Chinese Acquisition of Nuclear Weapon,

¶ … Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapon, which may cause national security threats against the United States, is a matter of much concern. The research addresses the following research question:

What are the national security reasons for the U.S. involvement and political strategy in discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China?

The research question is important to address because recent Chinese modernization of nuclear weapons may lead to act of aggression on the United States. With potential destructive nature of nuclear weapons, it is critical for the U.S. To formulate appropriate foreign policy in discouraging the implosion of nuclear war with China since U.S.-China relations have been cordial in the recent years. More importantly, the research question is important to address because of the growing competitions between the U.S. And China with relation to the nuclear weapon acquisitions because China is trying assuming position of nuclear parity with the United States.

What is the preliminary answer to the research question?

The study argues that the U.S. foreign nuclear policy position to China with reference to discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China may partially work since fundamental goal of China nuclear policy is achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Moreover, China aim on recent nuclear weapons modernization is to serve as deterrence in case the United States may decide to attack China in the future. Although, China remains firms to its policy of no first-use (NFU) of nuclear weapon, however, China approach to the ballistic missile defenses and Chinese view towards the strategic arm control demonstrate a significant gap between Beijing's word and its acts. Beijing NFU policy could be undermined if it is strategically advantageous for China to make use of nuclear weapon against potential adversaries. Although, economic interdependence between the U.S. And China may encourage both states to purse non-nuclear war conflict and discourage both states from the implosion of a nuclear war, however, Beijing nuclear armament continues to change and China intent is to achieve a state of nuclear parity with the United States.

With reference to the organizational framework, Section 1 provides the literatures review that discusses realism and idealism model. Section 2 reveals the case study. Section 3 provides the summary of the central findings of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Restatement of the Problem Statement

A) the debate on the recent Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapon, which may cause national security threats against the United States, is a matter of much concern. The research addresses the following research question:

B) Organization of Literature Review

Part 1 reviews realism and Part 2 examines Idealism. Part 3 summarizes the findings.

PART 1: REALISM

The practice of realism in international relations starts as far back as several centuries. However, there is still a commonality between ancient state practice and modern thinking in international relations since it has been revealed that modern diplomacy is often based on the realist theory. Realists' thinkers include:

Hans J. Morgenthau of USA in 1950s

Thomas Hobbes during torn civil war in England.

Thucydides of Ancient Greece.

Machiavelli of (Medieval Italy.

Mao Tse Tung of Communist China.1

Sun Tzu of Ancient China.

All these realists have all concluded that realism guides the overall conduct of international relations. Realists base their ideas on power politics, which found its landscape in international politics, and they base their premises on the following important assumptions:

States are important actors in international politics.

Anarchic is the feature of international system

All states in international political system pursue power in order to survive.

Morality has no room in international politics. 2

Realists consider states to be the principal actor's international relations, and the states principally exist to pursuit their national interests and their national securities. 3.Typically, states demonstrate unethical behaviors and emphasize on power and self-interests when pursuing their national interests. 4. Realists argue that human beings are inherently self-interests and egoists, and there is absence of morality in international politics, 5 making the realists to believe that there is no place for morality in international politics.6. Cozette adds argument of realists by pointing out that,

"man being primarily driven by the lust for power, and man being the primary actor who, within a state, takes decisions, it logically follows that 'the essence of international politics is identical with its domestic counterpart. Both domestic and international politics are a struggle for power, modi-ed only by the different conditions under which this struggle takes place in the domestic and international spheres." 7.(P 431).

The theory of realism reveals that absence of international government makes human beings to be egoists and the factor leads to the conflict-based paradigms among states. Typically, realists believe power, security, and egoism become the main issues in international relations, there is a little place for morality, and if there is any moral practice at all, it is only used as an instrument to justify the state conduct. 8.However, there are realists who still believe that there is ethical practice in international relations. Carr challenges pure realism on the ground that there is a still an idealist dimension in international politics.9. Mearsheimer illustrates the argument of Carr by pointing out that states main preoccupation are their national securities and are only committed to amass weapons in order to deter the aggressors.10. Carr argues that states are preoccupied with power calculation and amassing the military ammunition to achieve supreme importance in international relations. However, Carr still maintains that there is still idealist dimension international politics.11.

For several decades, realism has been a dominated concept in international relations. From classical realism point-of-view, the behavior of states is the same, states often defend themselves in the absent of hierarchical international order leading states to defend their national interests.12. States exist to defend their interests and evidence of history reveals that statesmen pursue powers with the aim to pursue their interest. In the view of world politics, realism is driven by the competitive self-interests. 13.

