Nuclear weapons give rise to a prudential problem as they give rise to a moral problem. When nuclear deterrence is assessed in terms of the traditional norms, morality and prudence are thrown into conflict, but when one seeks to go beyond these norms, other conflicts arise. The moral problem is the conflict between different moral approaches, represented by the moral dilemma. The prudential problem is the conflict between two arguments, one that nuclear deterrence is prudentially preferable to conventional deterrence and the other that it is not. But there is an important logical difference between the moral problem and the prudential problem. The moral problem is a conflict between two different assessment approaches, whereas the prudential problem is a conflict within a single assessment approach, that of maximizing the expected value of the consequences in terms of the nation's military security. So there is not the kind of obstacle to the solution to the prudential problem that there is to the solution to the moral problem. The prudential problem is solvable simply by determining whether the better consequences lie with nuclear deterrence or with conventional deterrence. There are practical difficulties in determining this, but no obstacles in principle. The nature of the prudential problem and the beginnings of a solution to it are developed in this chapter.

The prudential problem, like the moral problem, can arise when one attempts to avoid the conflict between prudence and morality discussed in Chapter 1. The argument in Chapter 2 was an attempt to avoid the conflict through a broadening of the moral perspective beyond the norms of the just-war tradition.