nuclear weapons advocate peace
Does the existence of nuclear weapons facilitate greater stability in international politics? Why/why not?
The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each, together with the fear of escalation to general nuclear war, keep it that way.” (Art, Waltz, 1983) Yet there are many who also share the view of Jonathan Schell who dramatically infers that if we, society, do not “rise up and cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons, we will “sink into the final coma and end it all.” (Schell, 1982) The central purpose of this essay is to challenge the conventional wisdom about nuclear proliferation; that nuclear weapons do indeed induce a greater stability amongst international politics however this does not justify countries to continue nuclear arms proliferation with seemingly no endless bounds. However despite this it is naïve to declare that a world without nuclear weapons would be without peace either. Nuclear weapons are more than just symbols of destruction and chaos but however hold far more important roles in international politics. They are at the forefront of national security and hold considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles and serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity and as such have to be treated with utmost care and with a sense of supreme responsibility by countries that hold them.
According to neorealist theory, states
The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each, together with the fear of escalation to general nuclear war, keep it that way.” (Art, Waltz, 1983) Yet there are many who also share the view of Jonathan Schell who dramatically infers that if we, society, do not “rise up and cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons, we will “sink into the final coma and end it all.” (Schell, 1982) The central purpose of this essay is to challenge the conventional wisdom about nuclear proliferation; that nuclear weapons do indeed induce a greater stability amongst international politics however this does not justify countries to continue nuclear arms proliferation with seemingly no endless bounds. However despite this it is naïve to declare that a world without nuclear weapons would be without peace either. Nuclear weapons are more than just symbols of destruction and chaos but however hold far more important roles in international politics. They are at the forefront of national security and hold considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles and serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity and as such have to be treated with utmost care and with a sense of supreme responsibility by countries that hold them.
According to neorealist theory, states
References: Art, Robert J and Waltz, Kenneth N“Technology, Strategy and Uses of Force” (University Press of America, 1983) Falk, Richard (2012) ‘Kenneth Waltz is not Crazy, but he is Dangerous: Nuclear Weapons in theMiddle East’, Citizen Pilgrimage (6 July), available at http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/kenneth-waltz-is-not-crazy-but-he-is- dangerous-nuclear-weapons-in-the-middle-east/. Goldstein, Avery “Robust and Affordable Security: Some Lessons from the second ranking powers during the Cold War: Journal of Strategic Studies (December, 1992) Holloway, David A Lavrent’ yeva in “Stroiteli novogo mira,” V mire knig, No. 9 (1970) The Soviet Union and the Arms Race, p.20 also quoted in Tahyer: “The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation, p.487. Luttwak Edward N: “Of Bombs and Men,” August 1983, p.82 Robock Alan and Toon Owen Brian(2010) ‘Local nuclear war, global suffering’, Scientific American, January, pp. 74-81, available at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf Schell Jonathan, The fate of the Earth (New York, 1982), p.231 Waltz, Kenneth N“The emerging structure of International Politics,”International Security, Vol 18, No 2 (November 1993)