In international relations, realism is placed in priority over ideology and it is often synonymous with power politics. 14.Costalli also contributes to the argument by pointing out that the classical realism is very useful in explaining the states foreign policy in term of pursing of economic and military power.15. States tries to perceive the behavior of other states with relative to power conflicts 16 and statesmen view power, as necessities, which should be, 17 maintain at all time. Classical realists further argue that the central concept of international politics is power, 18 and the level of power that a state possesses usually affects the state's strategy and it is the outcome of various military and economic conflicts. 20.

Despite the argument of classical realists with relation to the states behavior, the twentieth century classical realists attacked neo-classical realists on the ground that states ought to avoid power conflicts and respect the international law, and there is a need to build international order in order to prevent world conflict.21. The twentieth century realists believe that the cause of the First World War and Second World War was due to the pursue of power among nations, and the thinking of twentieth century realists gave birth to the idealism.22.

PART 2: IDEALISM

Idealism originated as far back as 14 century when Dante, an Italian poet envisaged unified world state. Idealist follows Dante doctrine by challenging realism in the sense that power politics pursued by the states led to the outbreak of the First World War. The theory of idealism emerged after the World War 1 and during 1920s and 1930s; idealists preached cooperation among states and believed that world should be in form of association where the international order should prevail in order to prevent another world conflict. 23. Idealists argue that the solution to the inter-state conflict is to respect international law, which should be backed by the international organizations. Idealists further believe that states could avoid conflicts if they choose to pursue common interests that could unite humanity.24. Unlike realism that argues that morality has no place in international relations, idealists focus on morality and believe that war emerge because of the imperfection of political arrangements and this could be improved by avoiding egoism in human nature.25. Idealists challenges realists on the ground that nation-states could move beyond power politics and significant cooperation and peace among states is the key assumption of idealists. While realists believed that states were the only important actors in international relations, however, idealists argued that the interdependence should be the dominant features of international politics and creation of republican government such as international organizations was critical to check the power of nation states.26.

To enhance cooperation within international political system, idealists focus on legal aspect of international relations leading to the formation of international organizations and promotion of human rights. Prominent proponent of idealism was Woodrow Wilson, a former president of the United States.27. Wilson had been influenced by the destruction of the American Civil war in 1856. Wilson was born in Virginia and graduated from Princeton University and Virginia Law School. Wilson earned a doctorate degree in Johns Hopkins University, and became a professor of political science. Wilson experience and academic background influenced his thought. Wilson focused on peace and international cooperation, and envisaged a new world order based on the rule of law, formation of international organizations and acceptance of shared values. Wilson also advocated for the covenants of peace by reducing armaments among nations. 28.

The idealists thought led to the formation of League of Nations to bring about cooperation among states as well as guarantying peace and security of all countries.29. Between 1920s and 1930s, idealist doctrine dominated international relations and the idealist believe made Britain to be slow in re-arming itself in the face of German with the believe that the League of Nation would prevent the outbreak of Second World War . 30. While idealist doctrine reigned between 1920s and 1930s, idealistic thought was struggling to materialize with the outbreak of Second World War. 31. After the Second World War, idealists tried to strengthen the rule of law and spread idealism in world affairs. The effect of atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nearly eroded the civilization influenced the spread of idealistic though after the Second World War. To secure international peace and security, United Nations was formed in 1945. Followed by the formation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. 32. Additionally, Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formed in 1948 making the idealistic stance to be more realistic in international affairs. Despite the effort of idealists in the promotion of international peace and security, power politics still dominated the international affairs between 1950s and 1980s. 33. During this period, there was an intense rivalry between USA and USSR and both countries displayed nuclear weapons to enhance their power influence in international politics. In the present day international political system, realists practice still dominates the international political practice.34.

PART 3: FINDINGS

The literature review has examined the idealism and realism with relation to the contemporary international political system. While realism believes that states should engage in power politics, however idealism focuses on the legal aspect of international relations and postulates the formation of international organization to enhance international order. Despite the argument of idealism, this study will use realism to illustrate the theoretical ideas in the literature reviews.

SECTION 2: CASE STUDY

What are the national security reasons for the U.S. involvement and political strategy in discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China?

Part 1 provides the historical overview of national security reasons for the U.S. involvement and political strategy in discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China.

