Facilitators and detractors of nuclear weapons proliferation

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Facilitators and Detractors

Ever since the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has been polarized into two different groups: one that supports nuclear proliferation, and another that vehemently campaigns against the piling up of nuclear material in the world. Both groups have their own arguments to justify their stand. While those who oppose nuclear weapons argue that nuclear proliferation endangers the very existence of the world and international peace, the supporters of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear weapons are required as a deterrent force. The American policy of minimum deterrence echoes this sentiment. However, considering the fact that the world reached dangerously close to an all out nuclear war way back in the eighties during the cold war years, points to the fact that the policy of minimum deterrence can, in the hands of hot-headed heads of states, become a very dangerous tool for political manipulation. At the same time it must also be mentioned that the fear of nuclear weapons was a major factor that prevented an all-out war between the U.S. And the U.S.S.R. during the peak of tensions during the cold war. It is here that we need to analyze the importance of a nuclear deterrent policy, and its relation to a policy that actively discourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons. On closer inspection it may be seen that nuclear proliferation and nuclear non-proliferation is in fact closely related; at least strategy wise. The factors that have been considered as the primary contributors to nuclear proliferation are surprisingly similar to those factors that encourage nuclear non-proliferation in the world

Analysis

The arguments for building nuclear arsenals

Nuclear weapons as a deterrent

The threat to national security is the prime concern that drives a nation to develop nuclear weapons. It is quite obvious that the race for superior nuclear weapons was initiated by the U.S. And the U.S.S.R., which perceived each other as enemies of equal strength. Both the U.S. And the U.S.S.R. were very much concerned about the rising power of each other, and sought to offset each other's influence by building a nuclear arsenal that could match the other's power, if not better it. The effects of such brazen lust for power are quite evident in the whole world today. The whole world was divided into power blocks that swore allegiance to either of the two power centers. International bickering between the members of the power blocks further initiated small time nuclear proliferation between these countries which further enhanced the presence of these deadly killers in all parts of the world. The net result was that nuclear supremacy was seen as the sole factor that could provided a country with the upper hand in a war. During peace times, nuclear power enabled a country to bargain for more. It is a bygone conclusion that the United States would not have attacked Japan with atomic weapons, if it had even suspected Japan of having a similar weapon. Similarly, if Japan was aligned with the U.S.S.R., America would have certainly thought twice before going ahead with the atom bomb. It only highlights the fact that the nuclear weapon was and is certainly a strong deterrent that can prevent a flare up between nations. Hence, it may be seen that the fear of all-out destruction was a very dominant factor that encouraged nuclear proliferation. The urge to remain prepared in case of a nuclear strike was a very dominant factor that drove, and still drives many nations to arm themselves with the most powerful nuclear weapons [Spring, D.W. 1999, Serebriannikov V. V, 2002]

The political philosophies behind nuclear proliferation

The Realist theory became very important during the cold war period when it was the main policy of the United States of America's foreign affairs department. In fact, it may be seen that the realist principles were the dominant idea in President Truman's doctrine. The stress on realism reached its heights during the reign of President Truman when he made his doctrine of containment an active policy of the U.S. administration. It goes without saying that the doctrine had profound effect in the balance of power and created new frontiers in international relations all over the world. New power blocks sprung up and the world aligned itself to a new world order that was based on power politics [Bull, 1997].Wight (1966) gives a detailed account on the theory of international relations and speaks about the absence of good international relations in the world, even though we are moving towards a system that is better coordinated and connected. He believes that the inherent difficulties in the ideologies between nations are the reason that prevents the formation of effective international relations. For example, he tries to highlight the difference between revolutionist ideology and realism. While the previous one is based on utopia, realism tries to see things as it is, and approaches it directly. Hence realism stresses on immediate and direct action. Wight also considers the ideological differences between different philosophies in international relations and mentions the reasons that prevent amiable relations between all the countries in the world. For example, he believes that while the biggest threat in revolutionist ideology is utopia, realism is pessimistic and takes a negative and over cautious view of the world. To cite examples, Nixon is depicted as a realist while Reagan as a revolutionist. While Nixon's ideas were often conciliatory, and was one that reacted accordingly to ground realities, Reagan was a revolutionary who had a set of idealist perspectives. Even today reactionary measures encourage nuclear proliferation while conciliatory attitudes ensure peace.

Factors that encouraged a rethink on nuclear proliferation

Once the cold war was over, nuclear proliferation continued unabated for some time before the leading nations of the world initiated moves to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The move was encouraged by many factors such as:

The need to restrict irresponsible nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. This was particularly important considering the fact that smaller nations who could afford nuclear weapons may use it for irresponsible purposes, which could endanger the safety of the whole world. The need for containment through diplomatic efforts became more important because if left unchecked, nuclear proliferation could backfire at the major power blocks because monitoring nuclear proliferation all over the world would become a very difficult exercise. Hence more than confrontationist attitude, a diplomatic effort was required to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The need to prevent the creation of new power blocks and cold wars. The lessons learnt from the cold war between the U.S. And the U.S.S.R. taught us that nuclear proliferation would always create regional imbalances that could adversely affect regional stability. If smaller nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons they could adversely affect regional stability and thereby cause concerns for other nations. This is the sentiment that has encouraged America to intervene in the case of North Korea, India and Pakistan. A nuclear flare-up in these regions can adversely affect the United States. A different consequence would be the fact that an imbalance of power can cause American interests to be jeopardized. While Pakistan is being afforded the Most Favored Nation status by America, the growth of India as a superpower can indeed put undue pressures on American interests in South Asia, considering the clout that India has over its other neighbors.

