For most people, a world without any state having any
nuclear weapons in their possession would be a good thing. The world would
never be on the verge of mutually assured destruction, and there would be more
cooperation between countries that would otherwise not cooperate had there had
still been nuclear weapons. This assumption is false for many reasons.
One reason as to why this is wrong is because the
world before nuclear weapons there were always arms races between rival
countries which would in time lead to war due to asymmetric information.
Neither state would know what the other intended to use its built up arms so
one state would act preemptively and attack their rival state before it attacks
them. Major wars occurred before nuclear capabilities were discovered. A state
with no nuclear capabilities would never think to attack another state with
nuclear capabilities. Without the deterrence of nuclear weapons, wars would be
more likely to start with conventional forces.
A second reason as to why it would not be better is
that even if states dismantle their nuclear weapons programs, it is very
difficult to believe that each state that would not have "hair-trigger
mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer
delivery systems and would have prepared targets to preempt" (Schelling,
127) other states' nuclear facilities. They might have dismantled their
programs, but they did not destroy their facilities. There is also the
likelihood of each state developing its own secret or unofficial nuclear
weapons program. This means that it will be even more difficult to know who
really has nuclear weapons and who does not.
A world without nuclear weapons is actually less
stable than a world with nuclear weapons. When both World Wars started, there
was a very unstable system that evolved. the entanglement of alliances that
occurred and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand allowed Austria-Hungary
the excuse they needed to attack Serbia and start the First World War. there
was no deterrent of mutually assured destruction to prevent them from
attacking. The beginning of World War II started similarly in that there was no
real deterrent to keep Germany from attacking Poland and starting World War II.
Nuclear weapons, although very powerful and destructive,
maintain peace and act as a deterrent to belligerent states that wish to act
aggressively. There has not been a large full-scale war between multiple
countries across continents since the end of World War II. The world might have
seen a Cold War; however, it was an uneasy peace that never brought the two
main powers in direct conflict with each other.
I would agree with the idea that nuclear weapons generally lead to prolonged peace. If we were to disarm today completely along with the rest of the world the possibility of war would skyrocket and leave small countries vulnerable. In fact countries have been invaded by giving up their nuclear programs. Iraq never had one and when the United States discovered this they invaded them. Libya after seeing what happened to Iraq believed that if they disarmed then the United States would leave them alone. They did so and within the decade the country would be embroiled in a civil war brought about by western influence. It actually makes a lot of sense that Iran and North Korea are pursuing in one manner or another a nuclear weapon as it almost guarantee the United States will not intervene in your country. Peace through proliferation.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with your point about nuclear arms deterring countries from going to war with one another. Without nuclear weapons, many powerful countries would not have the incentive of mutually assured destruction to stop them from entering in wars over every issue. Therefore, the more countries that acquire nuclear weapons, possibly the better. I am not saying that every country in the world should have nuclear weapons, but I do believe that there are many incentives to have them. As you say, the stability of the world actually occurs through the possession of nuclear weapons and the sphere of influence it creates.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the stability of the world with or without nuclear weapons. It's easy to say that the existence of nuclear weapons causes too many issues therefore, it'd be better if they just didn't exist altogether. Or, if all countries can't have them then, why should any country get to have them. They're not necessary to fight wars since we've had successful wars without them, but they keep any future wars at bay. The threat of using a nuclear weapon to destroy a country and it's people helps the leaders come to a reasonable negotiation in order to keep tensions from escalating too high.
ReplyDelete