptable.”
Third, the Bible emphasizes the importance of justice and moral responsibility, encouraging us to “act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). This implies that decisions, including those involving war, should align with the biblical principles of justice and righteousness. Additionally, the concept of stewardship in the Bible requires us to care for creation, including the environment, and to avoid actions that cause harm or suffering. Nuclear war does not seem to be compatible with these responsibilities.
Finally, the Bible teaches that leadership should be exercised with integrity and accountability. Leaders are described as shepherds responsible for the well-being of their people (Ezekiel 34:2-4; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Ethical leadership requires decisions that protect the welfare of others. Such decisions may include the choice to wage war but should only be done so after considering the long-term implications for humanity and the rest of creation.
Commands: What biblical commands ought to form our view of nuclear war?
There are several biblical teachings that offer clear guidance on the morality of nuclear war. These commands challenge the notion of nuclear war and emphasize the need to pursue non-nuclear options. First, we are called to pursue peace (Matthew 5:9; Romans 12:18). These passages underscore the importance of seeking reconciliation and avoiding conflict when possible. Dialogue and negotiation may offer solutions that prevent unnecessary violence (Proverbs 3:31) and revenge (Romans 12:19).
A second command is the call to act justly (Micah 6:8). All decisions, including those regarding warfare, should be guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and righteousness. Pursuing justice means that we strive for outcomes that protect the innocent and minimize harm and suffering.
A third command is that we care for creation; we are to be stewards of what God has entrusted us with (Genesis 2:15). This mandate requires responsible management and stewardship of creation and the environment. The long-term effects of radiation from nuclear war are inconsistent with the biblical command to steward creation, suggesting that such actions should be avoided if possible.
“There are several biblical teachings that offer clear guidance on the morality of nuclear war.”
Finally, the commandment against murder (Exodus 20:13) reflects the Bible’s stance on taking an innocent life. Nuclear war, with the potential for large-scale civilian casualties, seems to directly violate this commandment. God’s desire to protect life runs counter to a method of warfare that causes such indiscriminate and extensive suffering and death.
Consequences: What consequences should we consider as we form our view of nuclear war?
Because of the commands and character traits found in Scripture about conflict and peace, there will be consequences, both intentional and unintended. Intentionally, I hope to help foster a culture that values peaceful resolution of conflict over aggression. By taking steps to point out and help address issues that emphasize the sanctity of human life and the human and environmental costs of nuclear war, I hope to display God’s values of peace and love for others to see. Promoting such values should aim to help reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, encourage peaceful alternatives, and help guard future generations from the devastating effects of a nuclear war.
However, there may be unintended consequences from upholding these values as well. One such consequence could be a perception of weakness or naivety in advocating for more peaceful conflict resolutions. Such a stance could be seen by aggressors as an opportunity to take action against a weaker nation. In case of this, I believe that our nation should project our strength, but in an ethical and just manner. Because I believe that there is an ethically sound way to view war, I don’t feel that we should allow other nations to take advantage of perceived weaknesses. We simply must be clear about our stance and seek peaceful resolution before all else.
“Intentionally, I hope to help foster a culture that values peaceful resolution of conflict over aggression.”
Facts: What questions of fact should we ask in forming our view?
There are some pertinent questions that must be asked and answered when considering the morality of nuclear war.
First, we must consider what the actual capacity for destruction a nuclear war may cause, both in immediate and long-term effects. The devastation of nuclear weapons would be immense, with immediate effects consisting of explosive damage and widespread radiation exposure, impacting both military and civilian infrastructures. In this case, if Whiteman AFB were to be targeted, the immediate damage would likely devastate the surrounding communities, including my own town of Sedalia. More long-term effects include environmental damage due to nuclear fallout, land and water contamination, and environmental impact. These effects require careful ethical consideration before the use of nuclear weapons can be justified.
A second question that must be considered is how much our capacity for nuclear war may deter other nations from choosing to wage such a war.[4] This is essentially what the Cold War was built on, with nations prevented from executing a nuclear strike only because the response would be fierce and immediate. In this case, perhaps the ability to project force with nuclear armaments is morally superior to actually using them and could prevent a large-scale nuclear crisis. Level-headedness is essential in our leadership.[5]
“Level-headedness is essential in our leadership.”