PART 1-HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In a contemporary international political system, national security threats have been the dominant features that influence the U.S. foreign policy since internal and external forces have always threatened American strategic military interests. 35. One of the great challenges facing American policy makers is the possibility of long-term collision between the United States and an emerging powerful state of China. Although U.S. have remained a dominant military leader since the collapse of former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), however, the rise of recent China military power has been a great concern to the United States policy makers. 36. Since 2007, there has been a long-term military competition between the United States and China.37. Presently, China is growing much faster than the United States and China has been locked with the long-term military competition with the U.S. Presently, the economic engine of China is growing much faster than the economy of the United States, and there is anticipation that the changes in dynamic Chinese economy could overtake the U.S. economy between 2025 and 2035 making China to achieve parity with the United States.38. However, from the strategic perspective, China economic superiority is likely to metamorphose into military superiority leading to the military conflict between the United States and China.39. Taking the example of nuclear weapons, China continues to increase its pace of nuclear weapon development, and with the pace, China is developing its nuclear arsenal, it is likely that China will have parity with the U.S. with reference with weapons of mass destructions.40. When this situation occurs, the two states could remerge a potential confrontation. 41. History could be used to illustrate this example. When Germany overtook Britain in the early 20th century, Germany demonstrated its dominance by waging World War I and World War II. 42. Pehrson points out that China has started demonstrating its military power towards the United States. For example, China has intentionally encountered U.S. along the sea lines revealing the rising of China's geopolitical influence. The author further reveals that China is very ambitious to attain great power status, and the growing China military power pose potential risks to the United States.43. China defense expenditures continue to increase in the recent years, and China military expenditures ranks third globally apart from the United States and USSR military expenditures,44 and there is a possibility that China defense expenditure will rank second in the next decade.45.

Mearsheimer points out that China sudden increase in defense expenditure is an issue of great concern, and if it is possible to determine the China intention today, it will be impossible to determine the China intention in the future.46. Aggressive intention of a country always depends on a policymaker formulating the foreign policy of a country. Although, China uses words such as no first use of nuclear weapon to display its peaceful intention, however, China intention cannot be empirically verified. Robert on its own part reveals that it is very difficult to distinguish between China offensive and defensive position. Although, China nuclear weapon accumulation is increasing, however, China has not yet demonstrated an aggressive behavior. However, Beijing present peaceful posture towards the United States at present does not indicate that China will continue to demonstrate peaceful position towards the United States in the near future.47.

Glaser takes a different position by pointing out that China is increasing its nuclear weapons expenditure because China does not know the military action of the United States in the future. With present American military dominance, China is attempting to be pre-occupied militarily in case the U.S. becomes aggressive in the future. With reference to the American nuclear capability, the United States has spent huge amount on its nuclear arsenal designed to challenge all countries around the globe.48. Due to the American military huge assets, China cannot fold its hand and allow the United States to take offensive position without being preoccupied militarily. Typically, some of the American military assets are located at Asia-Pacific region, and much of this military capability could be launched at a very quick rate at any part of Asian region.49.

Although, Sino-American relations are improving in the last few years, however, circumstances changes. Past or present actions of a state are not necessary indicator of future action. There could be an emergence of a new leader who could be formulating an aggressive foreign policy. Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been engaged in 14 different wars revealing that the United States has been preoccupied in two wars at every three years.50. Apparently, Obama administration is contemplating engaging another war against Iran. Typically, the United States has unilaterally declared its responsibility to police the entire countries globally. With the United States aggressive behavior on the emerging states in the last few years, it is natural for China to be pre-occupied militarily in case the United States behaves aggressively towards China. Although, the United States has not made a move to threaten China, however, Beijing is foreseeing that the U.S. may become aggressive in the future.51.

With growing military tension between the United States and China and the recent increase in the Chinese nuclear arsenal, the study discusses national security problems threatening the United States that may make the United States to discourage the implosion of a nuclear war with China.