Finally, nuclear weapons have always been the dream-weapon of terrorists the world over. Even recently, the shocking revelations of Pakistani nuclear scientists that they have helped other nations achieve nuclear weaponry has caused the international community to further monitor the movement of fissile materials between countries. This also increases the responsibility of powerful nations to try and stop terrorist outfits from achieving nuclear materials for making weapons.

Further, there has been a change in the philosophic outlook of nations. While in the eighties, political rhetoric and tit-for-tat attitudes governed nuclear proliferation policies, the modern approach is to create or modify international situations that could encourage nuclear proliferation. Even though realism has been hailed as a practical way of dealing with international situations, it has its fair share of drawbacks and has attracted criticism from experts. Gaddis (1993) argues that any useful theory of international relations should be able to predict significant events in the field, and notes that none of the current mainstream theories were able to predict the end of cold war. The failure of realism, as the dominant theory, to predict the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system that it produced, attracted a great deal of criticism.

Today nations are united in their demand to do away with nuclear weapons. The international laws and regulations are based more on economic principles that encourage cooperation and co-development rather than confrontation and animosity. As a result countries have been univocal in their demand to do away with nuclear arms and a means of military power. Today, it may be seen that nuclear weapons are sought only by nations that are ruled by autocratic men and terrorist outfits. The cultural shift that goes against nuclear weapons is quite evident these days.

Nuclear rollback also was encouraged by tactical reasons. For example, in Ukraine, which had one of the biggest stocks of nuclear weapons after the erstwhile USSR disintegrated, nuclear weapons were seen more as a liability than an asset. USSR's biggest enemy, the U.S.A. was no more an enemy state primarily because the enemy of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. was no more existent. Similarly, Ukraine did not need its vast nuclear arsenal to dominate over the smaller states that arose after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. This opportunity was seized by the U.S.A., which struck a deal with the Ukraine government to reduce its arms pile, which would be reciprocated by USA. Hence, in this case, the reduction of nuclear material served as a tactical method to reduce the nuclear arms pile that existed with two erstwhile enemies. When enmity was gone, there was no need to retain weapons that would probably be never used. It may be appreciated that tactical reasons combined with a commitment to peace, which was the prime reason why nuclear material was deployed in the first place, served as the reason that ultimately led to their withdrawal.

International moderation on long standing problems is another factor that has helped nations to rollback their nuclear programmes. As far as India and Pakistan are concerned, the Kashmir issue has been a long standing contentious problem that has seen the eruption of three major wars between the nations. With both countries attaining nuclear power, and the tensions between them increasing to unmanageable levels, it was only natural that international mediation was asked for, at least by Pakistan. Pakistan has successfully invited attention on Kashmir, while India has been able to prove the involvement of Pakistan in terrorist activities in India, in international forums. Once these two contentious issues have been internationally acknowledged, the degree of hostility between the nations have come down drastically, and signals from both the nations prove that the countries are more than happy to sit for negotiations than fight in the battle field. Here too the requirement for peace has encouraged the countries to desist from initiating an all-out nuclear threat against each other. The intervention of the United States in Pakistan has been a major boost for the peace processes in these countries.

Similarly, there have been instances in history when nuclear proliferation was halted as part of a country's commitment to social responsibility. For example, South Africa pulled back its nuclear activities mainly for being included in the international forums, which had discarded it due to apartheid. In the case of South Africa, nuclear non-proliferation was part of a package that allowed it to be included in the international forums. It may be said that South Africa in fact bought its rights for abandoning nuclear proliferation and apartheid [Author not known 1, 2004]

Observation has shown that nuclear proliferation was encouraged ironically as a means to maintain peace and ensure internal development. It is ironic that restoration of peace is the principal factor that is encouraging nations to roll back their nuclear arsenal. Even though economic factors like industrial growth, domestic growth factors, and general progress have encouraged nations to revert to their non-nuclear status, or to maintain minimal nuclear deterrence, peace initiatives are the prime factor that has encouraged nations to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. Examples all over the world have shown that nuclear roll-back is a direct effect of peace initiatives.

Conclusion

Nuclear proliferation was caused by mistrust and fear, which encouraged nations to take extreme measures to maintain peace. That the extreme measures never attained everlasting peace is another matter. However, in the modern world where development is given more importance than confrontationist attitudes, the urge for peace has been the prime factor that has encouraged nations to resort to peaceful methods. With the lack of a dominant power block and the development of a definite international political philosophy that is more aware to realities, political pundits are giving more importance to peace initiatives for ensuring their popularity. In this context it must be said that the need for peace and popularity had been the prime factors that had encouraged nuclear proliferation a few decades before. It is ironic that the very same factors have contributed to ensuring peace in the modern world. Hence, it must be acknowledged that the sentiments that encourage and discourage nuclear proliferation are the same. Only the perspectives differ.