It comes as no surprise that pacifism presents an important challenge to major-power policies when we consider ethical issues regarding weapons of mass destruction. In the preceding chapter, Robert L. Holmes has offered clear and careful explanations of a broad range of pacifist objections to the continuing development, proliferation, and use of such weapons. In the process he dispels the myth of deterrence and makes a pacifist case for disarmament. While Holmes and I do not always agree about pacifism, our points of disagreement are few and small; my remarks below in reaction to his chapter more often extend and amplify his arguments than contest them.

It is always a bit awkward for pacifists to participate in a project such as this, since pacifists hold a view that is held by relatively few, and they are typically ignored or even ridiculed by those embracing more conventional values. For this reason it is important to include at least a brief response to some of the more common objections to pacifism at the outset.

Pacifists get used to questions about reacting to a mugger, confronting Hitler, being self-righteous, self-sacrificial, and especially about being unrealistic. Perhaps the most effective forms of refutation of any idea are neglect and ridicule. It is easier to neglect or ridicule a challenging idea than to engage it. Name calling aside, the most common objection to pacifism is a form of “Be realistic.”