The Utility of Deterrence as a Central Nuclear Security Strategy

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

The United States has been unable to fully break from Cold War mentality which began after World War II, and any attempts to try and adjust this policy have been done in miniscule steps resulting in little change. Deterrence has been a strategy utilized by several presidents and administrations since the onset of the Cold War, and in many ways it still remains the central strategy for current foreign policy. The objective of deterrence is to prevent foreign powers from committing unwanted actions against the U.S. or

The various miore events of invasion and prevention of expansion had sharpen the Cold War to become what it was. The various events in question mostly involved the United States and Russia arguing over territory. Although these events influenced the outcome the Cold War, undoubtedly the formation of the Soviet sphere, the Truman Doctrine, and the attack on Afghanistan prolonged tensions during the Cold War. During the span of a few years, the demand and production of nuclear arms was increased significantly.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each constructed a supply of nuclear weapons. Soviet policy rested on the principle that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The United States embraced nuclear deterrence, the reliable threat of reprisal to prevent enemy attack. To make its threat substantial, the United States during the 1950s established and positioned several types of delivery structures for attacking the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. Each one of these systems came to be known as the Strategic Triad. One part of the triad was a long range manned bomber that would deliver the nuclear warhead. The second would be land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). The third part of this triad was nuclear

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

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.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

“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.

Since deterrence is based mainly on information passed and its interpretation, its impact was mostly seen during the cold war, in this case, Soviet Union was the the primary focus due to her nuclear force strategy which mainly targeted the United States. Critics urged the use of Mutual assured destruction so as to keep the two from War (Levy, Jack and Thompson 3). However, although the U.S assured that it was not conducting any nuclear test and possible attacks since then there has been increased suspicions between states. In India and Pakistan conflict, Pakistan had showed intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons as a mean of deterring political coercion associated with its rival India especially following her broken relationship with the United States (Collin 2). They had saw this as a mean of preventing any attack from India because they too had a bargaining point unlike the previous instance. At this point it is therefore evident that deterrence serve as to catalyze war fare because it is interpreted as a mean of mocking or undermining another country’s military abilities and threatening their existence. As pressure and fear therefore continue to build up it is often likely that the suppressed state will engage in similar practices so as to be assured of her own

Over the past decade, an international debate over how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has erupted. However, many people in the United States lack a thorough understanding of the implications of a nuclear Iran. A close examination of the facts demonstrates that Tehran has clear intent to develop, but not necessarily use, nuclear weapons. A realistic assessment should take this into account when considering the significant threat posed to the United States by Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

Controlling both the horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons has always been a subject of international concern since nuclear weapons began being developed in the early 20th century. There are three main types of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear. Although all three types may be proliferated and present a serious threat to international security, the focus is placed on nuclear weapons because of their enormous destructive capacity. In today’s modern international system, the concern is centered on the spread of nuclear weapons to international terrorist organizations and unpredictable rogue states. If actors such as these were to acquire nuclear weapons, the damage that they could potentially enact on

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 American doctrine of deterrence stemmed from the development of nuclear weapons. Strategic analysts, using this development as a point of departure, recognized that a nuclear capability established a defense scenario that was, in fact,

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.