< Introduction to International Relations >
10 week
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Comment Papers
I36007 (IR)
Lee, Deok Hwan
* What are the implications of invention of nuclear weapons for international
security?
Do nuclear weapons have pacifying effects, as Waltz argues?
The focus of nuclear weapons was the primary issue in the Cold War from
two opposing political ideologies and the question of nuclear weapons has remained
with us. This essay will use the basis of the Waltz debate to analyses use and
political nature of nuclear weapons, compare the reasons states have the motivation
for wanting to pursue nuclear proliferation and examine the impact upon international
security and how actors within international relations are trying to limit the
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
7-1
According to Waltz, the spread of nuclear weapons will bring more stability to
the interstate relations based on the rational deterrence theory.
There is a
fundamental difference between the conventional and nuclear worlds.
The gradual
spread of nuclear weapons is better than no spread or a rapid spread. In the
presence of nuclear weapon, a war will less likely break out, since the primary
purpose of the nuclear weapons is to provide a defensive barrier and deterrence
against the threat posed by other states. The possibility and unacceptably high cost
of destruction makes states more careful and miscalculation difficult. Given secondstrike capabilities, the balance of forces isn’t what counts – asymmetric capabilities
ok, just a threat ok, credibility need not be proven.
In addition, Waltz argues that not only do nukes deter attacks on the
homeland, but also they deter attacks on any vital strategic interests, lower the
stakes and intensity of war. Weaker states are not likely to employ the usage of
nukes irresponsibly. – They would lose in a conventional war, so they need to save
their nukes – they will only use them if survival is at stake, not for irresponsible
aggression.
7-2
Waltz's main hypotheses are that the spread of nukes can reduce the
possibility of war being broke out, and provide less arms racing. Wars fought will be
unlikely to threaten a nuclear country’s vital interests, if deterrence fails for whatever
reason, the probability the war will be carried far is lower. Moreover, Waltz assumes
that the state is basically rational, self-preserving, and risk averse in the sense that it
would not risk large-scale destruction of itself, even if the chances are small, so long
as the chances are not zero.
Since then, it doesn’t matter if the state is not unitary
– enough people in the decision-making processes will confirm the rationality of
assumption to allow us to infer unitary preferences.
The last 50 years of the history
fits his theory and explains away events that don’t fit – such as why Israel continues
to spend more and more on defense after it got. Cold War shows nukes helped to
maintain stability and preserve peace when there was instability.
This notion explains the reason behind nuclear arms races that the
unchecked nuclear proliferation would lead to an increase in widespread of nuclear
weapons around the world. This theory also produce a security dilemma - although
the wide spread of nuclear weapon is a defensive barrier to provide the national
7-3
security, it can also can pose threats to the other state.
The concept of security
dilemma in international relations can also cause nuclear proliferation.
escalate the international tension either in the regional or global scale context.
It can
This
will further create the massive arm racing especially involved with the development
of the strong nuclear weapon as to provide a higher security against the potential
threats posed by other state.
The cord war between the U.S and the USSR is the
well known example of nuclear arm racing where both states competed against each
other by building many nuclear weapons.
Sagan opposes Waltz who argues that “Nuclear weapons, like other
weapons, are more than tools of national security; they are political objects of
considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles
and can also serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity.”
(Sagan 1996 p55) Sagan believes that the possession of the nuclear weapons will
not be able to prevent conflict in the future, since the destruction was the primary
goal of using nuclear weapon.
On the other hand, Waltz believes that the nuclear
weapon can be used to bring peace in international relations. “Nuclear weapons are
7-4
not controlled by states or statesmen; they are controlled by organizations,” Sagan
adds. (Waltz Sagan 2003 p184)In his view, organizations have biases and parochial
interests where if they are not strongly controlled by a civilian institution, it can
potentially lead to deterrence failures. “Nuclear weapons do not produce perfect
nuclear organizations; they only make their inevitable mistakes more deadly.
Because of the inherent limits of organizational reliability, the spread of nuclear
weapons is more to be feared than welcomed.” (Waltz, Sagan 2003 p184)
Waltz presents his argument that nuclear weapons enhance global stability
and prevent war, and that the more states that possess nuclear weapons, the safer
the world will be. Waltz draws on lessons of the Cold War to show how fear of
mutually assured destruction (MAD) reduced conflict between the United States and
Soviet Union. On other hand, is that the spread of nuclear weapons will increase the
likelihood of their use, whether through accident, theft, or intentional decision. It is
true that war didn't break out during the cold war era which began with the
emergence of the nuclear weapon. In addition, the security policy with regard to
keeping the peace in the international society is based on whether or not the
7-5
proliferation of the nuclear weapon is beneficial as to avoid the potential war among
the states. Thus, the continuous deployment of the US-MD policy began with the
emergence of the nuclear weapon allow us to re-evaluate about the harsh reality
involved with nuclear threats in the international society. Waltz also said that US-MD
policy is a BAD idea. Because its defensive, not deterrent, and in pursuing it you
undermine everything good and deterrent about nuclear weapons. Missile defense
will create things like arms races whereas the presence of nuclear weapons won't.
furthermore
Furthermore, Although MD is primarily used as a defensive military
weapon, it can also poise an offensive threat to other states. Accordingly, the
potential usage of MD can be defined as both offensive and defensive. Thus,
although the US defines its possession as a defensive weapon, MD could trigger the
nuclear weapon combats among states. In another words, although the usage of MD
is primarily considered as defensive military weapon, the possibility of nuclear
conflicts remains high in the presence of unfettered spread of nuclear weapons
among states. Consequently, the states must be aware of the worst possible
scenario of nuclear weapon usage upon its possession.
7-6
7-7
Reference
￭ Kenneth Neal Waltz."The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better." Adelphi
Papers Number 171.London: International Institute for Strategic Studies,1981
￭Sagan, Scott Douglas, and Kenneth Neal Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A
Debate Renewed : With New Sections on India and Pakistan, Terrorism, and Missile
Defense. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2003.
￭ Kenneth Neal Waltz . "Conversations with History; Institute of International
Studies", interview. by Harry kreisler. UC Berkeley. February 10, 2003. Web.
<http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html>.
￭Sagan, Scott Douglas. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear
Weapons. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1993. Print.
￭Sagan, Scott D. "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a
Bomb" International Security. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539273>.
7-8