Nuclear Weapons

Introduction to International Relations

Submitted to, “Mr. Kamran Shahid” Submitted by, “Muhammad Waqas Khalid”

To What Extent the Nuclear Weapons Indicate a Stable Future National Security is the utmost priority of every sate in this world. Whether a state is developed or still it is under development, the prime task of the government is to make its security plan foolproof. In the world of severe competition power and development, every country wants to get more than she has. In the race of fulfilling personal needs many states invade other states to get the possible gains from that state. In order to avoid these invasions every state wants to make its defense non challengeable. This activity of the states gave birth to the race of Nuclear Weaponry in the world. In order to see that whether the Nuclear Weapons indicate a stable or destabilized world, first it should be seen that what motivates the states to invade other states. In this regard the states attack one another if they see that if the defense of the enemy is contestable or not. If the defense of the enemy state is contestable for that state, it is likely to held a war between those two states and vice versa. Secondly, if there is the possibility of any relative gains from that invasion. If the attacking state thinks that if there is any possibility for that state to get any relative gains in the form of land and resources from its enemy state then, the War Between the States becomes inevitable. Thirdly, the power strengths of that state. Whether it is superior or inferior in its defense and power to the attacking power. If so there are more chances to happen a war between those two states. Fourthly, is there any defeated war or victorious war held with that state. If the attacking state is confident enough that it will defeat the enemy state or it had any defeated war in the past it provokes the state to attack on the enemy state. Fifthly, the limited destruction, uncertainty of the destruction and the long time frame makes the wars to happen. These five points indicate the possibility of wars between the states. This is the simple answer to the question why wars happen in the conventional warfare? In the circumstances, mentioned above, the wars between the states become inevitable. To avoid the wars the states should try their best not give roam to other state to find any weakness in its defense. If we see the powerful states like United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, China and India how strong the defensive system they have then its becomes impossible for their rival states even dare to attack them. In this way the

states can avoid the destruction in the world. When the states fail to achieve it the wars become their destiny. Characteristics of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Weapons unlike the conventional military weapons have some special characteristics. These characteristics include:  Mass Destruction  Speed of Destruction  Certainty of Destruction The nuclear weapons are special due to their mass destruction. In the past the destruction was on a very low scale, but in the nuclear war the destruction can be so severe that even the losses can never be amended for the centuries. We have the example of the Japanese cities like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the effects can still be observed. So every state is aware of the fact that the weapons of just some kg can do what the huge air forces and navies can never do. So the every country is familiar with the fact of its mass destruction. Secondly, the speed of the destruction, in the conventional warfare the states were in the position to plan and think about the attacks, but in the nuclear war it becomes impossible to even move from one part to another in the same territory. This attack is just of seconds which has the everlasting effects. Thirdly, certainty, now every state is aware about the certainty of the destruction. In the conventional warfare system the countries did not know how much they or their enemy will loose after the war, or they will be the one of the losers or the winners. But now the states know that what will happen in the end of the nuclear war. By looking at the motives of the war we can see why the wars happen. But here the nuclear weapons give no roam to the countries to produce any one of those causes. For example the concept of relative gains (as mentioned above) which are likely to be an attractive thing for the attacking power. But in the presence of the nuclear power or nuclear weaponry it is quite obvious that with the fire of the nuclear weapons nothing will remain alive. Everything will vanish of both the countries. So in this way neither of the countries would be able to get any relative gain from each other. So the purpose of the war will vanish automatically. In this way neither of the countries would like to attack on the rival powers. Secondly, the concept of the contestability of the defense system of the

rival power will no more be a factor of war, because in the presence of the nuclear weapons the defense of every state will be uncontestable and unchallengeable. The defense of both the rivals will be strong enough that neither of them would like to attack on the other by just thinking that the rival’s defense is contestable, so all the international wars on the basis of the contestability of the defense will go to an end. Thirdly, when the countries would know that the enemy state is just equal to us in power because of the presence of the nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. They equalize all the states militarily. Fourthly, both the rivals would know the speed of the destruction so they would be in the position to know the certainty of war. Fifth, nuclear wars are more costly than the conventional warfare, so it becomes impossible for the states to attack the other rival and peace is more likely to happen. Sixth and the last, unlike the conventional warfare it creates the state of “Death or Survival” instead of “Winning or Loosing”. So nobody is willing to kill himself. So peace between those states is like to be held. In this way the international wars will come to an end but the cold wars can initiate. Criticism on the Nuclear Weaponry Proliferation (Critique’s approach): In as far as the elimination of international wars via nuclear weapons is concerned there are two schools of thoughts. According to the one nuclear proliferation is decreasing the international wars but others think that it has imposed a serious threat to the world peace. They are also right to their point. They argue that, the existence of nuclear weapons has imposed a big threat to the regional peace. Secondly, the regional as well as world peace is also at stake if the weapons come under the control of the rigid or extremists areas. Thirdly, every new nuclear state would like to produce the more destructive and cheap technology and in this way the nuclear weaponry race will start. Fourthly, the spread of nuclear weapons among the weaker states poses a great threat to the world safety. Lastly, the weaker nuclear states because of their insecurity against strong enemies are more irresponsible and immature in using the nuclear options.1 The first argument of the critiques fails about the nuclear order to see the closeness of nuclear strategic environment because the majority of the nuclear states exist side by sides so share the common border. Their closeness to each makes them more cautious about the use of nuclear weapons. Same can be seen in the south Asian world. Most of 1

