Introduction

This is the website for the Morality of the Nuclear Deterrent flowchart - an analysis of deterrent morality configured as a 'decision tree' to help people decide where they stand and to make national decision makers more accountable.

Last year the UK government took a decision to start the development project for renewal of its nuclear deterrent - the 'Trident replacement'. This time there was at least a consultation and a parliamentary debate, but many doubted whether there had been sufficient consideration of the ethical dimension of the decision. Is it consistent with the standards which underpin the social fabric of our national life? How can we be confident that this is so? It is reasonable to ask that every responsible citizen should give this some effective consideration. The flowchart is intended to help this process.

Meanwhile we stand accused of hypocrisy in trying to deny the use of nuclear technology to others who might use it for weapons development. There has never been a more urgent time to examine our moral position. Ultimately this is up to you, personally. If you accept nuclear weapons for your defence, then morally you hold them in your own hands.

Nuclear morality flowchart

The chart is ready for you to download (updated on 25 March 2008):

Click here for the Nuclear morality flowchart (PDF, 50Kb)
Click here for background and informative notes (PDF, 53Kb)

(These items can be printed on two sides of an A3 sheet.)

What next ?

We continue to welcome constructive criticism and any helpful comments to
This site will be developed to enable people to register and enter their own 'solution' in terms of a route through the chart. We are currently seeking people to help create an interactive version of the flowchart. Specifications for the flowchart project can be found here.
And we will be happy to hear from anyone who thinks they can help the project
Please respond to Martin Birdseye
Tel: +44 (0)77 6274 6895
Email:

Getting it Right

This chart is for everyone. Therefore the logic must be right and all rational viewpoints must be accommodated. Some errors and omissions will emerge and will be corrected in due course. Some changes were made for the current issue (25/3/2008) as follows:

Question 34 is amended to be logically correct.
Reference numbers 10 and 12 are corrected.
Comment 45 is rephrased regarding responsibility, and amended to be inclusive of all the routes it may be approached by.
The main update is around questions 9, 10, 11. This area was originally about tactical nuclear weapons and currently examines the notion of deterrence based on a counter combatant strategy, i.e. by targeting only military installations to avoid loss of innocent lives. There was an assumption that having answered No to Q6 one would not accept any deliberate action which inevitably kills non-combatants. The latest change is to accommodate people who contend that it is acceptable that some innocent lives may be lost provided that this is not by intention and limited to 'as few non-combatants as possible'. Therefore Q10 now assumes that some innocent deaths will happen (as of course they would) and instead poses the moral question: Is it acceptable? Then Q11 can also be a moral question - in effect: How bad could be the consequences and is that acceptable?
Rather too many routes come to Comment 44. Some more differentiation of end positions may be useful. No changes made this time.