Many people feel that nuclear weapons are potential sources of injustice. Even if used to prevent an attack or to retaliate, they would kill thousands, indiscriminately and undeservedly. Yet the Senate of the United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Department of Energy is restarting tritium production, and a congressional committee has called for an immediate start on the designing of new nuclear warheads (Defense Monitor, 1999). While some citizens believe the United States should continue to maintain its nuclear superiority, polling data repeatedly show that a majority favor nuclear disarmament (Kay, 1998). Given their majority status, why do the many citizens who are opposed to nuclear weapons fail to press for nuclear disarmament? Why is it hard for peace organizations to mobilize individuals to demand nuclear disarmament, or to make it an issue in election campaigns? One reason involves a relationship between perceived efficacy and justice. If people believed that they could convince the government to move toward nuclear disarmament, then many might demand disarmament in order to avoid the possibility of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. However, most people doubt that they can influence governmental policy and prevent nuclear war. Hence, to engage in any individual action advocating nuclear disarmament implies the possibility that nuclear war might really occur. This requires relinquishing the belief that the person is living in a just world (Lerner, 1980).