Factor Preventing States from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons - Coursework Example

Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear forbearance reduces the tensions between nations, and restores peace in the region. In order to maintain peace and reduce security dilemmas, the non – nuclear power nations have to avoid the development and use of nuclear weapons. Such abstinence is called nuclear forbearance. The nations that have the capability of developing nuclear weapons must adopt the principle of nuclear forbearance. Security interdependence among the nations of a particular region plays a significant role in generating nuclear forbearance among the powerful nations of that region. The objective of this concept is that such restraint develops better relationships between these nations (Paul, 2000, p.15). Moreover, forbearance by technologically strong and capable nations in a specific region, promotes confidence among the other nations in that regions. On the other hand, if the technologically capable nations develop nuclear arms, then there will be considerable tension and vulnerability in that region. States that are in a relationship of security interdependence with the powerful nations in their region can readily understand the problem posed by the possession of nuclear weapons by the latter (Paul, 2000, p. 15). Thus, the possession of nuclear weapons has a direct effect on nations in an association of mutual security interdependence. The technologically capable non – nuclear nations can witness the behaviour of their neighbouring countries towards them. They can observe change in their interaction with other countries, when they take unilateral action, regarding nuclear arms. Their relationships may even end abruptly and their allies could become adversaries. As such, nuclear forbearance averts negative outcomes in the relationship between nations (Paul, 2000, p. 15). The acquisition of a nuclear arsenal renders a country very powerful. For this reason several countries stock nuclear weapons, in order to dominate over other countries. However, there is widespread opposition, by the international community, against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As such, the nuclear deterrence has gained currency; and the international community is committed to motivate the nuclear powers, to relinquish their nuclear weapons. The efforts being made at the international level are characterised by a dynamic nature. Democratisation and leadership are two important factors that help the international community to engender a nuclear – free world (Davis, 2009). Regional tensions can result in the promotion of nuclear weapons; hence, the international community has to strive hard to diffuse regional tensions. Such efforts will compel individual nations to forego the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons. Trust and goodwill between countries, should be encouraged, as they water down differences and discourage nuclear proliferation. History has been witness to the fact that mutual trust and negotiations have reduced tensions between rival countries. Rivals and antagonists should formulate policies that promote economic cooperation and mutual trust (Davis, 2009). Such policies prevent nuclear proliferation. It is indispensable for the international community to prevent nuclear proliferation, in a consistent manner. In this endeavour, it has to maintain the necessary standards and systems that prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Undoubtedly, it is the US that must take an active part in the disarmament movement. It has the necessary influence to compel the world to eschew nuclear weapons (Davis, 2009). Moreover, an efficient national security system makes it unnecessary to acquire nuclear weapons. The fundamental objective of the NPT is to deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. It also promotes cooperation between countries, so as to ensure that nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes. Its ultimate goal is to achieve complete nuclear disarmament in the world. As such, the NPT is a landmark international treaty, which had been ratified by a majority of the countries of the world. The NPT strives hard to build confidence among state parties. In this endeavour, it established the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to implement non-proliferation (UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, 2002). The number of countries that ratified the Nuclear Non – Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stands at 188 (Mishra, 2008, p.202). Of these, just 5 nations have chosen to retain their nuclear weapon status (Williams, 2008, p. 367). Many of the nations that did not acquire nuclear capability, were economically very strong, and had the scientific and industrial capacity to develop nuclear weapons. However, these countries preferred to remain non-nuclear weapon states. These countries have not suffered any loss due to foregoing a nuclear weapon status (Beach, 2008). At the same time, states with nuclear weapons do not provide any additional benefits. They do not threaten the non-nuclear weapon states, and the superpower nations had suffered a series of defeats, despite their nuclear arsenal. For instance, in 1975, the US was defeated convincingly, in Vietnam (Smith, 1996, p.23). Thereafter, in 1980, it lost in the Tehran hostage crisis, when the US had to negotiate with the Islamic militants, in order to obtain the release of its diplomatic personnel in Iran (Bowden, 2007, p.597). Furthermore, in 1983, it was not successful in the Beirut conflict (Preston, 2004, p.181). Similarly, the erstwhile Soviet Union was defeated by its enemies on several