Nuclear proliferation - Essay Example

Nuclear proliferation Introduction The spread of nuclear weapons is an important issue in world politics. The atomic drops on Japan in 1945 were significant for many reasons. They not only persuaded the Japanese to surrender in the Second World War, but also ushered in an era during which nuclear weapons became the principal means of maintaining international order. The issue of nuclear proliferation is a very important issue concerning world politics. The fear of such weapons and the catastrophic destruction they are capable of the debate of further proliferation or non-proliferation efforts remains a hot topic. What is interesting about this topic is the reality that nuclear weapons have never since the Second World War been used to attack another country. The real reason that nuclear weapons still have a factor in international relations is the potential catastrophic effect it could have and the security it brings to own such a weapon. Since campaigning for office, Barack Obama has frequently mentioned that, “in an ideal world, there would be no nuclear weapons”.1 The main goal of this essay is to evaluate this and explain why I agree or disagree with it. What I will argue is that the possession of nuclear weapons has in fact deterred and stopped a nuclear war. In fact nuclear proliferation does not increase the risk of war, it prevents it. Based on what I will argue there is even more chance of a major war between states if there are no nuclear weapons. In the first section of this essay I will analyse the theories that relate to this argument of further spread of nuclear weapons. To do that I will look into Kenneth Waltz’s theory of neo-realism and his thought on nuclear proliferation. I will also look into the theories like security dilemma, Mutual assured destruction and nuclear deterrence. In the second section I will analyse these theories in relation to the theoretical background. After that I will give my concluding remarks. The reference in this essay are in a Chicago style, both in the bibliography and footnotes. Theoretical background Neo-realism or structural realism is a theory which places emphasis on that ideology that the international system is anarchic. What is meant by this is that there is no higher government or an international police. The result of this is that states constantly try to increase their security and that is done with more power. The theory assumes that statesmen think and act in terms of self-interest defined as power. Political realism therefore considers a rational foreign policy a good policy, since it minimizes risks and maximizes benefits.2 This security can be achieved through defensive posture or deterrence. This calls for a building of defenses that appear strong enough that no one has the thinking of trying to overcome them. Unfortunately, in the age of nuclear weapons, no defense is strong enough to defend the impact of nuclear offensive. The alternative to the defensive ideal is to build retaliatory forces promising a retaliation of such magnitude so as to deter an attack from ever taking place. 3 Perhaps the most famous neo-realist is Kenneth Waltz which wrote in 1981 his seminal article titled The spread of nuclear weapons: more may be better. There he argues that the spread of nuclear weapons increases security in the anarchic international system. By this he means that if more states acquire nuclear weapons it stabilities the international system. When Waltz wrote the book the so called cold-war between the United States and the Soviet Union was blooming. In the book he explains the notion of polarity by referring to the way in which power is distributed within the international system. During the cold war the power was distributed between the two superpowers in a bipolar system where the two states keep a constant surveillance on each other and therefore the chances of miscalculation are much reduced. Both superpowers built large arsenals of nuclear weapons. Thinking about nuclear weapons during the cold war focused primarily on the bipolar competition between the two superpowers. The main question was how to prevent conventional or nuclear war between between them.4 Security Dilemma Security dilemma refers to a situation where two or more states are involved in a conflict, over security concerns, even though none of the states actually desire conflict. This happens when the states that are involved feel insecure in relation to other states. None of the states involved want relations to escalate and get worse, let alone for war to occur, but as each state acts military or diplomatically to make itself more secure, the other states interpret its actions as threatening because the other states has higher value of security compare and it cause the worried feeling among them5. Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear deterrence is a military doctrine based on that if two sides are in the event of a conflict the nuclear power of each state would be an incentive to avert a war and create a so called status quo by deterring the other side from taking action. The deterrence theory gained prominence as a military strategy during the Cold War.6 Mutual assured destruction or better known as MAD is a strategy that is based on the simple idea that an all-out use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would lead to the destruction of both attacker and defender. In other words, when MAD is in operation, both sides adopt a strategy aimed at avoiding the worst possible outcome. States live in a world of mutually assured destruction if three condition hold. First both states are self-preserving, that means that both state actively don‘t want to die. Secondly both states have large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The idea behind that is that nuclear weapons are really destructive and really powerful and if both sides have them it is going to have a game changing effect between those two states. The third condition is that each state has a secure second strike and that is to say no state achieve a splendid first strike. This means that both states have to have the ability to launch a nuclear retaliatory strike after being struck themselves.7 Post- Cold War deterrence The end of the Cold War raised doubts that maintaining a ready nuclear arsenal since the fall of the Soviet Union and the bipolar international system. Kenneth Waltz argued in 1995 in the book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate that since the end of the Cold War, the transition from bipolar to a multipolar international system may cause the proliferation to speed up. This is based on that since the fall