Publication

This paper argues that the way in which the moral debate on nuclear weapons is framed needs to change. To make this argument, the author examines the three major schools of thought - consequentialism, just war and deontology - that engage in this debate and argues that there needs to be a move away from the security-focused, consequentialist discourse that predominates the debate. This is because he thinks that nuclear strikes are better seen for what they are rather than what purpose they serve and that their moral status should be assessed on the suffering they inflict.