In the twenty-first century, the role of nuclear weapons has been rather controversial. On the one hand, during the Cold War, a certain level of stability was achieved. Many argue that this stability can be sustained if the number of nations owning nuclear weapons rises. On the other hand, making the world a nuclear weapons-free place or, at least, limiting the number of nuclear states only to the ones that currently exist have been viewed as more reasonable alternatives. One can find such views in the scholarly papers that discuss the horrible consequences of nuclear weapon increase globally and how first steps can be made by the greatest players in the arena in order to make sure the world is growing safer by refusing from nuclear weapon. MAIN CLAIM: Even though increasing the number of states with nuclear weapons may seem an attractive option for increasing security, it will not make the world a safer place. Instead, major nuclear powers in the world should agree on considerable reductions of arms and take lead in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which will make the future less problematic and more predictable.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons will make the international system less secure because in unstable regions and dangerous states nuclear weaponry is more likely to be used and to bring about graver consequences. In his article “New Global Dangers,” Michael Brown argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by such states as North Korea and Iran is a key worry because it increases the likelihood of the armed conflict on the Korean peninsula and complicates the stability equation in the Middle East. Likewise, according to Brown, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by such states as Pakistan and India back in 1998 exacerbated the border tensions between these two countries and made the potential consequences of the war between them many times more devastating than they used to be in the past.
Further, nuclear weapons proliferation will make the world a more dangerous place because it will increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons use by various non-state groups and fanatics. In particular, one can observe how the issues that are driving the states and other players armed with nuclear weapons towards military conflicts are no longer merely political. Instead, many of these issues are rooted in religious fundamentalism, namely Islamism. This is particularly alarming since the actions of religious fundamentalists do not appear amenable to some humanitarian or diplomatic restraints. With regard to this, the accumulation of nuclear weapons by world states triggers the proliferation of nuclear weapons by nuclear terrorists. The latter, however, focus not only on coercing and intimidating but view their nuclear weaponry as a real tool to be used against people and states across the globe.
Next, increasing the number of states with nuclear weapons will only increase the likelihood of a nuclear war because of the lack of adequate criteria of nuclear weapon legitimacy. The example of the use of an atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945 in Japan shows that the taboo on using nuclear weapon can be easily overcome especially if war generals are driven by their own ethical theories, just war principles, and prior state practices, etc. Little troubled by the consequences that the use of nuclear weaponry would bring, President Truman the U.S. generals who responsible for using the atomic bomb, commanded the bombing and did not think much about the legitimacy of what they did. In a similar way, a small group of responsible statesmen with no moral doubts can one day use nuclear weapons to achieve some strategic aims in a war.
On the other hand, critics argue that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other states in the world makes the nuclear war less likely and thus must not be controlled. For instance, in his article “The Rise of China and the Future of the West – Can the Liberal System Survive,” G.John Ikenberry asserts that “the nuclear revolution […] has made war among great powers unlikely – eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining hegemonic states.” He also adds that the very fact that China, the United States, and other great powers of the world possess nuclear weapons restricts the ability of any rising power to overturn the existing world order. The opponents have a valid point that the possession of nuclear weapons by great powers prevents the rising states from changing the existing status-quo in the world order. Yet, as the examples of China and India show, the strong framework of the Western order has already began to change as these two states are integrating into it as new players. In addition, in the post-Cold-War era, it has been true that great powers have managed to maintain the existing world order by acquiring nuclear weapons, but one cannot be sure that in the changing political, social, and economical environment of today’s globalized world, this will work. Essentially, the production of nuclear weapons these days is not only about great powers’ increase of their military capacities but it is also about the proliferation of these weapons to other, non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.
Also, critics argue that nuclear weapons expansion should not be restricted because it enhances the status of lesser powers that would otherwise have been absolutely dependent on greater powers. Specifically, in his article “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War,” Stephen Van Evera from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, asserts that as a result of nuclear weapons characteristics, such as their light weight, vast power, small size, and low cost, made the lesser powers able to stand against much stronger enemies whereas they made the great powers “virtually unconquerable.” Under “low cost” Van Evera means sustaining the second-strike capability, which comes at little cost, unlike the first-strike capability, which is really hard to obtain. In other words, the opponents of banning nuclear weapons view it as an effective political tool for minor states, as a source of political opportunities, and as a powerful defense instrument. It is understandable why the opposition believes in the utility of nuclear weapon in global political life – it is a way of “reducing the vulnerabilities” of the less powerful players. Nevertheless, empowering lesser powers only means producing and accumulating more nuclear weapon and, in this proportion, significantly increases the probability of its use. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to destroy all nuclear weapons in all states rather than allow nuclear weapons acquisition by every state in the world.
In conclusion, proliferation of nuclear weapons will not make the world a better place because it will encourage nuclear terrorism, increase the likelihood of nuclear weapon use in unstable regions, and boost the likelihood of its use by the governments who have no moral doubts in nuclear weapon legitimacy. In this way, the most viable decision for the time being is to induce major nuclear powers, first of all, the United States and Russia, to agree on considerable reductions of nuclear arms and take lead in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. With time, an alternative policy to nuclear weapons use by the world countries should be implemented, which would ensure that no country produces, owns, or sells nuclear weapons and no country can use it to suppress its political opponents. Hopefully, this will make the future of the humanity predictable and less problematic.
- Art, Robert. “Creating a Disaster: NATO’s Open Door Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, 131. 2 (2016): 341-363.
- Ayoob, Mohammed. The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System. L. Rienner Publishers, 1995.
- Brown, Michael. “New Global Dangers.” In Michael Brown Grave New World: Security Challenges in the Twenty-First Century. Georgetown University Press, 2003.
- Johnson, Rebecca. “Security without Nuclear Weapons: The Regional-International Nexus.” Palestine-Israel Journal, 19.12 (2013): 6-14.
- Ikenberry, John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West – Can the Liberal System Survive.” Foreign Affairs, 23 (2008): 23-37.
- Katzenstein, Peter. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics Columbia University Press, 1996.
- Tannenwald, Nina. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization, 53.3 (1999): 433-468.
- Van Evera, Stephen. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War,” International Security, 22.4 (1998): 5-43.
