What Are Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

194231 Nuclear weapons are no doubt used as strategic instruments today in the power-ridden world, to show international clout and regional supremacy. Rival nations like India and Pakistan had been playing one-upmanship for a long time now with the nuclear weapons that show not only the regional supremacy, but also are considerable threat to each other. They create a power balance with political equality. Once again talking about India and Pakistan, the political supremacy with structure, institutions, flourishing democracy, freedom, capable leadership, size and immense growth are all on India’s side. But the simple fact that Pakistan too has the nuclear power, to a large extent, equates them by making Pakistan’s condition more stable. It is difficult to say that they are cultural instruments. They are aggressive instruments, no doubt, and that kind of clout would suit an internationally rogue country, as China was, a couple of decades ago, when it was not admitted anywhere on the world stage. Such a country having nuclear capacity makes it more threatening; but it cannot be said that it goes with the Chinese culture; at least not with the traditional Chinese culture. Definitely it augurs well with the present Community culture of China. Culturally it is suitable for Israel, because in recent years, Israelis have projected themselves as a highly aggressive nation. It is difficult to say that it jells well with the Jewish culture. It definitely goes well with the present, extremist culture of Iran and it has become another face of Iran. Today, world is recognising Iran as a persistent, obstinate nuclear weapon maker and till recently, it was the same with North Korea. Politically speaking, yes, they are powerful weapons and they create political importance. Very rarely a country, which is a nuclear power, is ignored in the political area of the world. it always has a say and usually leaders and countries use. Some countries and leaders try to possess nuclear weapons so that they can have that extra edge in the political arena. Hence, they are definite political and strategic advantages, but culturally it is difficult to say that they have equal footing. A nuclear power can make its people proud to some extent and from that angle, it creates a slight cultural supremacy, perhaps. After the end of Cold War, nuclear weapon rivalry naturally decreased. At the same time, it increased on individual country level, because the Cold War, by splitting the world into two (Non-aligned countries remained out of this bipolarity) provided security to weaker countries because the two leaders were brimming with nuclear weapons. Cold War’s ending destroyed that bipolarity and countries were left to fend for themselves. China played a truant for a long time secretly developing its defence and this attitude is not peculiar, when one is against the entire world. Also it is easier for a Communist country, where all the voices are muted and the government is not answerable to any of its decisions. It can spend more money on defence and power than for the welfare of the people, who would anyway not dare to question. Even though nuclear weapons have lost their meaning today, they have not lost their threatening quality and it is worrying when unstable countries like North Korea, Pakistan or extremist countries like Iran acquire them. There is also the fear that terrorists might either develop them or take control of them. “Their unrivalled destructive capacity is matched by a unique status as strategic instruments, and their development, possession and strategies for use remain as important and controversial as ever” Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, http://www.cdiss.org/pages/programmes/Nuclear_Weapons_and_Strategy_Programme/overview.asp Whoever has the nuclear weapons, even Russia and US, it is always a worrying matter for the rest of the world. Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is not signed by all, including India, because these countries do not get convinced when US tells them not to have the nuclear weapons, while they themselves are bristling with them. If this only superpower of today offers to reduce their own nuclear capacity as a model, and requests others to follow the example, it will be definitely appreciated. But it is not happening that way. As political instruments, their threat still rules the world. Whatever the critics might say, nuclear clout remains and endures. Al Ahram reports: “No other development has done so much to make the Middle East unstable than Israels decision to become a major nuclear power, with a wide arsenal of advanced nuclear weapons. Unlike other nations that have considered nuclear weapons for deterrence purpose only and were satisfied with the production of a limited number of atomic weapons, Israel has continued to produce a suite of weapons that can be used to do everything from blunt an armoured attack to annihilate a national capital city” http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/729/re101.htm Nuclear free zones have been a dream for the last fifty years now and with more and more political players opting for this mass killer weapons, it looks a distant dream today. In a way they define law and the sanctity of human life and rule of law. “Law is the articulation of values. Values must be based on moral foundations to have credibility. The recognition of the intrinsic sacredness of life and the duty of states and individuals to protect life is a fundamental characteristic of all human civilized values” said the European court of Justice. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/basics/granoff_nuclear-weapons-ethics-morals-law.htm This made it necessary to curb the ambitions and power created by possessing the nuclear weapons, because the world cannot go on with a few touting their power and strength. “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Says the Non-Proliferation Treaty, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf The Soviet Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in Ukrainian territory have created many unpleasant situations for years now. There are many economic, environmental, legal, symbolic and psychological aspects connected to nuclear weapons. The safeguards and further measures to safely maintain these weapons has become another issue, especially with feeble countries like Pakistan and the small countries that emerged out of Soviet Russia’s downfall. Already world has faced one or two mishaps on Russian soil. “The Chornobyl aftermath not only implanted a deep anti-nuclear sentiment in the Ukrainian psyche, but also revealed in the