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.
I agree with you that nuclear weapons have kept the world at peace since WWII. While I agree that nuclear power leads countries to cooperate with one another rather engage in war, I do not believe that the world should embrace nuclear power. The threat that the weapons should possess but people should not idealize nuclear weapons. Also, I do not think that the world should embrace other countries getting nuclear weapons. Rather than calling for a proliferation of weapons, I think it would be safer if we maintain the amount of countries who have nuclear weapons. Since there could never be a future where nuclear weapons do not exist, I believe that the world must find a way to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Taylor, and while I agree you have a point that we shouldn't embrace the idea of countries getting nuclear weapons I feel as though denying nuclear weapons will lead to more conflicts. If developed countries can demonstrate that they can be held responsible for nuclear weapons than I feel as if it's in the world's best interest to appease them.
DeleteHi John, insightful piece! Of all the theories we've studied, I have to agree, MAD is one of the most convincing. Yet, even after reading your [great] post, I can't completely agree. I think nuclear weapons, so long as they are here, will be an imminant threat to the world. We assume everyone is rational, nobody will do that , this and that, but at the end of that day is this a plausible thought? We put too much faith into our leaders who have proved time and time again that they cannot be trusted with power.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Morgan, and while I understand your point I disagree. I agree that leaders cannot be trusted always with power but no leader has ever fired a nuclear weapon based off of MAD since 1945 and personally I don't think that is changing anytime soon.
DeleteI agree with you that countries should not ignore nuclear weapons. I believe that the most dangerous situation that could occur is if a smaller country with a very weak military force with nuclear weapons. This is why I do not believe smaller countries like Iran should be allowed to have these weapons.
ReplyDeleteI agree that countries with very small militaries should not acquire weapons but this is not Yemen or Somalia we are talking about. Iran has 80 million people and is the second largest country in the Middle-East.
Delete