Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 115

Special Feature

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal:
Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents
Nobumasa Akiyama
Professor, Hitotsubashi University“the readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings – against people whom
we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence it is not for us
to establish – and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the national structure upon which all
civilization rests, as though the safety and the perceived interests of our own generations
were more important than everything that has ever taken place or could take place in
civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity – anindignity of monstrous dimensions – oﬀered to God!”
George Kennan, The Nuclear Delusion, 1983: 206-7.
Introduction
On November 24, 2019, Pope Francis paid a visit to the A-bombed cities of Nagasaki andHiroshima. Thirty-eight years had passed since the ﬁrst papal visit to the A-bombed cities,
that of Pope John Paul II to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the meantime, the Cold War had
ended, and it has been believed that the risk of nuclear war among the major powers has
decreased, and the momentum for nuclear disarmament has gradually grown. President
Barack Obama’s speech on a “World Without Nuclear Weapons” in Prague in 2009 raised
awareness of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons (Obama, 2009).
The norm of calling out the inhumanity of nuclear weapons came to fruition as the Treaty
on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017, after three international conferenceson the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons held between 2012 and 2014. The
TPNW was adopted at the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2017 andentered into force on January 22, 2021, after being ratiﬁed by the 50 countries in October
2020 as required for it to enter into force. In addition, President Obama became the firstsitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima in 2016. Indeed, it can be said that there is a
growing movement to eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons from a moral perspective.
However, the risk of nuclear weapons, and tensions among nuclear powers have been rising

116

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9for decades even before and during the Obama administration (Mizumoto, 2009).
Some view that the international security environment surrounding the abolition of nuclear
weapons is becoming increasingly diﬃcult. The U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control regime is
now at the verge of collapse. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty)
between the U.S. and Russia expired in August 2019, and no agreement has been reached
between the two countries on the succeeding arrangement of the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START), which was extended for ﬁve years upon its expiration in 2021.
The growing tension between the U.S. and China over many aspects of political, economic
and military issues makes great power rivalries far more complicated and riskier as well.
It is not only the deterioration of strategic relations among the major powers that makes
th4e progress in nuclear disarmament difficult. Relations over nuclear weapons at theregional level have also worsened. In South Asia, competition between India and Pakistan
is becoming increasingly ﬁerce. In East Asia, the delay in North Korea’s denuclearizationis also a matter of serious international concern. Additionally, Iran’s nuclear activities
keep posing threats of nuclear proliferation and the deterioration of regional security in the
Middle East.
In such a challenging environment, encouraging many people around the world to once
again confront the human tragedy caused by nuclear weapons, or the result of war as “thework of man” (Pope John Paul II) will help to maintain the momentum of the citizens’
movement toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. In this regard, Pope Francis’ visit to
the A-bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have a signiﬁcant moralistic meaning in raising the awareness of each good citizen and renewing the determination of all
people to join in the quest for nuclear abolition.
In contrast to the “reality” of international politics, in which the role of nuclear weapons
seems to be reemphasized, the message of the Pope’s visit to the A-bombed cities reiterated
the urgent needs to face the question of nuclear ethics, stressing that a dependence on
nuclear deterrence is rather a fiction, and that the genuine truth is that dependence on
nuclear weapons does not make people safe but rather exposes them to great risks ofsurvival.
This essay discusses the divergence between the “idealistic” view of the inhumanityof nuclear weapons, symbolized by Pope Francis’ words, and the “realist” views of

