In a nuclear age, a world in which more than a few nations possess the ability to wage a nuclear war, we wonder about ethical standards.  Historically, most people, thinking about the need to be prepared, that is, be ready to "deter" nuclear attack, have endorsed the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.  This is necessary, they say, to remove another nation's incentive to direct its nuclear armaments against their country.  It's just being realistic.  And practical.
     Out of this posture, the nuclear arms race was born.  It is a race which no one will win.  Consider an idea developed in the Fifties called MAD:  Mutually Assured Destruction.  If two nations were to engage in nuclear warfare, the end result would be the destruction of both.  In other words, the nations of the earth are are increasing their stores of nuclear weapons to prepare for something that will never happen.
     Is this logical?  Not really.  Although I have long been uneasy with the world's pursuit of nuclear weaponry, I found occasion to examine the issue afresh as I supervised a student this past year in his writing of a thesis on the ethics of nuclear proliferation.  Interestingly, while this student's initial objective was to demonstrate that nuclear proliferation was unethical but necessary, he ended up arguing that it was unethical, no qualifiers allowed. In light of the potential for global suffering and destruction as well as the illogical character of deterrence, he decided that, on balance, proliferation was unethical.  It violates every religious and secular standard about we treat our fellow human beings.
     Not surprisingly, when this student presented his thesis, a number of faculty pushed back, suggesting that he was being idealistic.  Perhaps he was.  Nonetheless, his point stands:  how can we argue that we wish to treat others as we would wish them to treat us when we are developing weapons which, in every way, enable us to do precisely the opposite?