Introduction
Nuclear weapons though not used have been the central to the political conflict of USA and USSR. Presently, in the post-Cold War ambience, this superpower rivalry has been totally removed instead the utility of these weapons are put in question.
Nuclear weapons play an important role in the security of the country internationally. No large scale conflicts have been seen in past years after the Second World War inspite of the rapid increase in transportation, communications, as well as weapons technology. These weapons are most destructive instruments give a stabilizing effect on the relations of various countries making the conflicts unacceptably expensive.
The composition of the weapons is the way to respond to changing military needs, changing conditions, changes in need to maintain a nuclear weapon. As the number of nuclear states increases, the chances of an explosion also increase. Therefore, it is worse that there is more nuclear weapon as they can be exploded in anger or accidently. The administrative, political, status quo and the sense of responsibility are the various factors that affect the state and character of nuclear weapons. If there is a large number of nuclear states, the nuclear war has greater chances while the chances decreases when the weapons are taken by the countries, the governments of which frequently fall.
Nuclear weapons designed to deter threats still continues to do the same though its manifestation of prevention is far different in post-Cold War ambience. The United States’ preeminence in the global affairs has been a cause of threat for many small states (who was previously held up by the USSR) and which is why they seek help of various nuclear weapons to guarantee of their survival both political and social.
Nuclear weapons are considered by many as the ultimate deterrent. Their strength lies within the huge, indiscriminate destruction that they bring, and also the vulnerability of the total globe being attacked. The inhuman nature of such a destruction means they're not a viable offensive weapon. However, their deterrent or powerful capabilities are huge; the chance of getting backfired can be devastating. Due to this, the nuclear states are very less likely to get provoked. As such, they act as an equalizer for the weak; making them extremely dangerous for the strong to attack. This article attempts to examine whether nuclear weapons are at all useful to deter conflicts. Also, it highlights the role of these weapons in military and political function.
Nuclear Weapons: Are They Useful for Threatened States?
The SAG document, 1995 has stated clearly that the rogue states has formed a threat that is needed to be countered. Following the war in Iraq, the pressure on these states has increased, to either comply with or protect themselves from the US (Glasstone 232). The North Korean government has issued a statement wherein the need to have a very strong deterrent force is emphasized. They have, therefore, developed nuclear weapons and have threatened to make proper use of them when attacked. For rogue states, contradictory treatment of the US of North Korea as well as Iraq establishes the deterring capabilities of these nuclear weapons. And this may in particular influence Iran, who is already believed to have nuclear capabilities, towards speeding up its nuclear programs. Iran has emphasized on the nuclear weapons and is way ahead to becoming the world's tenth state with a nuclear weapon. (Gerdes 34-48).
Do states fear the powerful actors? This has been one of the most popular debatable topics amongst the philosophers in the past few tears. And this has helped to analyze why there is an increase in demand for nuclear weapons even in the states that are not directly threatened by the sovereign country (Aloise 97). Since the revolution in the military affairs, conventional strength of the US has gone so advanced that it can only be curbed or challenged by using nuclear weapons. To cite an example; the US has given a demonstration of their strength in the bombing of 1999 that has stated that they have the power to act against the UN Security Council. However, in response to this Russia has reversed their post-Cold War decision in order to abolish nuclear weapons (Eerkens 120). Also, there is an awareness of possible US hostility towards China and potentiality of nuclear stand-off within them. With this serious threat to life and property on the purview, China, an increasingly powerful country, is keeping their calm while concentrating more in modernizing their nuclear arsenal. Both small and larger states, therefore, need nuclear weapons in the post-cold war environment.
The protection that the nuclear weapons provide makes them attractive for those intimidated by overwhelming force. The USSR engineered nuclear weapons in response to its conflict with the United States, which was more powerful. The US’s nuclear build up, beginning under the administration of Eisenhower, was in turn a reaction to fears that the USSR had more power and the so-called ‘missile gap’. Other than these states, France and China are modernizing their nuclear forces, and the same is being done by Britain.More recently, India’s possession of nuclear weapons can be justified by the threat from its nuclear neighbor, China, whilst Pakistan’s was a response to India. In the period after the cold war, American economic, cultural and military dominance is seen as a threat by certain state and non-state actors. Nuclear weapons are perceived by many as an obvious deterrent against US intrusion into state affairs (Martino 175-200).