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 117

acknowledging the signiﬁcance of nuclear weapons in international security in terms of thediﬀerent ethical systems on which they depend, and argues the possibility of bridging the
gap between the two by referring the interplay of Pope John Paul II and President Reagan
on nuclear ethics and deterrence1.
Two Messages from Pope Francis2
If we would like to understand Pope Francis’ thoughts on nuclear abolition from the papal
visit to the A-bombed cities, we need to read the two speeches at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
together.
What they have in common is a strong sense of urgency for the survival of humanity. The
theme of Pope Francis’ visit to Japan was “protect all life.” This is in line with the threethemes of the UN Agenda for Disarmament (“Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda
for Disarmament”) announced by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in June 2018:
disarmament to protect humanity, disarmament that saves lives, and disarmament for
the future generation (UN, 2018). As will be discussed later, how secular politicians canimplement the principles and morals that the Pope speaks of in their policies, and how toconnect the two, religion and secularism, are tough challenges. The fact that the Vaticanand the United Nations, both of which are symbolic associations of religious and secularcommunities, share the same sense of crisis for humanity and responsibility for future
generations demonstrates that the sense of crisis over the existence of nuclear weapons is
now widespread in the international community.
While the speeches in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are based on this sense of urgency, we cansee that they speak to diﬀerent audiences. The speech in Nagasaki focused on international
politics and the international community’s posture toward nuclear abolition, while thespeech in Hiroshima seems to be a philosophical message that appeals to each individual’s
conscience and how to deal with nuclear weapons.
The Pope described the situation in the international community as follows: The world is in
the midst of a “perverse dichotomy.” And the international community is taking the wrong
measures in its search for peace. In other words, it is trying to “defend and ensure stability
and peace through a false sense of security sustained by a mentality of fear and mistrust,”
relying on the existence of nuclear weapons, but such peace is not true peace.

118

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9Then what is true peace? In his speech in Hiroshima, Pope Francis said, “if we really wantto build a more just and secure society, we must let the weapons fall from our hands.” Thenhe quoted, “No one can love with offensive weapons in their hands” (SAINT PAUL VI,
United Nations Address, 4 October 1965, 10). And he asked the people, “How can we propose peace if we constantly invoke the threat of nuclear war as a legitimate recourse for the
resolution of conﬂicts?” Then he argued that a “true peace can only be an unarmed peace,”and peace is not “merely the absence of war, … but must be built ceaselessly.”
Another feature in the Nagasaki speech was the reference to the erosion of multilateralism.
The term itself is a general expression. However, it was a strong warning of growing, acutechallenges in maintaining stable relations among nations based on multilateral rules andarrangements, and the diﬃculties that the Review Process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) faces. He then called on the people to act quickly and appeal for the abolition of nuclear weapons based on “the principal international legal instruments of nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation,” including the TPNW. In the same context, he praisedon the work of the bishops of Japan, who launched an appeal for the abolition of nuclear
arms, implicitly urging the world to use “prayer, tireless work in support of agreements andinsistence on dialogue” as “weapons” to “put our trust and the inspiration of our eﬀorts tobuild a world of justice and solidarity that can oﬀer an authentic assurance of peace.” Thespeech appears to be structured in such a way that it could be interpreted as implicitly urging the Japanese government to work with it, or to encourage it to work towards building
consensus in a world of justice and solidarity.
The Nagasaki speech urges that, in order to “make this ideal a reality,” the involvement of“the part of all: individuals, religious communities and civil society, countries that possess
nuclear weapons and those that do not, the military and private sectors, and internationalorganizations.” It says that humanity needs to be united in a common understanding of
ethics regarding nuclear weapons, and that this unity will be made possible by joint andconcerted action, inspired by “the arduous yet constant eﬀort to build mutual trust and thus
surmount the current climate of distrust” which now pervades the world.
The Latin word for “pope” is summus pontifex. Summus means “supreme,” and pontifex
means a member of the council of priests in ancient Rome. And the word pontifex is said
to be derived from “facio (to make) pons (bridge).” This could be interpreted to mean that
the Pope serves as a bridge between God and people since he was long regarded as themessenger of God. At the same time Pope Francis mentioned that dialogue is a great bridge

