Strategic and Political Usage of Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

Are nuclear weapons strategic, political, or cultural instruments "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."1 Albert Einstein's statement on the nuclear bomb is not a mere regret. It shows how the world would have been a different place altogether if America did not have the nuclear bomb. During the last days of the World War II, two nuclear bombs were detonated (both by the United States) causing the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and causing the death of 120,000 civilians in Japan. That was the first and last strategic use of the "dirty bomb" which left its permanent mark in the form of acute radiation sickness and many lost generations in Japan. Such a mass level of death was only achieved by the Nazi's or blood thirsty conquerors like Genghis Khan who killed indiscriminately and mercilessly. Wiping out the entire population of an enemy country has never been easier. Yet in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki saga the nations of the world woke up to the horrific nightmares of such a drastic strategic weapon use. The use of nuclear weapons was strongly opposed at an international level and nuclear weapons were reduced to their role as political weapons.2Today these weapons have become political instruments with their role in pressuring and dominating other states. Any state without nuclear weapons perceives itself to be "weak" in political negotiations. 3 However super powers like the US have not exactly forgiven their weaker counterparts i.e. those countries who have dared to show defiance by "possessing" nuclear weapons. An example is the recent destruction of Iraq due to its weapons of mass destruction and the threats of a US attack faced by Iran for its hidden weapons of mass destruction.4 Pakistan has never revived from its political instability , since the political turmoil which arose just after the former premier Nawaz Sharif's refusal to sign the CTBT. 5. Arguably the nuclear weapon has become a cultural instrument .The 20th century saw two world wars and many civil wars which reshaped and readjusted the entire world's geography ,history and politics. There was a culture of violence which involved the cowboy style elimination of any state which dared defy a super power. Thus it was a culture of achieving ends by means of mass destruction and bloodshed. The ease with which the "dirty bomb" eliminated the enemy population frightened the warring nations beyond their wits. This is evident from the fact that apart from a few civil wars and regional unrest, there has been no large scale warfare around the world. Now there is a culture of promoting peace and having peace talks as all nations secretly wonder what the other state might be hiding in its weapons arsenal. However another alarming development is the increase in the ambiguous nuclear arsenals and secret war exercises in deserts by many countries like Pakistan and Israel6.The events of the past decade have seen an increase in the strategic, political and cultural importance of nuclear weapons .With in all three of these contexts Nuclear Weapons have become a part and parcel of the defence culture and an important tenet of government and policy. It should be noted in the background that the increase in the availability of the weapons has not been left uncontrolled and unmonitored. In 1957 the IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) was set up to promote peaceful development of nuclear power and also provide for its control and to counter the proliferation of such weapons with in the principles of public international law. The IAEA did indeed encourage peaceful use of nuclear applications and the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) was a controversial issue of the mid-nineties which prohibited the testing of nuclear technology. Notoriously enough India and Pakistan refused to sign it, making South Asia a politically sensitive nation.7Since then there have been a host of other international efforts, all aimed at prohibiting or reducing military based nuclear activity and demarcation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones by the use of treaties and international agreements.8 Recent events have shown how the possession or the control of the nuclear weapons can confer massive military and political power. The Western democratic governments have expressed their nervousness time and again over the sharing of nuclear power with undemocratic, dictator led regimes like those of Pakistan9. The political control of nuclear weapons has become an issue of international importance and the 1998 nuclear tests led by the Pakistani and Indian governments were a disturbing time for international superpowers as any irresponsible government with in the South Asian region could trigger a mass destruction which could lead to World War III. So coming back to the question whether these nuclear weapons are weapons of strategic, cultural or political importance, I would repeat my stance, and add that it is only recently these weapons have gained cultural importance.10 The strategic and political dilemmas presented by these weapons in the cold war prevented any firm agreement negating their abuse during the polar war, however the decade of the sixties saw all the super powers moving towards disarming agreements sensing the potential danger brought upon the abuse of such weapons by an irresponsible head of government.11 In the strategic sense, nuclear weapons can be used both for avoiding and provoking a war (i.e. they can help in deterring a war -the second strike rule).The danger and threat of mutual annihilation prevents the enemy states from engaging in a mutually assured destruction .This trend was clear with the advent of Nuclear weapons played a focal role in international security during the other half of the last century. These weapons therefore had a stabilising effect by making any war unacceptably costly in terms of money and lives. In the wake of drastic geopolitical change and the evolution of military technology during the last century, nuclear weapons have provided one component of an integrated defence strategy which consists of political diplomacy and conventional forces.12 The aim of deterrence is well served just by the "label" of being a nuclear power. The future is however unclear, because of the uniquely destructive power of nuclear weapons as there might be a development of tactical as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons within the next two or three decades. Arguably the trinity of cultural, political and strategic implications of nuclear weapons is a cycle within itself. At times there is a dominance of its strategic impact but at all other times there is a blatantly negative use of nuclear weapons as instruments of culture and politics. The usefulness of such weapons, has therefore met scathing criticism from peace groups and even from military circles.An example is the view of the famous philosopher and author Albert Camus who once said, "We can sum it up in one sentence: Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests" 13 The fact that the International Court of Justice has declared the use or threat of such weapons an infringement of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict14 ,does little to justify the political pressure exerted on weaker nations based on the use of nuclear power against them. On a more thoughtful note we should be asking ourselves whether nuclear weapons are infact promoting a culture of blood shed, a strategy of mass elimination and the politics of blackmail and extortion. The very presence of nuclear weapons as a political tool of bargaining power makes the prospect of achieving a power balance in the world very bleak. Most of these states are on a power trip and unlikely to respond to disarmament whether voluntary or forced. Finally a more thought provoking theme comes from the Hiroshima Declaration 15 concerning the need for total nuclear disarmament "This view may appear utopian, but to reject it is to accept not only the possibility but the inevitability that someday, somewhere, immense numbers of people will again perish under nuclear mushroom clouds like those that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki 50 years ago...Wherever, whenever, however many mushroom clouds it may be, we say such an outcome is unacceptable and must be prevented. It can only be prevented if nuclear weapons and, ultimately, war itself are banned from this planet." References 1. Alan Collins ed. (2007), Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 2. Dan Caldwell and Robert E. Williams, Jr., Seeking Security in an Insecure World (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006) 3. Terry Terriff, Stuart Croft, Lucy James, and Patrick Morgan (1999), Security Studies Today (Cambridge: Polity Press). 4. Peter Hough (2004), Understanding Global Security (London: Routledge). 5. Michael Sheehan (2005), International Security: An Analytical Survey (London: Lynne Rienner). 6. Buzan and Herring (1998), The Arms Dynamic in World Politics, Chapters 3 and 13. 7. Rajesh M. Basrur ( 2001), Nuclear Weapons and Indian Strategic Culture ,Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Mar., 2001), pp. 181-198 8. Albert Camus, Combat, 8 August 1945 ___________________________________________________ Read More