Argument Of Rational Deterrence Theory By Kenneth Waltz

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

Strangelove was primarily written to depict the military heads of the United States as fools for their fear during the Cold War, rather than the uncertainty of the public. Stanley Kubrick, the director, mocks many of the attitudes of the public during the Cold War and it’s various events. He knew that because of the threat of mutually assured destruction, and the fact that any single entity launching a nuclear war would be ensuring it’s own destruction, that the Cold War wouldn’t amount to anything but “military buffoons” touting their weapons, seeing who can puff their chest the highest. The threat of mutually assured destruction had already been addressed by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1967 in his speech titled Mutual Deterrence, where he claimed “It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.” This speech was given three years after the release of Dr. Strangelove, showing how accurate Kubrick was in his ideology that the threat of

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory and the three strikes laws are seen by some researcher as the way to maintain control, deter crime and deliver harsh punishment for repeat offenders by subjecting them to the three strikes law. They believe that if the punishment is harsh that offenders will be deterred to commit crime. We will take a look at these theories, and see if they are really the answer to our crime problems in the USA. It will also allow us to ask the question which is: can theories work better individually or should we incorporate them to make a better policy? And if we do incorporate them will in a policy, will they reduce crime, deter criminal from committing future crimes, and help to reduce future criminal acts? Lastly, can we implement general strain theory to into the policy so that we can try to figure out what is wrong, along with reevaluating the three strike law and see if the mandatory sentencing is working or is part of the problem?

The Cold War was a period of several decades of tension and the threat of nuclear conflict between the two remaining superpowers that emerged from WWII, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, directed by Stanley Kubrick, depicts the overlying themes of the Cold War in a comedic fashion. This film’s full embodiment of the Cold War is seen through its representation of the time period, and the sheer competitiveness between the United States and Russia. Additionally, due to many of Kubrick’s movie decisions, the film has helped society

The seekers of great power are not noted for their rationality. Nor is the vast destructive potential in the present and prospective atomic stockpiles any more of an assured war preventative than was the lesser power of conven-tional weapons prior to World War II. Some major elements of the old plan of atomic energy control now appear to be obsolete. ( ICNW Page 25)

After World War II, a new enemy was in the horizon: technology. In the 1940’s, the United States was the leader of the “Free World” paving a path and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow (Maland 191). Americans believed the misconception that “American society was sound, and that communism was a clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies” (Maland 191). The U.S. maintained a policy of containment by fighting communism wherever it may be, and in a show of might in 1952, they detonated the first hydrogen bomb (Maland 192). Only a short year later, the mighty Soviet Union announced that they too had the Atom bomb (Maland 192). And, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States became alarmed that they were falling behind in science and technology. Because the Soviets had the same capability to annihilate the world with the bomb as the United States, tensions between the two countries increase daily. But, this new war tactic brought into question man’s ability to make decisions of nuclear proportions with

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

The third argument for the absence of nuclear weapons since 1945 is through the concept of deterrence. Deterrence is the measures taken by a state or an alliance of multiple states to prevent hostile action by another, in this case through nuclear weapons. Colin Gray is one theorist who believes

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty played the role of mobilization of the states to prevent the multiplication of the nuclear weapons (Nye, 2005). The systems of the worldwide safeguards prevented the diversion of the materials that were fissile into the weapons successfully. There was widening

The border dispute along the Andean mountains’ Cordillera del Condor between Ecuador and Peru lasted nearly two hundred years, and remains one of the longest-standing border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. It’s hard-won resolution also stands today as one of the best examples of creative dispute resolution between two sovereign nation-states. In fact, the most hotly discussed characteristics of the conflict centers on attempting to explain how and why, after decades of disagreement and failure to arrive at a resolution, the two parties were able to arrive at a resolution. Theorists have differed on their application of theory to interpret the conflict and its resolution, framing the issue from all levels of analysis from