occasions. The most telling of these was the debacle in Afghanistan (Beach, 2008). The International Court of Justice’s opinion was sought by the UN General Assembly, with regard to the legality or otherwise of exercising the nuclear option in hostilities between nations. The Court was of the opinion that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was in violation of the international humanitarian laws (Athanasopulos, 2000, p.157). The move to acquire sophisticated weapons, including nuclear weapons, was resisted by diplomatic initiatives. There was a genuine attempt to develop nuclear weapons, by several countries; and nations like India and Israel obtained nuclear capability. This race to become a nuclear power was of sufficient gravity to compel the international community to stop this competition (Drell & Goodby, 2007). The NPT was established in order to control the proliferation of nuclear – weapons and the nuclear-weapon’s competition. This treaty came into force in the year 1970, and its fundamental objective is to gradually decrease the number of nations that possess nuclear weapons (Sujatmiko, 2007). Article VI of the NPT requires the original five nuclear-weapon states have to play an important role in reducing the competition for nuclear arms. The preamble to the NPT also states that it is the duty of these five countries to completely eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth (Carranza, 2009, p.142). Since its establishment, the rate of increase of nuclear weapon states and the number of nuclear weapons has reduced to a considerable extent (Drell & Goodby, 2007). As a result, the competition for nuclear-weapons has slowed down. The number of nuclear weapons developed and possessed by the US and the Soviet Union was estimated during at 38, 000. Of these, a mere 400 were not with the US or USSR (Webel & Galtung, 2007, p.110). Subsequent to the NPT, the US demonstrated its commitment towards this treaty, and reduced its nuclear arsenal to 27,000. However, the Soviet Union increased its nuclear weapons to 20,000, in the same period (Drell & Goodby, 2007). The US and the USSR realised that they would have to arrive at a compromise, with respect to the nuclear weapons in their possession. Consequently, they entered into negotiations with each other, so as to contain these weapons. These consultations were termed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks or SALT (Woolf, 2010, p. 29). However, the development of multiple targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), served to complicate SALT. These MIRVs were characterised by the capacity to carry and launch a large number of warheads, great precision against separate targets and substantial difficulty to be detected in aerial surveys (Rainwater, 2009, p. 340). After a half century of the nuclear era, several countries voluntarily reduced their nuclear weapons. By 1994, more than one-third of the total nuclear forces around the world had been reduced. The US had reduced its weaponry to 15,000; and Russia followed suit with a reduction of more than 27,000 nuclear weapons (Drell & Goodby, 2007). The 1990s came to a close, with no net increase in the number of nations with nuclear weapons. However, an important development was the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the relinquishment of nuclear weapons by South Africa (Drell & Goodby, 2007). The dismantling of the USSR resulted in several nuclear – weapon states, like the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. However, better sense prevailed in these nations, which relinquished their nuclear technology and transferred their nuclear weapons to Russia (National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), 2005, p.25). Not surprisingly, this era was deemed to be the golden era in nuclear non-proliferation. After the collapse of the USSR, the US entered into a bilateral agreement with Russia, Vis – a – Vis nuclear deterrence. These countries arrived at a mutual agreement to destroy their nuclear weapons. However, both these nations still possess a substantial number of nuclear weapons (Drell & Goodby, 2007). Moreover, the possession of nuclear weapons is dependent upon the wishes of the leader of a country. There may be political considerations or ambition to emerge as a powerful leader in the region, behind moves to obtain nuclear weapons. For instance, the officials who interrogated Saddam Hussein stated that he had evinced interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. This was on account of the following reasons. First, the possession of weapons of mass destruction would deter other nations in the region from waging a war against Iraq. Second, the cost of mass destruction weapons was significantly less than that of other kinds of weapons. Third, nuclear weapons had the capacity to promote personal prestige, among the Arab nations (O’Neill, 2006). The US is planning to conduct research on low-yield nuclear bunker buster bombs. These attempts have raised several questions regarding the legality of such research under the provisions of Article VI of the NPT (Chomsky, 2007, p.138). The 2002 National Security Strategy does not prohibit the manufacture of low-yield nuclear bombs. However, international law prohibits such research, and it clearly violates the provisions of Article VI of the NPT (Nikitin, 2010). The proposed American research would have a serious impact on the civilians residing in the areas of conflict. Moreover, it would promote competition for nuclear weapons between countries. This research does not help to achieve total disarmament around world. Eventually, it would serve to destroy the objectives of international treaties that were established for the purpose of nuclear disarmament and restoring peace (Nikitin, 2010). The signatories to the NPT had been promised assistance in developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This was the chief reason for many non – nuclear countries to ratify the NPT. However, some of the countries are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, in order to gain bargaining power in their region. American research for low-yield nuclear weapons, promotes the race to procure nuclear weapons. The US shares its technical knowledge with its allies. Thus, the nuclear material and blueprints have been seen to circulate in different regions of the world. This situation leads to opposition to the NPT, and countries lose confidence in international treaties established for engendering total disarmament. International treaties, per se, have been seen to be incapable of addressing the on-going race for nuclear weapons (Nikitin, 2010). The IAEA conducts inspections in countries to ensure that they comply with the safeguards stipulated by it. The NPT states that nuclear technology has to be used only for peaceful purposes. All member states are to have equal access to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The IAEA dissuades the diversion of fissile material for making weapons, and conducts a safeguards programme that is supposed to preclude the use of nuclear fuel meant for peaceful purposes, in the development of nuclear weapons (Holt, 2010, p. 22). The possession of nuclear weapons is an expensive issue. The countries that possess nuclear arms have to compromise upon other security measures, for want of financial resources. This increases the threat to their security. This feature also leads to nuclear forbearance (Paul, 2000, p.15). Moreover, forbearance minimises security risks in the long run. The acquisition of nuclear weapons pressurises the neighbouring nations to possess such weapons or to acquire countervailing capability. This leads to security dilemmas in the region. Moreover, the race to acquire nuclear weapons is a costly affair, which has the capacity to seriously affect the economy of the nations. Thus, possession of nuclear weapons entails a number of problems for the countries involved in the arms race (Paul, 2000, p.16). If neighbouring countries obtain the technical capability to build nuclear arms, then the security in the region declines as a result. This situation leads to uncertainty, distrust and damaged relationships between these nations. The decision – makers in technologically capable non – nuclear nations have to understand that the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons creates an undesirable situation, in which the neighbouring countries become inimical to them(Paul, 2000, p.16). These neighbouring countries could assume that the nuclear weapons would be targeted at their country. As a consequence, adversarial states could respond even with military attacks on the possessor of nuclear weapons. In some cases, the help of countries external to that region may also transpire. Furthermore, the allies of a nation that chooses to acquire nuclear weapons could withdraw security guarantees, and economic and military support. Although a country that aims to obtain nuclear weapons, could view its initiative as a safeguard against external threats, its allies and adversaries would consider this to be a dangerous move (Paul, 2000, p.16). The acquisition of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security. Any nation that acquires such weapons, could lead to concerns about attacks from hostile countries. The situation is rendered all the more alarming, if this nation does not possess second – strike capability. Thus, the development of nuclear weapons with indigenous technical knowledge does not provide any additional security to that country. On the other hand, the non-possession of the nuclear weapon enables a country to maintain a secure environment .There is two types of security interdependence, namely, symmetrical and asymmetrical interdependence. If two countries experience the same level of vulnerability and sensitivity to their mutual policies, then these nations are said to be in a relationship of symmetrical interdependence, with each other. If one of the states is in a dominant position over the other, then an asymmetrical interdependence is said to exist between them (Paul, 2000, p.16). In asymmetrical interdependence, the less dominant state will be in a more vulnerable position and is considered to be sensitive to the behaviour and responses of the dominant state. As a result, the vulnerable state will desist from any initiative that increases its vulnerability and sensitivity. There are two important factors that determine whether a country is in asymmetric interdependence or not. These are first, the geo-strategic location of the country, and second, its historical interaction with its neighbouring countries in the region (Paul, 2000, p.16). Security interdependence between nations is not limited to nuclear weapons alone. It also applies to non – nuclear weapons, such as conventional, chemical, and biological weapons. This is due to the fact that any weapon generates negative outcomes for the security of a nation. However, nuclear weapons are more feared than the non – nuclear weapons, due to their far greater destructive capability. Not surprisingly, nuclear weapons entail a high level of security consideration (Paul, 2000, p.17). Nuclear weapons, per se, are distinguished by their speed, magnitude, and destructive capacity. Furthermore, these weapons have long – term consequences for the denizens of a country that is subjected to a nuclear attack. Moreover, they seriously damage the economy and political