Viability of Non-Nuclear Deterrence Strategies

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.

The third and final proposal is taking greater action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to confirm all nations are on the same playing field to dismantle nuclear weaponry. I plan on providing updated analysis in these issues as well. The Seventh Decade was written in 2007 and a lot has gone on since then in regards to nuclear activity and I plan on making it clear to the reader where the U.S. and the rest of the world stands.

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.

Throughout history, one of the most prominent competitions between countries revolves around the creation or acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, most countries don’t realize that in doing so they create a greater problem. This problem is that as more countries acquire these weapons they are more likely to use them. The use of nuclear weapons is unethical and wrong whether that country is in a state of war or not. The first utilization of a nuclear weapon was in World War 2 by the United States when they dropped an atomic bomb on Japan in an effort to end the war. The use of nuclear weapons during World War II was unethical because these weapons were developed for the sole purpose of acting as a deterrent, there were other

4.Bell, Mark S. “Beyond Emboldenment. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on State Foreign Policy.” Conference Papers—American Political Science Association, 1/1/2014, pp.

Classical deterrence prevented a nuclear exchange between America and the Soviet Union because both nations had well defined interests, they effectively communicated their intentions and both were willing and able to use the credible threat of mutual assured destruction. This strategy of “deterrence by punishment” made the cost of using nuclear weapons excessive in comparison to the benefit. This strategy cannot be applied successfully against today’s non-state

Nuclear deterrence was a key component of American security during the Cold War. The nuclear stockpiles accumulated by the United States and Soviet Union throughout this time period produced a situation of mutual deterrence. The catastrophic risks of a nuclear strike kept the countries from all-out war. In the aftermath of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union took steps to reduce their nuclear arsenal, first in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty (INF) then with START I (Pifer, Bush, et al, p. 8, 2010). New START, like its predecessors continues the bipartisan process of reducing U.S. and Russian strategic arms. In doing so, the Treaty presents several key benefits to U.S. national security.

The big question for scholars may not be whether deterrence helped to prevent World War II but why leaders and lesser officials in both superpowers and so many scholars thought it was so necessary, and how, until the advent of Gorbachev, they repeatedly confirmed this belief tautologically. Such behavior has not stopped with the end of Cold War. Reputable scholars routinely claim that nuclear weapons have kept the peace between India and China and that American intervention in Iraq brought about an about-face in Libyan foreign policy. With the possible exceptions of Israel and conservative British defense analysts, the United States appears to stand alone in the faith it places in deterrence and the credit it gives it for preventing war.

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty signed by one hundred and ninety states used to slow down the spread of a large number of nuclear weapons while promoting the use of nuclear technologies in peaceful ways such as energy. Its purpose is to keep nuclear technology in “Nuclear States” or trusted countries until a long-term goal of total disarmament can be reached. Even though it tries to bring about nuclear disarmament, the NPT is a threat to the modern world. It is currently speculated that the United States has the most stockpiled Nuclear weapons with Russia being a close second. Each of these countries has “thousands of known stockpiled nuclear weapons with the next closest state having just a few hundred” (Rising Powers

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

The presence and development of nuclear weapons dictated a necessary shift to our strategic thinking. There was a necessity for a broader understanding in terms of security, war and deterrence with the rise of new technologies capable to put at risk human safety. The presence of new elements at the time to analyze and direct our strategies, became a clear evidence that our traditional conceptions had change and there was an increasing necessity for new ones to be put in place. The theories of Carl Von Clausewitz's and his views on war such as “a continuation of policy by other means” was no longer our most effective tool, as that absolute war characteristic of previous conflicts such as World War I and World War II, will now represent total destruction.

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 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.