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 119

between cultures (Kelly and Pennington, 2020). As he exhorted that the whole point ofpolitics is to stand by each other, to face each other’s problems and to understand them, it
seems that when he talks about “bridge building,” he is aware of the importance of connecting the two, of how to embody ideals in the ﬁeld of politics and policy (reality) as well
as different cultures. This is indicative and suggestive of the growing demand for bridgebuilding for ﬁlling various gaps and divides surrounding nuclear disarmament, and discussion on how to bring the nuclear weapon states, nuclear dependent states, and the states that
support the TPNW into serious dialogue.
His speech in Hiroshima seemed to emphasize a different dimension on the discourse
on nuclear disarmament, as not explicitly referring to the reality of international politics
surrounding nuclear disarmament, but focusing on a very philosophical message thatappealed to the conscience of each individual. It made it clear that the “use of atomic
energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons isimmoral,” and warned that humanity would be judged by God if it fails to work toward
the elimination of nuclear weapons. He goes on to say, when we “yield to the logic ofarms and distance ourselves from the practice of dialogue, we forget to our detriment that,even before causing victims and ruination, weapons can create nightmares.” It was a grave
concern that Pope Francis expressed with regard to the reality that we might too easily
become complacent in the logic of nuclear deterrence, forgetting the reality of the very
perilous situation in which we find ourselves: a society at risk of being destroyed in an
instant. He also warned that the next generation may face more diﬃcult circumstances andhoping for action from the youth.
The Pope acknowledged the existence of social, cultural, and economic diﬀerences, which
can be obstacles to building peace, and therefore said that it was critical to “never justify
the attempt to impose our own particular interests upon others. Indeed, those differences
call for even greater responsibility and respect.” As a result, “political communities arecalled to commit themselves to work “ ʻfor the common cause’, for the good of all,” eventhough they may legitimately diﬀer in terms of culture and economic growth. He urged theneed to overcome diﬀerences and face each other sincerely for the sake of peace based onjustice for all humanity.
In this way, the Hiroshima speech explains the philosophy of peace and the need for
optimism and determination as a way to prepare for the practice of that philosophy. The
message that emerges is that we should not be indifferent to the suffering of people, that120

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9

we should not turn a blind eye to the tragedy of destruction, that a world without nuclear
weapons is possible if people have a strong will, and that we need to overcome our diﬀerences and work together to achieve it for the sake of human survival.
The two speeches of Pope Francis reiterate the justiﬁcation and necessity of reexamining
the existence of nuclear weapons from the perspective of cosmopolitan ethics, as theinternational security environment becomes increasingly severe, the tendency to justify
the role of nuclear weapons gains momentum, and the international community becomesincreasingly divided between nuclear abolition and nuclear deterrence and rejects dialogue.
Contending Ethical Systems on Nuclear Weapons
The two messages, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, paint a very clear picture of Pope Francis’
wish and approach to nuclear abolition with cosmopolitanism ethics and ethics of virtue.
Nevertheless, the process by which the Pope’s thoughts and teachings are realized throughreal politics is not so simple.
The international community is divided in many ways. One of the most serious of thesedivisions is probably the one over their positions on the development, storage and use of
nuclear weapons. On one hand, there is the argument that the existence of nuclear weapons
is an important element of international security, and that nuclear weapons are necessary
to ensure peace in the international community and the security of one’s own country.
According to this logic, nuclear deterrence is necessary to defend countries from enemy
attack and to prevent the escalation of an ongoing conflict (Morgan, 1977). It is also said
that in regions where the security environment is unstable, such as Northeast Asia, SouthAsia, and the Middle East, the risk of nuclear proliferation is growing, which suggests that
nuclear weapons are a means to ensure the survival of the country for those who believe
their position is vulnerable. In these regions, there is a deep-rooted sense of mutual distrust,leading to a security dilemma (Lind, 2014). Nuclear weapons are then viewed as a responseto this security dilemma3.
On the other hand, there is an argument by abolitionists that the only way to avoid theextinction of humanity is to realize a “world without nuclear weapons.” According to thisargument, the use of nuclear weapons, whether intentional or based on miscalculation or
misunderstanding, could have catastrophic inhumane consequences. Therefore, nuclear
weapons should be banned and the abolition of it should be pursued (ICRC, 2015).

