"...It ties together a wide range of arguments widely debated since 9/11 in an exceptionally tidy and readable form. A detailed defense of this frequent account of terrorism makes the first five chapters of the book well worth reading... Nathanson's lengthy critique of Walzer is one of the most central and powerful sections in the book.... " --Tamar Meisels, Tel-Aviv University, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
"....Clear, comprehensible, and thorough, this volume is also a personal work, showing a philosopher passionately going about the nuts-and-bolts work of argument and analysis on a contentious subject.... Recommended...." --S.D. Lake, Trinity Christian College, CHOICE
"...Stephen Nathanson has written a fine book on terrorism and its relation to the ethics of war. It is comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and full of close argument, shrewd insights, and sober judgment.... he achieves a clarity of presentation and simplicity of style that make the book very accessible. His use of realistic examples is another significant and engaging aspect of his approach.... the book's most original feature is Nathanson's attempt to defend an absolute prohibition on the resort to terrorist acts by using rule utilitarian reasoning to ground an absolute commitment to noncombatant immunity.... There are many other interesting topics addressed by Nathanson, and his excellent book will repay study by anyone concerned with the urgent conceptual and moral complexities posed by terrorism and war." --C.A.J. Coady, University of Melbourne, Social, Theory and Practice
"...Overall, Nathanson's book should appeal to academic professionals working in the fields of analytic ethical philosophy or normative political theory, and it will make suitable reading for related graduate and advanced undergraduate courses." --Mark Rigstad, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice
In this book, Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. Challenging the realist view that morality does not apply to war, he provides an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity.