The Manhattan Project and Peace

There has not been a sizeable global conflict since WWII. The liberal peace, the theory used to explain such phenomena, encompasses the idea of a virtuous circle. Liberals believe that the circle which, composed of democracy, trade, and institutions keeps countries from waging war, because each factor links countries politically, economically, and socially. While many of the aspects of the liberal peace are relevant in International Relations and are used to promote peace, the virtuous circle is not the driver of peace. The 1941 Manhattan Project and the continued threat of nuclear weapons is the main reason for the absence of widespread global conflict and for the long peace because countries fear the use of nuclear weapons because the use of such power assures a state's destruction.

While the liberal peace cannot fully explain why there has not been in a major conflict since WWII, there are still some important aspects of the liberal peace in International Relations. One of which is the idea of political accountability, this is the idea that leaders will avoid war because their citizens are against it. Political norms help keep the peace because governments such as democracies are willing to cooperate to solve situations rather than wage war. Still, there are many invalid or unjustified aspects of the liberal peace. The belief that countries will avoid war just because they are the same form of government is false. The War of 1812, fought between the US and Britain, and the Kargil War, fought between India and Pakistan, were each waged between democracies. The trade or capitalist aspect of the peace theory that cultural and political ideas spread through trade keep countries from waging war is valid; this is because these countries would have similar views on critical issues and would be motivated to cooperate with each other to remedy the situation. While the diffusion of beliefs and ideas helps to promote peace, the capitalist peace belief that countries that trade with each other will not go to war is incorrect. One of the prominent war between nations that traded with one another is the Opium Wars. In an attempt to open up China and to close the gap between what Britain exported and imported to and from China, Britain began to flood the market with opium. China ended up losing the war and was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking which opened five ports to British goods. While seen as legitimate to solve conflicts, institutions such as the UN, which were created after WWII to keep peace succeeded for decades, have no actual power. The UN may suggest that a member not do something, but that country may ignore the ruling. The UN cannot enforce its rulings and cannot punish its members for not following them because it lacks military strength.

The threat of nuclear weapons is what has ensured peace since the end of WWII. The first and only time atomic weapons were used, at the end of WWII to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, over 100,000 people died in Hiroshima as a result of both the bomb and radiation and over 90% of the city was destroyed. In Nagasaki, over 40,000 people were killed.  The devastation that the bombs caused continues to haunt world leaders. As a result, today's leaders are wary of the use of nuclear weapons because they know the effects of such actions. Also, the development of second strike capability gives attacked countries the chance to launch a counterattack. One country that lacks second strike capability is North Korea. Although the country claims that it is willing to use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that the state would do so because it lacks the ability to counterattack another nation. The country knows that it would be defenseless and its destruction would be definite. With states having their nuclear weapons aimed at major cities, the possibility of significant population loss would make leaders on both sides apprehensive and would lead them down a path of cooperation, rather than war.

The threat of nuclear weapons is the reason that countries favor peace. While many scholars cite the liberal peace and the use of democracy, trade, and institutions to avoid war, some aspects of the peace are irrelevant in International Relations. The knowledge of what happened to Japanese cities as a result of nuclear weapons and the continued fear of the destruction that such weapons can cause is the main reason as to why leaders seek peace.

More Nukes More Peace?

Jonathan Sullivan
Prof. Shirk
International Politics
October 16, 2017

August 9th, 1945 was the last time a nuclear weapon was dropped on civilians as a tactic of war. Since the United States dropped that bomb on Japan, eight more nations have developed nuclear weapons as well. These countries are Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. However, we have never had a nuclear war between these countries. Although tensions were extremely high during the Cold War no nuclear war ever occurred. This is because when two conflicting countries both have nuclear weapons they each have to fear a tactic called MAD, mutually assured destruction. It is because of this assured destruction that countries who have nuclear weapons do not have nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are a real reason why there is so much consistent peace between the world's most powerful nations like never before seen.

When conflicting countries don't have nuclear weapons, there is no sense of guaranteed mutual destruction so leaders are more likely to act militarily. Kenneth Waltz writes about the how nuclear weapons have impacted countries saying, "History shows that when countries acquire the bomb they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe Iran would break this mold," (Waltz, 4). Developing powers are always trying to show off their strength to the world. There is nothing more powerful today in the international community than possessing a nuclear weapon. When strengthening countries like China decades ago or Iran today acquire nuclear weapons, they achieve what they want in the international community, respect. Because these countries now have the respect and attention of the world they are likely to not act irrational and lose all the progress they made to become respected. If the international community denies a country like Iran nuclear weapons they are likely to face a backlash far more devastating and deadly than just giving the country a seat at the table. The threat of mutually assured destruction nuclear weapons bring keeps nations peaceful and prevents war out of fear. No rational leader would put his or her own country at risk to have their entire society destroyed. Nuclear weapons help prevent wars not start them.

It is possible for an irrational leader to fire a nuclear weapon, however, that risk is low and one countries must take when allowing other countries to develop weapons in order to assure peace. Why obviously getting rid of nuclear weapons would be ideal that is not logical so the international community must embrace countries getting nuclear weapons. History has shown time and time again that countries remain more stable when they possess nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction assures that there is no advantage or possible good outcome for your country if it was to fire a nuclear weapon. The world should embrace and emphasize, that why nuclear weapons have to capability to destroy the entire planet, they also have the potential to bring the world, to peace.


Sources
 Waltz, Kenneth N. “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 4, no. 91, 2012, pp. 2–5.,                                  doi:October 16, 2017.         
                                        

Americas False Sense of Security

            In Joseph Meads article “The Return of Geopolitics” he talks about how the study of international relations is changing to be focused on Geography. In it he talks about how countries like China Iran and Russia had not accepted the geopolitical settlement that occurred after the cold war (Mead). He also writes that Americans have “False Sense of Security” with these countries because we as Americans think that they are changed to liberal capitalist states and no geopolitical problems would occur (Mead). I will argue how Mead is wrong when he mentions that America is feeling a false sense of security after the cold war.

            The best example I can come up with for this is China. Even though they aren’t the liberal democracy the west world is used to, this does not mean they are not our greatest Allie. In Meads argument he says that China will not fall second to America in terms of economic power (Mead). I believe Mead is wrong because without American consumers there is no China. According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity at MIT America accounts for 385 billion dollars’ worth of goods from China which is the most out of any of Chinas exports. Also China imports 100 billion dollars’ worth of goods from America. Because of this statistic America and China depend on each other.

            Another country that I do not believe America has to worry about is Russia. Russia and America have always had tension but I do not believe it will amount to anything. I believe that both America and Russia are two countries with very big egos who like to display their great power but I do not think the citizens of either country will be effected by this ego match. I believe that Russia is the only great military power besides America and this is stable (Lecture 10). China is not as powerful militarily because I do not believe they have enough critical power because most of the people in China are poor and unhappy. China does have a lot of money but I believe because they are not a liberal democracy they have problems. Many high ranking military officials fall out of ranking in China because of corruption (1). This lack of obedience shows that they are not as strong as they seem to be on paper. Because of this I do not believe China has enough hard power to compete with America and Russia.

            I believe Meads argument that America all of a sudden feels some sort of security in the Middle East after the cold war is false. I justify this because the Middle East has been at war with each other for many years prior to the cold war (2). I do not believe many Americans thought America winning the cold war would bring an end to this violence is wrong.

                                               

Sources

1.     http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35970863

2.     http://www.economist.com/node/1922472

The Faces of Peace

Morgan Silva

Professor Shirk

International Politics

17 October 2017

The Faces of Peace

Recently in the course, we have had ample discussion regarding the pros and cons of nuclear weapons. Surprisingly, there have been many theorists such as Kenneth Waltz, who believe that it would be safer if significant countries had nuclear weapons and had developed convincing theories such as Mutual Assured Destruction. While many theorists advocate for the disbursement of weapons of mass destruction, I believe that the world would be much safer without chemical weapons. We live in a world where it is plausible to argue that the more weapons of mass destruction we have, the “safer” we feel; this is a world plagued with violence [as means of solutions], domination and scare tactics. What kind of a world is this, where we must live in constant fear and anguish, careful not to push a [seemingly] crazy leader too far that he may push the big red button. Imagine a world, where that button and those weapons did not even exist.As someone who was born in Russia, I have found the Cold War primarily interesting. For those who may not be aware, the Cold War was a time where both Russians, as well as Americans, lived in a permanent state of tension, waiting for a nuclear war to break out.  When learning about this, I believe too much attention is given to the realist leaders, instead of the faces of peace [during that time]. It was efforts from Samantha Smith, a little girl from America who wrote to the Tzar begging for peace and Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov, a man remembered for “single-handedly saving the world.” These are just two of the many across the entire world who advocated for peace.

    Nuclear Weapons have done nothing productive in the world and instead have devastated generations of Japanese families. I find it appalling that educated individuals continuously advocate for their development instead of encouraging alternative methods of problem-solving from leaders. I believe that we are using these weapons as both a crutch and a shield. We need to ask more of our scientists and our leaders; use your voice and stop consistently threatening the world with your “toys.” The inability to resolve issues civilly by our world leaders proves to myself that we have yet to progress from the gorilla warfare of the past. Secondly, we believe that the disbursement of these weapons will shield us from future harm because “nobody wants to feel the reciprocation”; perhaps this has worked for the past couple of decades, but one day in a fit of rage a leader will press the button and then what? We assume that our leaders are rational, which I believe is far too generous. All in all, perhaps we as global citizens should stand up for peace and refuse to be chess pieces in a game run played by leaders. When that bomb goes off, they will all conveniently be in their bomb shelters while the rest of us and our kin pay the price. I am advocating for peace and urge everyone, especially political theorists to do the