PART 2- ANSWER the RESEARCH QUESTION

Devastating effect of nuclear weapons and the impact that might cause on the U.S. territorial integrity has been a primary national security reason for the U.S. involvement in political strategy to discourage the implosion of a nuclear war with China. During the cold war, the primary security concern of the United States was former U.S.SR, and China did not pose security threat to the United States.52. However, in the contemporary international security environment, China has become a United States rival with the nuclear weapons development, and China nuclear weapons modernization continues to be a primary national security concern to the United States.53. Typically, China motivation behind recent nuclear modernization is not open to the outside world, and China recent modernization has become a focus of U.S. national interest. With China recent economic superiority, China has the greatest potential to complete with the United States militarily especially in the field of weapons of mass destruction.54. With the China military capabilities, over time, China could challenge the U.S. military superiority and offset the U.S. military strategies. Since 1990s, China has continued to invest heavily in its nuclear arsenal and its nuclear development is projected to go beyond border. China expenditure on the development of nuclear arsenal continues to increase by 10% yearly, and the issue continues to be of national security concern to the United States. 55. On January 2007, China successfully tested anti-satellite weapons and at present China has ability to deploy multiple ballistic missiles for the calculated missions.

More importantly, the United States primary security challenge is also the threat from the non-states extremists and some regional states that have been able to achieve nuclear weapons of mass destructions. Report by Department of Defense reveals that some states are shown willingness to transfer the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to other states or demonstrate willingness to support non-state actors or terrorists group. China is presently under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is the only state under NPT that is also posing security concern with the United States. The attack of World Trade Center by some handful of terrorists has heightened the speculation that the United States may be under nuclear attacks by some non-state actors or terrorists. 56.Major security concern of the U.S. policy makers is that if a handful of terrorists could cause massive damages to the United States using aircraft, how much the terrorists could cause by attacking the United States using the nuclear weapons. 57. One of the major strategies that the United States might employ to address the national security problem that non-states actors might cause against the United States is to implement political strategy in discouraging the implosion of war with China. Typically, the U.S. nuclear threats against China or China nuclear threat against the United States might escalate in the situation where non-states actors or some states such as North Korea or Iran might use the opportunity to attack the United States with the nuclear weapons. Thus, the United States political cooperation with China is major strategy for the U.S. security assurance and the strategy could be employed to deter non-state actors, or rouge states from attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Report from Department of Defense reveals that the United States has continued to encourage China to play peaceful and constructive role in addressing common security challenges, which include terrorism, and nuclear weapons proliferation.58. Since 1990, international security environment has gradually changed from U.S.-U.S.S.R ideological rivalry to a state of dangerous and unpredictable world where political intention could change overnight. Since the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1990, the international security environment continues to be more complicated, and many of the present security threats have been centered on the U.S. And its allies. The state of concern that continually pose security problems to the United States are the issues of some states seeking the weapons of mass destruction and whose their behaviors are against the international norm. The illicit pursuit of nuclear acquisition of North Korea and Iran has been a major security problem to the United States, and these states continue to threaten the regional stability and looking for every opportunities to threaten the United States with nuclear weapons. Thus, going to war with China will only escalate the U.S. national security problem where the states such as Iran and North Korea or non-state actors will have opportunities to attack the United States with the nuclear weapons. For example, Iran has made numerous direct threats against the U.S. And has continued to pursue policies, which are very hostile to the U.S. national interests.

To safeguard the U.S. national interests, the United States continues seek peaceful relations with China by encouraging China to seek peaceful economic path with the United States. In a contemporary political environment, danger and complexity associated with nuclear weapons have steadily grown and the United States faces daunting challenges to address the alarming nuclear weapons growth in the emerging nuclear states. 59. Since the United States has detonated atomic bomb in 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have become the symbol of threat and power status. Acquisition of nuclear weapons appear to be particularly increase among nation states because it allows states to display their power and is closely related to prestige that many nation states seek internationally.60. While some states consider the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a symbol of prestige, some states consider the acquisition of nuclear weapons as strategies to deter aggression. Capability of nuclear weapons to cause societal destruction makes some states to acquire nuclear weapons as means to deter possible nuclear aggression. Typically, nuclear weapons have become a double-hedge sword where states use to deter the act of aggression.61. Understanding the conditions by which nuclear weapons acquisition assists states to deter aggression makes China to formulate the policy of nuclear weapons acquisition.62.

The central findings of this study are that there is uncertainty in the China's nuclear strategic development. In recent years, China has taken steps in stockpiling its strategic nuclear arsenal. With recent China's policy on the nuclear weapon armament, U.S. foreign policymakers cannot be certain whether to consider China as a competitor or as a strategic partner.63. Since 2005, China is believed to have increased its nuclear arsenal by 25%. China has added modern three-stage DF-31A ICBMs and solid fueled to its old stock piled nuclear weapons. The U.S. estimates reveal that China nuclear stockpile range from 80 to 300 nuclear warheads.64. Additionally, China is believed to possess 24 liquid-fueled and has recently deployed its new class submarine ballistic missile. While China is observing the U.S. nuclear defense program, United States is also assessing Chinese military modernization making the U.S. To declare that China is one of the countries on the list posing security concern to the United States.65.