A third question revolves around what should be done if nuclear capacity falls into the wrong hands, such as a terrorist organization. Extremists may not hold to the same values and restraints as nations, and it could be much more difficult to predict their actions. In this case, the ethical question lies more along the lines of whom a nation might share nuclear technology with, whether that is another nation-state or a non-national organization, especially one which is less stable politically.
My View
It’s important for Christians to form their ethical views starting with the character of Christ and the commands of Scripture, and with consideration of the consequences. As such, here is how I articulate my view of nuclear war as a Christian.
As a person committed to integrity, compassion, and wisdom who also values peace, justice, and the sanctity of life (Genesis 1:27; Exodus 20:13), I will obey the Bible’s commands to seek peace (Matthew 5:9; Romans 12:18) and to act justly (Micah 6:8) by advocating for non-violent (Proverbs 3:31; Romans 12:19) and peaceful conflict resolution when possible in such a way that it helps to foster a more peaceful and secure world, reduces the risk of nuclear conflict, and promotes respect of human dignity and care for creation (Genesis 2:15).
It’s true that I am only one church leader, not a leader in the government or military. But in my corner of the world, these are the virtues, values, and commitments I make in the face of this ethical issue. As nuclear war continues as an international threat, I would encourage you to prayerfully and carefully cultivate your own biblical convictions and commitments regarding nuclear war.
“I would encourage you to prayerfully and carefully cultivate your own biblical convictions and commitments regarding nuclear war.”
Points of Pushback
In response to peaceful conflict resolution that seeks to avoid the risks of nuclear war, some may push back with different perspectives.
First, some may say that maintaining nuclear capability is necessary for a nation’s security. In response, while retaining some measure of protection is certainly expected, stockpiling nuclear weapons is a risk. In some situations, a hot-headed response could occur, accidents could take place, and communication can be misunderstood. In addition, it seems that relying on our nuclear capacity encourages fear and mistrust more than peaceful communication and cooperation with other nations. Again, while some protection is necessary, it seems like there could be better ways to approach peaceful resolution.
A second pushback revolves around the idea that eliminating nuclear weapons is unrealistic. In my mind, this pushback holds some merit, since communication is necessary between stable nations but is unlikely to take place with unstable nations or terrorist organizations. However, a theory of just war provides the means of addressing some of these situations with, for example, preemptive strikes or controlled retaliation, without resorting to large-scale destruction. A possible example of this is the atomic response against Japan in World War II.[6] It can be argued that the actions of the US prevented a much wider spread of death and destruction. Projecting strength and protecting our interests is necessary but needs to be handled prudently.
“While retaining some measure of protection is certainly expected, stockpiling nuclear weapons is a risk.”
A third pushback to this perspective is that seeking peaceful resolutions could be viewed as a sign of weakness, and a strong stance is necessary to protect ourselves. However, promoting peace does not equate to weakness. Instead, it demonstrates a commitment to ethical principles and a more stable world in which to live. Protective force can be demonstrated through other means, and keeping a higher view of life and the environment is the right thing to do. Ethical leadership actually projects more strength and trust and creates a safer world in which we all may live.
Conclusion
Nuclear war is not an easy topic to approach. While I have outlined my views here, as I continue to consider this, I suspect my views will continue to be refined and adjusted. With the placement of a strategic military installation nearby, this is a continual discussion among many in my church and community. Some have logical responses, and some are more fearful, but a logical and reasoned response will help many to find peace of mind as they consider the ethics of nuclear war.
[1] Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, Fourth edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 305-307.
[2] Rae, Moral Choices, 305-307.
[3] Capital punishment is one example of an exception to this prohibition.
[4] Many non-absolutists hold that nuclear deterrence is necessary for “national sovereignty.” See Leslie Stevenson, “Is Nuclear Deterrence Ethical?” Philosophy 61, no. 236 (April 1986): 212.
[5] This was the determination Second Vatican Council in 1965. See Robert W. Tucker, “Morality and Deterrence.” Ethics 95, no. 3 (April 1985): 473.
[6] Rae, Moral Choices, 303.