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 121

Between these two lines of thinking, there is a wide gap and deep-rooted conflicts, both
policy and emotional, and it does not appear to be easy to close the divide. Meanwhile,some countries, such as Japan and some European countries, have taken the position of“bridging the gap” by ﬁrst ﬁnding a common ground topic that both sides can discuss at thesame table, and then getting together to discuss the relationship between humanity, national
security, and nuclear weapons, and what can be done to reduce nuclear risks (EPG, 2019).
The two lines of argument over nuclear weapons are rooted in differences in views andbeliefs on security and international politics. However, another reason why the divide
between them is so hard to bridge may be the diﬀerence in ethical systems on which theirworld views are premised and constructed.
The diﬀerences in ethical systems can be categorized along two axes. The ﬁrst is the geographical scope of ethics and responsibility. The position that recognizes the security roleof nuclear weapons assumes that governments in the modern international system, which isbuilt around the institution of the sovereign state, are primarily responsible for their clients
within the sovereign state. Therefore, the responsibility and morality owed by the stateremains within the borders and is difficult to reach outside the border. In contrast to suchstate-centric moral values, the position that recognizes nuclear weapons as an absolute eviland strongly promotes nuclear abolition has an ethical value system of internationalism thatsees it as a matter of universal justice that transcends national borders.
Another contrast exists between the ethics of virtue or ethics of consequence (Nye, 1986).
The former focuses on the nature of the person doing the deed, or personal integrity, while
the latter focuses on the consequences of the deed.
According to the former logic, actions that violate moral rules or absolute good andconsequently violate individual conscience or moral integrity are neither acceptable nor
tolerable, even if they bring about good results in the aggregate. Applying this logic tonuclear deterrence, mutually assured destruction collateralizes the vulnerability of nonmilitary targets such as cities, but the very act of holding their non-military value hostage
would be against morality (Lee, 1985).
Meanwhile, let us now assume that the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the use of
nuclear weapons (intentional or unintentional) is morally unacceptable, and that one ﬁnds
absolute good in the goal of the act of nuclear abolition and acts accordingly. The result

122

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9would be a security dilemma that could lead to armed conflicts that had previously been
contained by nuclear deterrence (Nye, 1986). However, based on the logic of the ethics ofvirtue, the universal good of nuclear abolition may still prevail over the responsibility andmorality of the consequences to one’s own people. How can such a dilemma be answered?
(Doyle II, 2015)
On the other hand, as Morgenthau states, there is the idea that political morality exists only
when political consequences are taken into account (Morgenthau, 1985). Broadly speaking,the modern international society can be seen as a collection of sovereign states. There, theprinciple of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states is regarded as oneof the most important norms for maintaining international order, and states are assumed toact to protect their own people and territories and pursue their national interests. Then, it
may not be said that it is immoral to raise the threat of using nuclear weapons to preventan adversary from committing an act against humanity, namely the use of nuclear weapons
against its own citizens, and to protect its citizens from the threat of nuclear weapons.
Even if the use of nuclear weapons is inhumane and ethically unacceptable, it can beinterpreted as relatively acceptable to use the threat of nuclear weapons as a lesser evil inorder to prevent such an “absolute evil” from taking place. An example is the case of deterring an opponent such as a “rogue state” that does not comply with international laws andnorms that form an important element of the international order. They are often referred
as a reason why nuclear deterrence would be more eﬀective as conventional deterrence is
ineﬀective and they would not consider proportionality in escalation.
The Interplay of Two Authorities on Nuclear Logic: Pope John Paul II and
President Reagan in the 1980s
The security logic (or a sovereign states’ moral system that prioritize state’s pursuit ofsurvival and national interests) that justiﬁes the possession of nuclear weapons or nuclear
deterrence appears to be very difficult to integrate with moral arguments in the current
deteriorating international environment. However, there was a moment when the two moral
systems seemed to converge to some extent in the 1980s, at the end of the Cold War. It was
the interplay between Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan over nuclear deterrence, and debate on nuclear ethics triggered by them.
The Catholic Church, with its 1.3 billion adherents, has a tremendous influence in theBridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 123

