The Negative Effect of Complete Disarmament

            Nuclear weaponry has been a discussion at the forefront in the world of international politics since World War II when the first atomic bombs were utilized.  Despite the Cold War and the nuclear arms race the ensued, the development of nuclear arms has created a more stable world.  The argument against, per say, could be that nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and a threat to society as a whole.  However, as soon as the United States created their first nuclear weapon during the Second World War, a nuclear arms race was inevitable.  Therefore, we cannot change the past, and technology will only continue to advance into the future.  Trying to completely eradicate nuclear weapons at this point in history would not be beneficial to the global society as a whole and would be impossible to control and enforce.

            Thomas C. Shelling makes an important point when talking about India in the 1970s and whether or not they “had the bomb.”  He argues that it is not important if India actually has a nuclear bomb or not, but rather if they have the potential – expertise, personnel, laboratories, equipment- to produce a weapon if they decided to.[1]  This was India in the 1970s; today, not only does India (who is a much more developed country than 40 years ago) have the potential to create nuclear weapons, but many other states have this potential as well.  Current technology and globalization have allowed for the ease of nuclear development to occur in states that did not have the capacity even 25 years ago.  The potential for nuclear weapons development, one could argue, is equal to actually possessing nuclear weapons in physical form.  Therefore, even though the Non-Proliferation Treaty only allows 5 countries to actually possess nuclear weapons, there are a significant amount of other states that have the potential to have a nuclear weapon ready within days, if not hours, if needed.

            If this is the case, then complete disarmament of nuclear weapons in the world is near impossible.  Because the technology is already present to rapidly create nuclear weapons, it would be impossible to regulate all nations in not utilizing their intelligence.  Schelling aids this idea in saying that, despite “disarmament,” [nuclear powers] would seek ways to make it known that they had the potential for a rapid buildup.  Therefore, “mutual nuclear deterrence” could take the form of letting it be known that any evidence of nuclear rearmament would be promptly reciprocated.[2]  Eliminating nuclear weapons is thus not a viable solution to the ideology behind disarmament.  It is more beneficial for countries to be transparent about their nuclear weapons, as with most nuclear capable states.  If all nations decided to sign a treaty of disarmament tomorrow, it would still be known just which states have the knowledge and capability of rapid rearmament.

            More and more countries are seeking to develop nuclear weapons as it has become visible just how accessible the technology can be.  The more nuclear weapons produced, the more backlash that ensues and the call for nuclear disarmament.  In a perfect world where all countries followed the rules, disarmament of nuclear weapons would benefit society as a whole.  However, this is not the case for the world today.  Therefore, accepting countries’ potentials for nuclear arms and encouraging transparency is the best form of control over such powerful tools of destruction.

---

[1] Thomas C. Schelling, “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4 (2009), 125.  

[2] Schelling, “A world without nuclear weapons?”, 126.