Student Name Instructor Course Date “Bishops Statesman On the Bombing of Innocent” and “MAD Is the Moral Position” Introduction The use of nuclear weapons to protect a nation’s borders as well as its civilians has always been a controversial issue since time immemorial. While others argue in support of the doctrine of counterforce and nuclear war waging others argue in support of MAD. As such the arguments by both sides of the divide focus on what is considered to be moral or ethical. Nuclear war waging reasoning is seen as less humane and politically unrealistic as its costs are high. This is unlike the deterrence strategy which is essentially humane and politically realistic. However the reasoning on the nuclear attack in “Bishops Statesman On the Bombing of Innocent” by Wohlstteter Albert is more persuasive than in “MAD Is The Moral Position” as the focus is on limiting serious outcomes type of wars. As such nuclear waging and a counterforce is the best and moral strategy to prevent nuclear war. Conclusion In conclusion it is imperative to understand that “Bishops Statesmen On the Bombing of Innocents” nuclear strategy are more persuasive than MAD. Wohlstetter Andrew argues that counterforce attack and nuclear waging reasoning is the most moral and effective strategy than MAD. The political class cannot determine the exact collateral damage when it comes to nuclear war hence the MAD strategy is not the most effective. When there is a nuclear war the involved parties will engage in the war using their nuclear arsenal. The ethics and logic behind these articles’ points of view are indiscriminateness stability and full protection of the nuclear weapons combatants and the non-combatants at large. Works Cited Wohlstetter Albert. “Bishops Statesman On the Bombing of Innocent.” Kattenburg Paul K. “MAD Is the Moral Position” [...]
Read the two short articles and write a clear, concise, and well-constructed essay arguing in favor of the the more persuasive of the two positions. THe article should clearly address the logic and ethics behind that article's point of view and in contrast to the opposing article.