system, in the attacked country. Therefore, much greater importance is attached to nuclear weapons, in comparison to other weapons .The anxiety created by nuclear weapons can be attributed, in part, to the possibility of these weapons being used for both deterrent and offensive purposes. The possession of nuclear weapons increases security concerns among the neighbouring countries, because nuclear weapons can be launched very quickly. International treaties have established a number of restraints on the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons (Paul, 2000, p.17). Despite these limitations, the possession of nuclear weapons, by a country, can create panic and uncertainty among the neighbouring countries that do not possess nuclear weapons. The use of conventional weapons does not create long-term consequences, and their use will be slow and incremental. Moreover, a nation subjected to an attack with conventional weapons can withstand the consequences, in the long run at a lesser cost. However, if the nuclear weapons are employed, in the attack, the effect will be overwhelming (Paul, 2000, p.17). Thus, the proliferation of conventional weapons does not raise any concern among the comity of nations. Nuclear forbearance is an intentional effort by powerful nations to maintain good relationships and to ensure security in the region. By adopting nuclear forbearance, the powerful and technologically capable nations declare that they do not want to strain their relationship with other nations and that they intend to avoid any security dilemmas in the region (Paul, 2000, p. 15). The Non – Proliferation Treaty emerged in response to the ever increasing sophistication and destructive power of nuclear weapons. These weapons had acquired such power that the very survival life on the earth was threatened. This situation alerted the international community to take appropriate measures to prevent the proliferation of such weapons. The objective of the Non – Proliferation Treaty is to restrict nuclear weapons competition among the nations. It is possible to defend a nation against an attack with conventional weapons. However, this does not hold good, in the context of an attack with nuclear weapons. The behaviour of nuclear countries directly depends on the behaviour and interaction of the other nuclear countries. At the regional level, the major powers in the region determine the behaviour of nuclear countries. Major nuclear countries have international interests, while the small and medium nations are limited to regional interests. It can be concluded that Security interdependence is the foremost reason for nuclear forbearance among nations. List of References Athanasopulos, H. (2000). Nuclear disarmament in international law. McFarland. Beach, H. (2008). What Price Nuclear Blackmail? Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Disarmament Diplomacy: http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd88/88hb.htm Bowden, M. (2007). Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam. Grove Press. Carranza, M. E. (2009). South Asian security and international nuclear order: creating a robust Indo-Pakistani nuclear arms control regime. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Chomsky, N. (2007). Interventions. City Lights Books. Davis, P. (2009, May). Giving up the Bomb: Motivations and Incentives. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from International Commission on Nuclear Non - proliferation and Disarmament: http://www.icnnd.org/research/Davis_Giving_Up_NW.doc Drell, S. D., & Goodby, J. E. (2007, October). What Are Nuclear Weapons For? Retrieved October 6, 2010, from Arms Control Association: http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/20071104_Drell_Goodby_07_new.pdf Holt, M. (2010). Nuclear Energy Policy. Diane Publishing. Mishra, J. (2008). The NPT and the developing countries. Concept Publishing Company. National Academy of Sciences (U.S.). (2005). Monitoring nuclear weapons and nuclear-explosive materials. National Academies Press. Nikitin, B. S. (2010, January). International Law and nuclear weapons: Does the continued development of advanced Nuclear Weapons violate international law? Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/140/international-law-and-nuclear-weapons-does-the-continued-development-of-advanced-nuclear-weapons-violate-international-law O’Neill, B. (2006, February). Nuclear Weapons and National Prestige. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics Yale University: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d15b/d1560.pdf Paul, T. V. (2000). Power versus prudence: why nations forgo nuclear weapons. McGill – Queen's Press. Preston, M. (2004). Ending civil war: Rhodesia and Lebanon in perspective. I.B. Tauris. Rainwater, L. (2009). Social Policy and Public Policy: Inequality and Justice. Transaction Publishers. Smith, N. (1996). The USA, 1917 – 1980. Oxford University Press. Sujatmiko, D. (2007). Nuclear Weapons (a disaster for mankind). Retrieved October 7, 2010, from The International University Vienna: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6zClNS7198QJ:www.iuvienna.edu/887_EN-Documents-PDFs-Nuclear-Weapons-by-Prasastra.pdf+The+NPT+come+into+force+in+the+year+1970,+and+its+fundamental+objective+is+to+gradually+decrease+the+number+of+nations+that+poss UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. (2002). Brief Background. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ Webel, C., & Galtung, J. (2007). Handbook of peace and conflict studies. Taylor & Francis. Williams, P. (2008). Security studies: an introduction. Taylor & Francis. Woolf, A. F. (2010). Strategic Arms Control After START: Issues and Options. DIANE Publishing. Read More