international community, but more broadly, the Pope is a leader not only in other Christiandenominations but also in the religious world as a whole. His influence is mainly on the
moral and spiritual side of people, but the Pope’s occasional comments on various issues
facing society have a certain impact on the thinking of leaders and policy makers of various
countries (Byrnes, 2019). However, the actual impact on international politics depends not
only on how many people, including the faithful, are moved by the Pope’s words, but also
on the politicians who receive them.
Pope Francis’ message urges all people, nuclear powers, non-nuclear powers, individuals,
churches, other religions, societies, economies, and all sectors to join the movement for
nuclear abolition. But it is also true, after all, that secular leaders are caught up in the pressing realities of daily politics, as exampled by President Barack Obama’s attitudes toward
nuclear weapons.
In his “World Without Nuclear Weapons” speech in Prague in 2009, President
Obama stated that as the first country to use nuclear weapons, the United States has a“moral responsibility” to work toward a nuclear-free world, and in a sense, created a great
opportunity to bring the immorality of nuclear weapons back into the international spotlight(Obama, 2009). During his visit to Hiroshima in May 2016, President Obama described thetragedy caused by nuclear weapons as “death fell from the sky” (Obama, 2016). He seemed
to suggest that the tragedy of Hiroshima was beyond human comprehension. Since he had
indicated to the American public that he did not intend to apologize for the tragedy, it islikely that he used this ambiguous phrase because he felt that it would not be acceptable touse an expression that would make clear the responsibility of the United States. President
Obama’s speech suggests the diﬃculty for a leader of a sovereign state in a secular society
to balance moral responsibility with accountability to a domestic audience.
When considering the interaction between religious and secular leaders in the field of
nuclear disarmament, the relationship between Pope John Paul II and U.S. President Ronald
Reagan in the 1980s is illustrative. Of course, I do not intend to simply argue causality, but
it can be said that this kind of ideological resonance between the two set the tone for the
thinking and debate over nuclear reduction under the East-West détente of the 1980s.
The two men have several things in common, but the most important, along with their dislike of Soviet communism, was their views on nuclear weapons. In his ﬁrst term, President
Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and took a hard line against it (Rowland

124

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9

and Jones, 2016). But at the same time, he believed that the concept of mutual assured
destruction (MAD), which was established by offering innocent civilians to the nuclear
threat of the other side, was morally incorrect. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, commonly known as the “Star Wars Initiative”) was seen as a symbol of a hard line against
the Soviet Union, but it was also based on a disavowal of MAD. President Reagan said
that SDI rendered “nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” and the only reason to seek
SDI was reducing nuclear danger (Reagan, 1983). In this context, it was natural for him topursue Pope John Paul II’s support for SDI, which he failed.
Pope John Paul II, who visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1981, spoke in Hiroshima of the
responsibility of science and technology, of the fear that nuclear weapons might be used,
and of the great eﬀect that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have on man’s conscience (PopeJohn Paul II, 1981). He also emphasized the importance of morality and “responsibility”
of the people to look back on the past, to think of Hiroshima as commitments to the future
and peace.
Meanwhile, in his speech at the UN Special Session on Disarmament in June 1982, hestated that although it was not an end in itself, nuclear deterrence could be judged as “amorally acceptable step on the way toward a progressive disarmament. In a sense, admitting harsh reality regarding nuclear weapons and the prospect for disarmament, this speech
could be seen as an attempt to pursue realism toward the realization of an ideal. It had
caused a stir not only within the Church but also among security researchers, sparking adebate on the ethics of nuclear weapons.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in its report, wrote that “the indiscriminate
destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their populations by either nuclear or conventional weapons never be permitted,” and even though they were “defensive response tounjust attack,” if they exceed the limits of proportionality, they are morally impermissible.”
As for deterrence, the report stated that “deterrence is not an adequate strategy as a longterm basis for peace,” and “no use of nuclear weapons which would violate the principles
of discrimination or proportionality may be intended in a strategy of deterrence.” “Themoral demands of Catholic teaching require resolute willingness not to intend or to do
moral evil even to save our own lives or the lives of those we love.”
The report also mentioned the ethical questions on limited nuclear war, and expressed its

