Deus Vult: The Ethics of Arms Sales and Nuclear Deterrence

The idea of allowing other states to procure certain arms, regardless of whether they are of strategic value to the state, must be prohibited if there is a credible risk of committing human rights violations. This is not just a careful calculation of possibilities, but rather a moral necessity. As a devout Catholic who adheres to the social teachings of the Catholic Church, I must uphold the moral compass the doctrines of the Church entails. 

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church asserts, particularly in paragraph 511, that arms to be exchanged becomes morally unjust when the suppliers of said arms intentionally contribute to the atrocities to be caused by the procured weapons. This entails that there is no strategic alliance that can override this moral decision. 

When weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) reach the hands of those who would utilize them against human life and the broader population, the supplier of arms will also bear the co-responsibility for the result of the inflicted damage. This conclusion is supported by another Catholic doctrine, particularly on the cooperation with evil, which holds that material cooperation in another person’s sins will make the one cooperating with the evil blameworthy in equal relation to the atrocities to be committed. 

There is no geopolitical, economic, alliance-building interest that can equal the harms when a state cooperates with another state that inflicts credible human rights violations. Instead, the international order must establish a firmer standard on the sale of arms, require a more rigorous examination on its impact on human rights, and automatically suspend any transaction of weapons to states found guilty of credible human rights violations.

On the topic of nuclear deterrence, the Catholic Church holds a more unambiguous position. Pope Francis, in his Geneva Conference address in 2017 and his papal encyclical Laudato Si, proclaims that the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons for deterrence is morally problematic. The encyclical holds that the permanent threat of massively disproportionate destruction renders the possession of nuclear weapons unjustifiable by any criterion of the Church’s just war doctrine. 

Nuclear weapons do not make a catastrophic event less likely; rather, they make it perpetually possible, held at bay only by the rationality of those states who own them, which, as history shows, is not as safe as we might assume. Authentic security as defined by the Catholic Church, in the context of these WMDs, is built through nuclear disarmament, dialogue, and a patient development of international institutions genuinely capable of dissolving conflict without the risk of total destruction.

Sean Iverson Uy-Buraga is an International Studies student at Far Eastern University - Manila. Deeply interested in Catholic theology, he is a dedicated advocate for faith-based diplomacy, exploring the essential relationship of religious values and global governance.