The future decades will not be recognised by nuclear tranquility according to the academic strategist of Britain, Ken Booth.
Nuclear Weapons Deterring Conflict: Is that Even Possible?
It is mostly said and believed that nuclear weapons work to protect innumerable nations from political and military attacks (Wittner 210-245). Is that even possible? This question arises because there isn’t any string evidence to support this controversy. Without any definitive evidence, the contention that these weapons have prevented states, something that haven’t yet occurred, is just a counter-factual abstraction, which cannot be established. Ronald Regan, one of the greatest of military conservationists who didn’t agree with the airy claim that it was the US nuclear weapons that had deterred the Soviet aggression. Also, when Adelman argued – nuclear weapons have been able to retain peace in Europe, it was Regan, who showed his disagreement to this statement and said that plans like the MARSHALL Plan and NATO had been doing so and not these weapons (Bowman 120).
Nuclear weapons do not always create the problem, but they are the solution as well. In the concept of military insurance, nuclear weapons are unique, special and the most potent weapon. The weapons are known as the capstone of military capability as they have to power to destruct physically and psychologically. These weapons have the capability of cancelling the strategic effect of other weapons as well. But they cannot be cancelled by other weapons when they are delivered securely.
Nuclear weapons are the destructive force in warfare and deterrent to aggression will retain nuclear forces in the future.
Precisely, it is quite difficult to evaluate whether nuclear weapons have or will prevent states from military aggression. Since 1945, many nations, not in possession of nuclear weapons and not a part of the alliance of the nuclear weapons have not experienced a military attack. Clearly, they survived without nuclear deterrence. And also nuclear weapons in U.S.’s hands did not deter non-nuclear North Korea from invading South Korea or China (non-nuclear) from sending its armies to attack U.S. army forces in the ensuing Korean War (Phillips 26-35). Nor did massive United states nuclear might avoid the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Warsaw Pact’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Soviet military intrusion in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Also, the hundreds of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of U.S. did nothing to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on U.S. territory.
Of course, the argument is often presented that nuclear weapons have deterred a nuclear war. But as this attack never occurred, how can we be absolutely sure about the reason of this non-occurrence?
The officials in the U.S. do appear to find the strategy of nuclear deterrence very reassuring. Indeed, if they were as sure that nuclear weapons prevent nuclear attack as they claim to be, why are they so keen on building a “missile defense” system to block such an attack — inspite of the fact that, after squandering more than $150 billion on such defense systems, there is no surety that they would work? Or, to put it more generally, if the hundreds of U.S. nuclear weapons protect the U.S. from a nuclear attack by another country, why is a protection against such an attack required?
Another hint that nuclear weapons don’t ensure any security against a nuclear attack is the determination of the United States and Israeli governments to stop Iran from turning into a state of nuclear weapons. After all, if the nuclear deterrence works, there is absolutely no requirement to bother about Iran (or any other country) getting nuclear weapons (Levete 19). The fact is that, in today’s time, there is no security from war to be found in nuclear weaponry, any more than there was security in the earlier days resulting from fighter planes, battleships, poison gas, and other devastating weapons. Instead, nuclear weapons have merely elevated the possibility that, however a war starts, it will end in mass destruction of scary dimensions.
Sensible people and intelligent government leaders have understood that a more promising path to international and national security is to work at curbing the tradition of war while, at the same time, banning its most dangerous and devastating implements. This other route requires patient diplomacy, citizen activism, international treaties, the UN, and arms control and disarmament measures. It’s a less dramatic approach than brandishing nuclear weapons on the world scene. But, in the end, it’s a lot safer.