of the Soviet Union the former allies of them are likely to weaken, and this in turn is likely to mean the removal of a nuclear umbrella for some states. The increased insecurity then drives them to try to increase theire power by aquiring nuclear weapons.8 Waltz also addresses, in his book Peace, stability and nuclear weapons, the increased fear in the further spread of nuclear weapons to states which might use these weapons of mass destruction in a manner that is not acceptable. He states that rulers want a country that they can continue to rule. That is why nuclear weapons change the way rulers act. Waltz says that we cannot expect countries to risk more in the essence of nuclear weapons than they did in their absence. Waltz also argues that nuclear weapons make states cautious. By this he means that the weaker and more endangered the state is, the less likely it is to engage in reckless behavior. Waltz also dismisses the fear that nuclear weapons could get into the hands of terrorists as he states that even though more states don’t get nuclear weapons terrorists would be able to find illegal means to get these weapons regardless. Finally Waltz states that nuclear weapons don’t make lesser states into great powers. What it does is it gives states leverage to counter some of the measures that other states have against them.9 Analysis What makes the argument of further spread of nuclear weapons attractive is the notion of how states act in a world with nuclear weapons. The effect on behavior of states in the international system is interesting. Theories like the neo-realists of the likes of Kenneth Waltz of further spread of nuclear weapons in relation to the security dilemma, MAD and nuclear deterrence seem to make a complete sense of how the nuclear landscape of a anarchic international system works. What Nuclear weapons actually seem to do is that they make the cost of war seem frighteningly high and thus discourage states from starting any wars that might lead to the use of such weapons. That is why they have in a sense been one of the key elements of a relatively peaceful post-war world. The realist theories of how the international system is anarchic correlate with the idea that states should seek nuclear weapons as a security measure. What that means is that with the great power that such weapon gives, the more security it enables. In the case of a conflict states have much more bargaining powers with the deterrence that nuclear weapons have. The critics of nuclear proliferation raise fear in the further spread of nuclear weapons in offensive use by new nuclear states, increased chances of accidental use, that with limited knowledge and resources, new nuclear states may find it difficult to deploy vulnerable, deterrent forces and that terrorists may more easily get hold of such dangerous weapons. If we look further into Waltz argument he gives us his arguments that answer each of these fears of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons helped maintain stability during the cold war and to preserve peace during unstable times. An everlasting security dilemma between the two superpowers if we look at it really ensured that stability. Nowadays peace really has become the privilege of nuclear states, while wars are fought between states that don’t have them. This is the reason that states that feel threatened want these weapons and those who have them find it so hard to halt their spread. What has happened after the cold war is the fall of the bipolar world but the nuclear threat is still looming in the likes of North Korea and Iran and that is why states are reluctant to give up such an asset. Conclusion When thinking of nuclear weapons people tend to think only of the major destructive power this weapon really has. We hear stories of how the technological progress of nuclear weapons has grown over the past decades. But when looking at the big picture and look at the reasons why states still hold such weapons in their arsenal it is a real eye opening experiment. The theoretical background that has been outlined in this essay has had the main purpose to show us that nuclear weapons are weapons of peace. The consequences of their proliferation are more stability and peace among nations. The issue of stability and peace in the world nuclear weapons is a hot topic. When one state in a dispute has nuclear weapons in their arsenal and the other does not, the nuclear power can always threaten escalation to a point where the other has no defense. If we want to only look at this subject on that we don’t like the effect of nuclear war then my stand would absolutely shift towards argument against nuclear weapons because of the horrific destruction they are capable of. But it is because we want to avoid that that I believe that states should retain these weapons. By addressing the main essay question of if I agree with the notion that in an ideal world no state would possess nuclear weapons I am left with that conclusion that even though we would prefer to not to have the risk of world destruction hanging over us, states have adjusted to this threat by really raising the security of the world. This is maybe best seen in the fact that since the bomb was introduced in 1945 no major conflict between states have happened and the world has been relatively stable. In my opinion if it weren’t for nuclear weapons in the post-war world there would be more chance of a major conflict since the enduring security dilemma would not be ongoing. Bibliography Haynes, Jeffrey, Peter Hough, Shahin Malik og Lloyd Pettiford. 2011. World Politics. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Katie Sanders. 2015. “Cheney: Obama wants to get 'rid of all nuclear weapons,' has reduced U.S. capability 'significantly'.” Punditfact. Accessed 7th of April 2016. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/17/dick-cheney/cheney-obama-wants-get-rid-all-nuclear-weapons-has/ Kenneth N. Waltz. 1995. “Policy Paper 15: Peace, Stability, and nuclear weapons.” Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. UC San Diego: Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. Tanya Ogilvie-White. “Is there a theory of nuclear proliferation? An analysis of the contemporary debate.” Ph.D. Essay, University of Southampton, England. 1996. UKessays. 2013. "Defining Of The Various Security Dilemmas Politics Essay." UKessays.com . Accessed 7th of April 2016. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/defining-of-the-various-security-dilemmas-politics-essay.php?cref=1 Yonatan Beker. 2008. “Nuclear Proliferation and Iran: Thoughts about the Bomb.” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 11 (3): 29-40. Read More