Proliferation Nuclear Weapons

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 politics involved in nuclear weapons

On the other hand, it is quite amusing to note that in spite of the tensions during the cold war, The U.S. And the U.S.S.R. took extra care to prevent even minor flare-ups between their armies or allies. Although the rhetoric against each other often reached critical levels, both the countries took pains to ensure that they did not cross the diplomatic limit that could have instigated a full-scale violence between them. This proves that nuclear weapons have more value to politicians than what is clearly evident to the masses. Politicians thrive on rhetoric, particularly when their government is in danger or when they become unpopular with the populace. President Reagan is remembered for his unflinching loyalty to power politics and nuclear proliferation than anything else. He is seen as a president who could take on the threat posed by a bigger and seemingly well organized country like the U.S.S.R. The relations between the U.S. And the U.S.S.R. further deteriorated when President Reagan assumed office. He was well-known for his hate for the Russians and the American government under him, made massive rearmament efforts including the star wars programme [John 1990]. Hence, the nuclear arms race was perceived by politicians as a political tool, and successive United States Presidents used it to assert their dominance over the world. Even today, the President of the United States has through his actions, made it very clear that he believes in coercion than reason. Nuclear power only adds to the arrogant attitude of a nation and its politicians consider nuclear power a ticket to domestic popularity.

While nuclear proliferation was caused due to specific reasons in countries that were either a dominant member of the super power block, or super powers themselves, many non-aligned countries have also fallen into the nuclear trap due to the pressures caused by international agencies. India for example, was a vociferous advocate of the Non-Aligned movement, but had to adopt a pro-nuclear proliferation policy because of the imminent threat from Pakistan, its close neighbor. In 1974, after 27 years of attaining freedom, India exploded its first atomic bomb. This was in response to the bloody battle with China and Pakistan during the late sixties and the early seventies. It may be seen that the compulsions that drove India to acquire nuclear weapons was driven by the threat from Pakistan and China. In fact, India conducted its second nuclear explosion only in 1998, when tensions between India and Pakistan reached a new high. The fact that Pakistan responded to the second test thirteen days later with its own nuclear tests, prove the point that the policy of minimum deterrence still holds true in modern international diplomacy [Bulletin of the Atomic scientists, 2004]

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.