Guthe argues that acquisition of nuclear weapon could lead to act of aggression. U.S. foreign policy is to deter nation-state from further armament of nuclear weapon because of the capability of nuclear weapons to cause societal destruction. The great destructive potential of nuclear weapons may make states to purse the policy of aggression against nuclear-armed opponents.66. Beijing argument in pursuing nuclear strategy is to serve the country core national interest: deterrence, great power status, and defense.67.

Following the mid-air collision between the U.S. navy surveillance and Chinese fighter in 2001, China has become a national security concern to the United States. To discourage the emergence of nuclear war between the U.S. And China, there has been a lengthy U.S.-China dialogue. In 2009, the United States and China has signed a joint statement reaching agreement to improve the Beijing and Washington relations.68. Despite the recent agreement between the United States and China to improve relations, there have been noticeable decline in U.S.- China relations. The argument has been due to the growth of nuclear power of China. Typically, China has emerged from a weak country in 1990s to a prosperous country in 2012 and this has inclined China to start adopting tougher foreign policy against the United States. Schneider reveals that China is rapidly searching for the strategy to indirectly attack the U.S. With the rapid increase in the China nuclear armament, Beijing is searching for a strategy to attack Taiwan, which is one of the strong allies of the United States. Fundamental China objective is to suppress Taiwan independence and this is more reason why China is modernizing its nuclear arsenals.69.

Since the United States understands the catastrophic effect of the nuclear war, the United States has been trying to make effort to deter China from its continuous increase in nuclear weapons. With the preoccupation of the United States on the terrorists act that have ravaged the world, China has slipped from the U.S. target and in the recent years, China nuclear armament has increased. As being revealed by Huisken, implementation of sanction against a country with nuclear weapon will be most dangerous sanction imaginable. The only strategy to adopt is the policy of win-win outcomes.70. In April 2011, Obama administration revealed that U.S. was determined to lead international effort to make the world nuclear free zone. Typically, the White house is trying to renew military-to-military discussion with China in term of nuclear weapons, and the United States is encouraging China to be transparent with emphasis on the nuclear weapon in order to avoid potential nuclear conflict.

One of the strategies that the Unite States employed to avoid nuclear conflict with China was the summit organized by United States in 2010 to elaborate nuclear weapons issues. 71. During the summit, the United States presented the agenda to Chinese president to make the world a nuclear free zone. The United States stated that it needed the cooperation of China to make the United States policy on nuclear weapons be realizable. While the previous U.S. presidents have only achieved little success with China with the issue of nuclear weapons, however, Obama administration has been able to make China to purse talks on the nuclear weapons. However, major challenges on the issues are the way the United States and China think about the issue of nuclear weapons. Lewis argues that the only strategy that United States could employ is to accept that China could employ nuclear weapons as weapons for deterrence. In exchange, China should state that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons in order to seek parity with the United States; rather China is developing nuclear weapons to defend China territorial integrity. The author further argues that while both countries could agree on this issue, there are still issues on the on-going China nuclear modernization, which is going to be a big challenge for the United States to address.72. Lewis further suggests that the strategy that the United States should employ is to express that the United States is seeking world stability and not pursuing nuclear armament to dominate China.73. While China has clearly expressed no first-use (NFU) of nuclear weapons, the United States also should openly emulate China policy of no-first use of nuclear weapon. Although, United States has tried to lure China to be more transparent about its nuclear weapon capabilities, however, the United States has achieved limited success on this issue because possession of nuclear weapons has become a symbol and prestige. Thus, states keep their nuclear weapon arsenal as top secrets. Contrary to the conventional weapons, nuclear weapons has been considered as weapons that states use as identities, prestige and as means for power influence.74. While China and the United States are engaging in economic cooperation, however, both countries are still preoccupied with power politics. China has accessed the overwhelming U.S. superiority in the military conventional weapons and China has concluded that U.S. conventional military weapons could undermine the China traditional military deterrence. Thus, China believes that it is critical to implement nuclear military modernization in response to the U.S. nuclear capabilities. More importantly, China has also viewed that the United States has used force in variety of occasions in the past few decades and often without the UN mandates, and the situation has created uneasiness to China. Under these circumstances, it may be challenging the U.S. To discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament with China.75.