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 125

skepticism about the real meaning of “limited” and said that given the just-war teaching on
reasonable hope of success in bringing about justice and peace, the responsibility of proofof meaningful limitation must be bore by those who assert such a notion.
This view of the Catholic Church has triggered reﬂection on the morality of nuclear weapons among practitioners and academics alike. The quote at the top of this essay is a part ofthe speech by George Kennan at Princeton in 1981, a prominent diplomat and researcher
who sent a long telegram from Moscow to his home country immediately after World War
II, which can be said to have shaped the U.S. policy of containment of the Soviet Unionand opened the history of the Cold War for the next 40 years (Kennan, 1983). Joseph Nye,
Jr. also argued for the ethical validity of nuclear use and deterrence in his book, Nuclear
Ethics (Nye, 1986).
As history has shown, these initiatives by secular and religious leaders never truly cameto a final reconciliation or fusion. However, thinking of the bleak times we live in today,
where in 2016 then-U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump said that a wall should
be built on the border with Mexico, to which Pope Francis responded, by saying that weshould build a bridge, not a wall, could the Church’s move towards “conscience,” towards
a positive view of the ideal of nuclear abolition, and towards ﬁnding a way of reconciling
it with reality, have some implications for the way in which we face diﬃcult issues today- what we might call “decency”? Could this be an inspiration for the way we deal with difﬁcult issues such as the total elimination of nuclear weapons today?
Conclusion
It would be a harsh reality if the concerted expression of moral demands by moral entrepreneurs and global civil society groups will not be enough to achieve nuclear disarmament.
This is not to say that moral pressure from such groups is not necessary. On the contrary,
without moral and ethical pressure, NPT signatories are unlikely to reconsider their nuclear
options. Rather, that demand must be linked to a series of eﬀorts to cause political interactions among rival states. It must resolve, transcend, or signiﬁcantly mitigate the dilemmasof security, status, and trust.
But can the dilemma between the diﬀerent moral and ethical systems be resolved? There isa kind of irony lurking. That is to say, in order to counter the nuclear threat, one has to admit
the rhetorical twist of justifying nuclear deterrence for the protection of one’s own people

126

広島平和研究：Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Volume 9on the basis of the assumption that the use of nuclear weapons is morally an absolute evil.
Such a logic is a restraint on the pursuit of a universal good, leaving the concerns of eachsovereign state intact. How can the morality and ethics of nuclear abolition, as a universal
value for humanity or/and motivated by humanitarian imperative, converge with the moral
and ethical system that defines the nature of sovereign states in the contemporary international society and justiﬁes nuclear deterrence as the responsibility of the state in the nationstate system that deﬁnes the social contractual relationship between government and people?
The existence of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest long-outstanding questions that
arouses a sense of crisis in the next generation against the current state of aﬀairs in international politics. Politics today no longer speaks of ideals while imposing a negative legacy
that the current generation created to the next generation, whose risk may not be recoverable. No matter how diﬃcult real politics is and how far away it is from being realized, it isstill important as a principle to deal with the problem, to face the diﬃculty sincerely and tokeep talking about the ideal by the realizing mutual responsibility to ensure a common future.
References
Byrnes, T. (2019) “The Enduring Power of the Papacy: Pope Francis and International Relations,”
Berkley Forum, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University,
https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/the-enduring-power-of-the-papacy-pope-francisand-international-relations.
Doyle II, T. E. (2015) “Moral and Political Necessities for Nuclear Disarmament: An Applied EthicalAnalysis,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9(2): 19-42.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2015) International Review of the Red Cross,97(899), Autumn 2015, https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irc97_3_web-reduced.
compressed.pdf.
Group of Eminent Persons for Substantive Advancement of Nuclear Disarmament (EPG), Chair’s
Report, 2019, https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000529774.pdf.
Kennan, G. (1983) The Nuclear Delusion: Soviet-American relations in the atomic age (Pantheon
Books, 1983).
Lee, S. P. (1985) “The Morality of Nuclear Deterrence: Hostage Holding and Consequences,” Ethics,
95(4): 549-566.
Lind, J, (2014) “Geography and the Security Dilemma in Asia,” Saadia Pekkanen, John Ravenhill, andRosemary Foot eds., The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia (Oxford University
Press, 2014).
Mizumoto, K. (2009) Kaku wa haizetsu dekiruka [Can nuclear weapons be abolished?] (Horitsubunkasha, 2009).
Morgan, P. M. (1977) Deterrence: A Conceptual Analysis (SAGE Publications, 1977).
Morgenthau, H. and Thompson, K. (1985) Politics Among Nations, 6th edition (McGraw-Hill, 1985).
Nye, Jr., J. S. (1986) Nuclear Ethics (The Free Press, 1986).
Obama, B.(2009) Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered, April 5, 2009, https://