starkest terms imaginable that the consequences of a nuclear catastrophe do not respect political borders.” http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1993/059314.shtml The most unpleasant side of nuclear weapons is using them as a blackmailing tactics and many countries have attempted to do so. “Nuclear weapons have been used as negotiating levers and as means of compelling political, military and economic responses preferred by the smaller nuclear state. The year just ended and the one begun are marked by an unmistakable nuclear meaning. Nuclear weapons have played a major part in the strategic considerations of both major and regional powers. They show every sign of continuing to do so this year.” http://mea.gov.in/opinion/2003/01/17o01.htm This is a very unhealthy trend that can have far-reaching affects. This could encourage other countries to somehow try to possess the monstrous weapons and powerful countries might humiliate the weapon-less countries by submitting them. Perhaps a rethinking should be done whether these weapons are necessary in the 21st century and if the extra clout aided by them is worth the trouble and danger. Nuclear deterrence might not be as powerful as it used to be; but its existence is doubtless, as said famously by Freedman “The Emperor deterrence may have no clothes, but he is still emperor,” (1981, 399) in Burkenbus (1989, 426). The problem is mainly with the countries themselves, because they do not want to give up their political, cultural and strategic superiority. They do not want to come down from their threatening position and become commoners. Still there is hope. “Enthusiasm for nuclear arms reductions is an important indication of the growing disillusionment with nuclear weapons,” Burkenbus (1989, p.426). But the main problem still remains in the form of United States, which is insecure in its splendour. It is like a rich man, who has all the security men and machinery in place and is still struggling with a fear phobia. “Nuclear weapons are one component of an integrated defence strategy that includes diplomacy and conventional forces. The principal role of nuclear weapons was and continues to be that of deterring any potential adversaries from an attack on America or our vital interests. This role is expected to continue for as long as nuclear weapons hold the appellation of “supreme" instruments of military force” says Stephen Younger, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm This situation creates reaction in the attitude of other countries, who do not want to be left behind in the nuclear race. They also do not want US to become strategically, politically and culturally much more important than what it is today. As it has taken over the international policing work, it has become perhaps the most hated nation in the world. Every country is aware that using nuclear weapons is definitely impossible; still they want to keep it as a proclamation of their strategic, political and cultural supremacy. Another point here the insecurity and we see the chain reaction of insecurity resulting in nuclear weapon amassing. For example, since the India-China war of 1992, India became insecure of the communist giant breathing down her neck and this insecurity resulted in single-minded efforts to procure Nuclear weapons, which it eventually did. This created insecurity in the minds of the eternal, unequal rival Pakistan, which somehow managed the nuclear weaponry to balance the situation in the subcontinent. We also see Israel doing the same. Even though it is a very powerful country, all its attentions are focused on its defence because it is insecure with its Muslim neighbours and nuclear weapons become part of insecurity. When we talk about nuclear weapons, it is difficult not to mention the cultural, strategic and political impact of them in 1962 Cuban crisis, when the entire world stood at the brink of a nuclear war. “Because nuclear weapons have not altered the values at stake in interstate disputes (and the desire to avoid political loss) but rather have increased the costs of war, then in a severe conflict between nuclear powers the decision maker’s dilemma is to construct a strategy to secure political interests through coercive actions that raise the possibility of war without pushing the risk to an extreme level,” Geller (1990, p.294). The decision maker was adept and the extraordinary care was taken only because the other one too was a ruthless nuclear power. Another accidental possibility too cannot be denied, which could be catastrophical for the entire world. “At the extreme is the concept of the ‘doomsday machine’ which is wired automatically to go off and destroy the world if any atomic weapon is exploded on one’s terrority” Quester (1996, p.186). This is a distant possibility; but cannot be ruled out. This can create a sense of fear in the neighbouring country if the nuclear weapons are developed near the border, which is supposed to be so, in Iran’s case. So, eventually Iran will become a Holy Cow for the other neighbours, which cannot be questioned and naturally it takes over the leadership of the region. There is the necessity of arms control and this necessity is felt by all, but practised by none. “Deterrence represents a marked advance over strategic doctrines unhesitatingly committed to warfighting. The weight of the criticism does, however, mean that deterrence is not an easy solution, and points strongly towards the need for arms control,” Buzan (1989, p.215). So despite the end of rivalry for supremacy and the termination of Cold War, nuclear weapons, though less relevant, still rule the defence world, and have become more individualised and thus more dangerous too. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Burkenbus, Jack N., ‘Devaluing Nuclear Weapons’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 4. (Autumn, 1989), pp. 425-440. 2. Buzan, Barry (1989), An Introduction to Strategic Studies, Macmillan Press, Hampshire. 3. Geller, Daniel S., ‘Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 1990; 34; 291. 4. Quester, George H. (1966), Deterrence before Hiroshima, John Wiley & Sons, New York. ONLINE SOURCES 1. http://www.cdiss.org/pages/programmes/Nuclear_Weapons_and_Strategy_Programme/overview.asp 2. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/729/re101.htm 3. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/basics/granoff_nuclear-weapons-ethics-morals-law.htm 4. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf 5. http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1993/059314.shtml 6. http://mea.gov.in/opinion/2003/01/17o01.htm 7. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm 8. Read More