On the other hand, politicians, journalists and academics are becoming aware of the chances of nuclear terrorism. In the post-cold war environment, the terrorist attempts to nullify the process of American-led homogeneity of culture have become a major threat. Capitalism and ‘Westernization’ are so common in the environment after the cold war that many people see little scope for dissent and even less scope for a change. Rivals have a hopeless cause, and this desperation elevate the chance of people taking the path of terrorism to force change. The most prominent example being the September 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda. The WTC, the symbol of capitalism of the whole world within the United States of America, is a very significant target.
In an environment where the US foreign policy continues to be dominating and invasive, and its cultural influence is greater than ever due to globalization, it is highly expected that terrorists will continue to seek a way to hit back. Nuclear weapons are nothing but just a medium that provide one of just a few reliable options for this and therefore have a significant role in international politics.
Do Nuclear Weapons Perform a Military or Political Function?
Even after the mentioned criticisms we cannot deny the fact that the role of the nuclear weapons in today’s international politics and security are evolving. And importantly, these alterations are manifesting in competing ways for different countries. For militarily powerful countries, these weapons have been/are playing smaller function in security planning. The conventional advanced military capabilities are far more discriminating and are useful than these weapons. However, those countries that are not capable of defending themselves or do not have advanced Western military capabilities normally seek nuclear weapons or wish for their security. Well, these differences are reinforced by the fact that two authoritarian leaders – Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, who have given up both nuclear as well as other kinds of weapons causing mass destruction have been killed whereas on the other hand Kim Jong Un and also Bashar al-Assad, have rendered their mass destruction programs to support their regime’s survival (Scherer 203).
Well, these dynamics have posed great challenged for the US non-proliferation policy with the Middle East as well as Asia and is likely to act as a thorn in the relationship between the US and Russia. Though, Obama cannot avoid such challenges totally, the negative effects can always be limited. And these efforts will need discretion and restraint plus careful diplomacy when using the military force. While doing this one of the primary objectives of the strategy should be to lessen the association, which has developed in the past few years between ending the nuclear weapons program, ending leaders’ lives and ending regimes.
Closing Remarks
Since the disintegration of Soviet Union, the foreign policy interest of sovereign states has been to restrict spreading of various nuclear weapons. Countries having nuclear capability and that are related to nuclear-armed states have always given pressure to smaller states to deter them from acquiring nuclear weapons. When none of the states has nuclear monopoly, the nuclear-armed states desire to uphold their power and position over the non-nuclear states.
For a small number of technologically advanced countries having strong conventional militaries, particularly the US, nuclear weapons are losing their importance. In conclusion, in the present circumstances of world order it is improbable that a nuclear-armed state would exploit nuclear weapons against its opponents. In fact, the only time that nuclear weapons have been exploited in a war were the initial attacks initiated by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. After that, nuclear weapons have merely played the role of balancing devices used to prevent aggression from enemies, and not as actual weapons. It is for this reason that non-nuclear states hope and want to acquire nuclear arsenals.
Despite calls for the disarmament in the era after the Cold War, it seems that nuclear arms will continue to retain their significance in international relations for the foreseeable future. The global dominance of the US in both military and cultural terms means that nuclear weapons could be strategically beneficial to many. And in the post-Cold War era they continue to be important in international relations.
Works Cited
Aloise, Gene. Nuclear Weapons. 1st ed. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, 2009. Print.
Bowman, Steve. Iraq. 1st ed. [Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2002. Print.
Eerkens, Jeff W. The Nuclear Imperative. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print.
Glasstone, Samuel. The Effects Of Nuclear Weapons. 1st ed. Print.
Gerdes, Louise I. Nuclear Weapons. 1st ed. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print.
Levete, Sarah. Energy. 1st ed. North Mankato, MN: Stargazer Books, 2006. Print.
Martino, Joseph Paul. A Fighting Chance. 1st ed. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. Print.
Phillips, Gary W, David J Nagel, and Timothy Coffey. Primer On The Detection Of Nuclear And Radiological Weapons. 1st ed. [Washington, D.C.]: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, 2005. Print.
Wittner, Lawrence S. Working For Peace And Justice. 1st ed. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2012. Print.
Scherer, Lauri S. Nuclear Weapons And Security. 1st ed. San Diego, CA: ReferencePoint Press, 2008. Print.
