Anything that reduces war-related destruction should not be considered altogether immoral.

In 1960 I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war, to ways of reducing the likelihood of such a war, and to methods for coping with the consequences should war occur despite our efforts to avoid it.

Deterrence itself is not a preeminent value; the primary values are safety and morality.

Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.

Nuclear war is such an emotional subject that many people see the weapons themselves as the common enemy of humanity.

I am against the whole cliche of the moment.

From a scientific perspective there is some indication that a nuclear war could deplete the earth's ozone layer or, less likely, could bring on a new Ice Age - but there is no suggestion that either the created order or mankind would be destroyed in the process.