However, there is widespread opposition, by the international community, against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As such, the nuclear deterrence has gained currency; and the international community is committed to motivate the nuclear powers, to relinquish their nuclear weapons. The efforts being made at the international level are characterised by a dynamic nature. Democratisation and leadership are two important factors that help the international community to engender a nuclear – free world (Davis, 2009).

Regional tensions can result in the promotion of nuclear weapons; hence, the international community has to strive hard to diffuse regional tensions. Such efforts will compel individual nations to forego the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons. Trust and goodwill between countries, should be encouraged, as they water down differences and discourage nuclear proliferation. History has been witness to the fact that mutual trust and negotiations have reduced tensions between rival countries. Rivals and antagonists should formulate policies that promote economic cooperation and mutual trust (Davis, 2009).

Such policies prevent nuclear proliferation. It is indispensable for the international community to prevent nuclear proliferation, in a consistent manner. In this endeavour, it has to maintain the necessary standards and systems that prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Undoubtedly, it is the US that must take an active part in the disarmament movement. It has the necessary influence to compel the world to eschew nuclear weapons (Davis, 2009). Moreover, an efficient national security system makes it unnecessary to acquire nuclear weapons.

The fundamental objective of the NPT is to deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. It also promotes cooperation between countries, so as to ensure that nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes. Its ultimate goal is to achieve complete nuclear disarmament in the world. As such, the NPT is a landmark international treaty, which had been ratified by a majority of the countries of the world. The NPT strives hard to build confidence among state parties. In this endeavour, it established the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to implement non-proliferation (UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, 2002).

The number of countries that ratified the Nuclear Non – Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stands at 188 (Mishra, 2008, p.202). Of these, just 5 nations have chosen to retain their nuclear weapon status (Williams, 2008, p. 367). Many of the nations that did not acquire nuclear capability, were economically very strong, and had the scientific and industrial capacity to develop nuclear weapons. However, these countries preferred to remain non-nuclear weapon states. These countries have not suffered any loss due to foregoing a nuclear weapon status (Beach, 2008).

At the same time, states with nuclear weapons do not provide any additional benefits. They do not threaten the non-nuclear weapon states, and the superpower nations had suffered a series of defeats, despite their nuclear arsenal. For instance, in 1975, the US was defeated convincingly, in Vietnam (Smith, 1996, p.23). Thereafter, in 1980, it lost in the Tehran hostage crisis, when the US had to negotiate with the Islamic militants, in order to obtain the release of its diplomatic personnel in Iran (Bowden, 2007, p.597). Furthermore, in 1983, it was not successful in the Beirut conflict (Preston, 2004, p.181). Similarly, the erstwhile Soviet Union was defeated by its enemies on several occasions.

The most telling of these was the debacle in Afghanistan (Beach, 2008). The International Court of Justice’s opinion was sought by the UN General Assembly, with regard to the legality or otherwise of exercising the nuclear option in hostilities between nations. The Court was of the opinion that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was in violation of the international humanitarian laws (Athanasopulos, 2000, p.157).

Read More