Peace Among States: The Democratic Peace Theory Essay

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.

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

John Knowles’ novel A Separate Peace is about a few boys at a boarding school in New Hampshire. The story is centered around the friendship of two boys, Gene and Finny, at a boarding school in New Hampshire. Although in the beginning of their friendship Gene did not trust Finny, by the time he dies Gene feels as if a part of him has died, showing that he still felt closely bonded to him after all they had been through.

The novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles is about learning and it reveals that people have to have the bad to see the good. This thematic statement connects to both the book and the world that we live in today. Many people want everything to be perfect and beautiful but the hard truth is that it will never completely be that way. Life isn’t going to be the way every stroke was placed on the perfect painting of life that everyone has in there head which was handcrafted from their wildest dreams. Their may be some slippery patches but good will follow close behind.

John Knowles’ “A Separate Peace” takes place at a boarding school during World War II. Best friends Gene and Finny have been inseparable during their time at the Devon School. This is until reality hits Gene, and he slowly starts to realize that he is inferior to his best friend. Through the unbalanced friendship between two teenagers in “A Separate Peace,” Knowles illustrates that a loss of identity may be present in a relationship if there is an unequal amount of power.

Countries have found nuclear weapons to be a very deadly tool that can cause immediate havoc among any nation. Both the desire of wanting to be the detonator of an atomic weapon and the fear of being on the wrong side of one has brought upon other nations the aspiration to create such weapons. According to Brennan Weiss from businessinsider.com, there are now 8 other countries that bear nuclear weapons besides the United States. Moreover, the US does not even carry the most nuclear weapons; but, however, Russia does. The idea to use the deadly devices and weapons back in World War II have swayed other nations into wanting to become just as strong a power the US had portrayed to be in the second world war. The manufacture of nuclear weapons has become an initial part of the army for the 9 countries that acquire them, and still causes worries to countries to this day due to threats of use.

The civil war ended and it was soon the beginning of many hardships. “The Problems of Peacemaking” discusses all of the problems with the Northerners and Southerners becoming peaceful after the war. President Abraham Lincoln did many things to try to get peace after the war. When he realized it wasn’t going to be easy, he decided that a “Reconstruction Plan” could maybe help them get peace. After the civil war the South didn’t have many things left because everything they had was destroyed almost completely. People living in the south wanted to regain it back but they soon realized it wasn’t that easy to do. The white southerners lost some land and their slaves but that was nothing compared to the black southerners. Black southerners lost everything when they left to get freedom, besides a little bit of clothing and a few possessions they took with them. Blacks and whites had completely different meanings of freedom. The whites wanted to control what they did without the government’s input, and the blacks wanted to get freedom from the whites. The whites wanted white supremacy which is, they wanted to be more superior. The blacks just wanted to be control and own things such as land. General William Sherman’s “Special Field Order No. 15” helped give 400,000 acres of land to 40,000 freed slaves. Other methods were produced to help slaves get land, one of the most famous was the Freedmen’s Bureau. The Freedmen’s Bureau gave slaves food, health care, clothing, and education. The whites of course, disagreed with the Bureau and would have disputes about it. The disputes were all settled by the Freedmen’s Bureau. General Howard created the “Circular 13” which helped lease 40 acre plots to slaves and hoped to later sell it to them. He also made the Southern Homestead Act that made 46 million acres for sell to slaves in many states. It was later repealed because people thought slaves were taking advantage of it. Republicans had say in what happened during the reconstruction. The conservatives and radicals disagreed on their views. The radicals were more harsh. All the conservatives said was that the south should just take what was happening and do nothing about it. The radicals wanted to take away some rights from a

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

Nuclear war has not been far off from happening, and nuclear fallout scares are no surprise to world leaders. In 1999 Pakistan mobilized nuclear weapons while at war with India, making it the most significant military conflict between two nuclear-armed countries. Pakistan and India have other triggers such as attacks by Islamist militant groups, such as the attacks in 2008 on Mumbai (Helfand, Ira, Junkari, et al.).

As the arms race builds in the world the threat of nuclear warfare grows and grows everyday. There could be a new Cold War on the horizon, but not between the United States and Russia. Many countries that never had nuclear technology in the past are now attaining the knowledge and resources that they need to build up their arsenal. A perfect example of this is the situation between India and Pakistan. These two countries have been fighting each other for many years. Recently, each gained nuclear technology for warheads. Now, instead of just fighting and arguing with each other, they have nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Any day the conflict could grow out of control, and the two neighbors could both end up as the world did in "There Will Come Soft Rains."

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

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.

Democratic Peace Theory The concept of the Democratic Peace Theory is based on the idea that whether states are likely to go to war or choose peace depends on the type of political system they have.