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

Only those who are ideologically opposed to military programs think of the defense budget as the first and best place to get resources for social welfare needs.

The widespread diffusion of nuclear weapons would make many nations able, and in some cases also create the pressure, to aggravate an on-going crisis, or even touch off a war between two other powers for purposes of their own.

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

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.

New developments in weapon systems during the 1950s and early 1960s created a situation that was most dangerous, and even conducive to accidental war.

I'm against ignorance.