The Threat Of Nuclear Deterrence

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

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.

Extended deterrence can be summed up as the prevention of an attack or invasion against another country. For example, the United States has used its military might and its deterrence strategies to prevent the spread of communism by stepping in between Russia and the countries the former Soviet Union wanted to invade. The Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are just a few such examples. Nuclear deterrence dissuades the adversary. It is a psychological pressure that most surely affects enemy decisions. The U.S. doesn’t just step in the middle of conflict to extend deterrence; it also places its nuclear weapons in allied countries to persuade adversaries against invading or threatening them. This “nuclear umbrella” as it has been termed, discourages expansion, thwarts threatening behaviors, prevents invasions, and inhibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When the nuclear umbrella is extended to U.S. allies, those countries become bound together to fight against more powerful nations such as Russia. Allied nations then garner protection from an equally powerful America and thus, they tend to not seek nuclear weapons of their own. Extended deterrence has not fully prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons however. According to Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Director,

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

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

There are many arguments for and against the reliability of military deterrence. The simplest definition of military deterrence is threatening to use force to discourage another state or country from doing something that is not in your favour. One main example of this in history is the Cold War commencing 1947 – 1991. During the cold war both the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated a large supply of nuclear weapons. It was in the Soviet Union’s interest that they would use the nuclear weapons thus creating a nuclear war and that that it was likely they would fight and win. On the other hand the United States has adopted the theory of nuclear/ military deterrence threatening the Soviet Union with retaliation and punishment if they

Scholars offer differing meanings and concepts but all agree on the common assumption that “deterrence is successful as long as aggression does not take place.” The essence of deterrence is that the threat of harm prevents an adversary from doing something. It is achieved when an adversary practices restraint

Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.

It will be concluded that the notion of ‘more may be better’ does not necessarily prevent conflicts using nuclear weapons from occurring.

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

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

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 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,

Deterrence is the idea that when two superpowers have enough defences, such as military and nuclear defences, to destroy each other, they will be deterred due to the fear and doubt of the consequences. An example of deterrence would be the Soviet Union and the United States’ built up of nuclear weapons. These superpowers had no real intent on using their arms. The act of deterrence between the Soviet Union and the United States was to ensure a balance of power. An unwinnable or undesirable nuclear war is referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction. This policy was significant as the superpowers involved had directly attacked, their nuclear war would end all life on the planet. This nuclear war created tension and fear between nations. Deterrence