“International Relations and Political Theory” by Mr. Kamran Shahid, ch: Nuclear Proliferation Devastating Yet Inevitable, P:47

the nuclear powers are in the forms of the clusters so they are more vigilant about using this nuclear weaponry. Secondly, the command of nuclear weapons by rigid and fanatic leaders is not at all a worrying matter. The contemporary studies have shown that the extremists or the rigid are toned by arriving in the arena of international affairs and competition. They are not at extreme as in the domestic affairs. So the argument that the extremists or the rigid pose a great threat to the regional and world peace is not true enough. Thirdly, one declines to accept that the nuclear arsenals encourage the armaments race and hence promote wars. The nuclear balances are inherently stable. The extra spending of some nuclear states on the military armament does not initiate the armament race because it neither threatens nuclear balance nor frightens the other nuclear states. Once the states acquire the necessary security through nuclear deterrence she no more needs extravagant spending on the purchase of armaments. The possession of nuclear weapons even at small scale is solid guarantee to the safety of a nation state. Fourthly, it is quite rational to believe that the new middle states or the weaker states are capable of keeping those nuclear weapons program. They have a very limited material that why it is quite easy to handle. If sometimes any accident occurs then the destruction will also be on a very limited scale. There is no threat of devastation from the weaker states with limited technology but it is from the other giants that are having the millions of the warheads. Lastly, the weak states of the system responsible in handling the nuclear program along peaceful lines, first of all, they are neither the major nor the regional powers that could provide the nuclear umbrella or support to other states and fight for their sakes. Their objectives are less destructive and only limited to their security goals. They are weak enough and know that they will lose quickly. So they will avoid using the nuclear weapons. Their option for the use of nuclear weapons will be just for their survival. ‘Organizational Theory’ A Critique of Nuclear Proliferation: The critiques of the nuclear proliferation theory argue that nuclear proliferation has imposed a serious threat to the world. They gave the organizational theory instead of the national security nature of the nuclear weapons. According to them the new emerging nuclear states are either dictatorships or the weak civilians. So it imposes the treat of use of the nuclear weapons. They argue that the army officers are trained for the wars and

wars strategy. They are least interested in solving the conflicts with the democracy of diplomacy. So they can use the nuclear weapons more often than the civilian democrats. The same threat is also expected from the weak civilian governments. In the answer to this the scholars of International Relations say that during the Korean War 1950, the military officials tried their best to avoid the nuclear war. They insisted to start a general war instead of the nuclear war but it was the civilians’ leader which insisted on the use of the nuclear weapons. Not only the one military official insisted on the general war but also others insisted the same. So it was cleared that the dictatorships are more likely to start the general war instead of the nuclear war. The scholars of international relations further argue that, In as far as the knowledge is concerned; there is no such a law or theory of international relations that envisage that military is less rational, less patriotic and reckless than civilian government in provoking wars and conflicts. Secondly by virtue of what logic one must believe that a soldier or a general whose life becomes more insecure at the advent of the war should express deep inclination for reckless bloody combat? They negate the organizational thesis. There are valid reasons to believe that the nuclear weapons would not be misused by the military organization and peace of the future would not be intact under both military and civilian led government. First of all military leaders are least interested in the nuclear weapons. They drive their strengths from the control and command of the traditional warfare. Unlike the scientists they prefer to lead the troops in the battlefields. They have been trained in traditional way of fighting, therefore it is illogical to think that the military led underdeveloped states would certainly become the nuclear powers and pose threat to the peace and stability. Secondly, the generals are as patriotic as the civilians. They prefer to avoid wars in ‘unfamiliar conditions’. The nuclear warfare generals uncertainty about the possible outcomes. The only certain aspect of nuclear war is human sufferings and massive killings. Both civilians and military rulers are aware of this simple fact, therefore it is wrong to conclude that the generals are reckless while handling the nuclear options. Thirdly military believes in the cautions. It always informs first and then it may go for the attack. The use of force is only when all options are closed. In the history this fact has

been prove to be true. So it demonstrates that the use of force is only when there is nothing left over. Historical Background Relating the Nuclear Weaponry: The following states became the nuclear states in the last century.

Names of the States United States USSR England France China Israel India Pakistan North Korea

Year of Nuclear Tests 1945 1949 1952 1960 1964 1970s 1974 1998 2006

In the era of conventional warfare the wars between the states were common. In the conventional warfare following wars held which became the nuclear states later on. 1- India and China war 1964 2- Pakistan and India Wars i.e. 1948, 1965 & 1971 3- Arabia states attack on Israel 1960 Historical background of present nuclear powers shows that India and China had a war between them in the 1964. There held no war between nuclear China and Nuclear India after 1964. The same case is with the nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India. Pakistan and India had three international wars in 1948, 1965 and in 1971 in conventional warfare. But neither of them had any of the international wars after 1971 war. India became the nuclear power in 1974 and Pakistan became the nuclear power in 1998. It has stabilized both the states. The same story was seen in 1960 with Israel. But when the Israel became the nuclear state it saved itself from the threats of the international wars. Conclusion: By keeping in view both the paradigms (i.e. nuclear proliferation and nuclear non Proliferation) it is concluded that the nuclear weaponry has reduced the international wars and it has stabilized the world. By the emergence of the nuclear weapons the contestability of the national defense, possibility of relative gains and resources has also

come to an end. Now the countries cannot afford to bear the heavy costs of the wars. It has enforced the peace among the nuclear states. Now the countries are aware that with the use of the nuclear force the possibility of any type of nuclear gains is never ever possible. Now by the war the death or survival state will arise. If all the countries will be proliferated then every country would try to use the diplomacy and meetings to resolve the conflicts rather than wars. If all countries would be proliferated the defense of ever country would be invulnerable, hence no state would dare to attack on another.