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.