Bridge-Building Between Two Morals Toward a Common Goal: Words of Popes and U.S. Presidents 127

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-oﬃce/remarks-president-barack-obama-prague-delivered.
Obama, B. (2016) Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan at Hiroshima Peace
Memorial, May 27, 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/27/
remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-abe-japan-hiroshima-peace.
Oﬃce for Disarmament Aﬀairs, the United Nations, (2018) Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda
for Disarmament, 2018, https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
sg-disarmament-agenda-pubs-page.pdf#view=Fit.
Pope Francis (2019a) ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Atomic
Bomb Hypocenter Park (Nagasaki), Sunday, November 24, 2019, https://www.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2019/documents/papa-francesco_20191124_messaggioarminucleari-nagasaki.html.
Pope Francis (2019b) ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER, Peace Memorial (Hiroshima), Sunday,
24 November 2019, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2019/
documents/papa-francesco_20191124_messaggio-incontropace-hiroshima.html.
Pope John Paul II (1982), Message to U.N. Special Session on Disarmament, #8, June 1982.
Pope John Paul II (1981a), “Appeal for Peace at Hiroshima”, February 25, 1981, https://www.cbcj.
catholic.jp/1981/02/25/3451/.
Pope John Paul II (1981b), ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO SCIENTISTS AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Hiroshima, February 25,
1981, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1981/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_
spe_19810225_giappone-hiroshima-scienziati-univ.html.
Rowland, R C.; Jones, J. M. (2016) “Reagan’s Strategy for the Cold War and the Evil Empire
Address,” Rhetoric & Public Aﬀairs 19 (3): 427 – 463. doi:10.14321/rhetpublaﬀa.19.3.0427.
Reagan, R. (1983) Reagan Announces “Star Wars,” (audio record), History, March 23, 1983, https://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-announces-star-wars.
Sagan, S. (1996-97) “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb”,
International Security, 21(3): 54-86, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28199624%2F1997
24%2921%3A3%3C54%3AWDSBNW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1.

Notes
1

2

3

Needless to say, power relations among states and morality are not the only factors that define
the behavior of states in international politics. The roles of international laws and international
regimes, in regulating the behavior of states also needs to be taken into account. However, thisessay will focus on the role of the moral systems as a guideline to be adhered to by policy makers indetermining their behavior including compliance with legal norms.
Quotes of Pope Francis in this section are from the two following addresses otherwise stated:
Address of the Holy Father on Nuclear Weapons in Nagasaki, and Address of the Holy Father at
Meeting for Peace in Hiroshima.
Sagan (1996-97) also added two rationales, namely the domestic political model, in which nuclear
weapons are considered as tools to advance parochial domestic bureaucratic interests, and the norms
model, in which nuclear weapons are considered as normative symbols of a state’s modernity andidentity. In terms of the linkage of these models with the argument of moral systems, it could be aninteresting question whether the norms model could be transformed in a way that nuclear weapons
would come to be considered as symbols of obsoleteness of state’s perspective on the future andcommon cause of human beings.