War is a key element of study in politics and international relations, made all the more compelling by the exploration of how it has changed over the course of time, with technological advancements having significantly impacted its defining characteristics. Nuclear power has fundamentally changed warfare and can both strengthen and weaken international stability, an issue that has been the epicenter of international politics since its creation.
To determine the extent to which nuclear weapons pose a challenge to international security, an assessment shall first be made on the degree to which their destructive power threatens international communities, followed by an exploration of how they can be utilized for strategic gain which can stabilize political climates, and ending with an analysis concluding that manipulating such weapons can result in more political insecurity.
The mere presence of nuclear weapons has presented many challenges to international communities as many governmental entities around the globe have contested their existence based on the inherent danger they represent to international stability. Nuclear arsenal has the capacity to cause an insurmountable amount of devastation to societies worldwide, made real if this were implemented for warfare.
The prospect of nuclear warfare taking place is made possible due to nuclear proliferation, defined as “the spread of nuclear weapons, and…the spread of nuclear technology and knowledge that might be put to military use” (Brown, McLean, McMillan, 2018: 395).
The capabilities of nuclear power were made remarkable by the detonation of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan launched by the United States in 1945, which had devastating consequences on each of the cities’ populations.
In order to examine precisely how much of a danger nuclear weapons pose to international stability, an analysis of their destructive power must be conducted. On August 6th, 1945, “an explosive force” (Loss, 2009: 2) was launched onto Hiroshima, killing between 80 000 and 140 000 people on impact and injuring a further 100 000 (Loss, 2009).
Additionally to these severe casualties, the bomb caused serious infrastructural destruction, as “over two-thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima were demolished” and “everything within about 4.4 miles…of the explosion was incinerated by the hundreds of fires” (Loss, 2009: 2). This devastating attack was only amplified by the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Nagasaki on August 9th, which “claimed another 60,000 to 70,000 lives” (Normile, 2020: 4) and destroyed “more than 40% of the city” (Loss, 2009: 3).
Moreover, nuclear weapons generate lasting harm onto those affected by their attacks: in addition to the casualties and damage they can cause, their influence continues to permeate far after their detonation due to radioactivity. Individuals found within a “1.2-square-mile area would face the heaviest dose of radiation” (Ward, 2018: 27).
Radiation is immensely damaging to the human body and the environment, however its effects on organisms is particularly disastrous. Symptoms associated with radiation are the following: “nausea…vomiting…spontaneous bleeding…diarrhea…severely burnt skin” (Ward, 2018: 28) all of which can cause severe if not deadly injuries.
Recent studies have explored the correlation between radioactivity and nuclear power, which found that it can cause a plethora of physical issues, such as cancer and deformities. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) have found that “124 [citizens of Hiroshima] have died of cancer” which was directly related to the fact that they were exposed to “more than 2 grays of radiation” (Normile, 2020: 10) during the attack.
Furthermore, another study from the RERF found that “women suffered more radiation-associated cancers than men” and that younger individuals were more exposed due to how “actively dividing cells are more susceptible to radiation effects” (Normile, 2020: 11), therefore making this age group more susceptible to radiation-induced cancers. Through these analyses, nuclear radiation causes irreversible and critical harm to human beings.
Considering the amount of damage that can arise from the use of nuclear weapons – related notably to their inherently deadly and destructive nature – they represent a serious threat to the existence of human civilization.
Nuclear arsenal is defined as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) which “has been a part of…discourse for more than 60 years” (Enemark, 2011: 382), capable of global devastation that would forever threaten international stability.
The presence of nuclear power has challenged the scope international security as it is synonymous with the devastation and havoc it can precipitate onto human civilization. However, nuclear weapons embody a far greater purpose than to wreak destruction onto populations: they are also used to further the political agendas and advance the positions of nation states, some of which aim to bring stability to the international community.
Nuclear arsenal has the capacity to secure international stability through its ability to safeguard human society: it is utilized as a political instrument of deterrence, its destructive power being so significant that it can avert armed conflicts from taking place by sheer force of intimidation. Nuclear weapons embody a purpose that is greater than the preservation of national security, they are “political objects of considerable importance” (Sagan, 1996: 55). If the safety of entire populations is at stake, nation states will pursue the most efficient means of protection. It is essential for a state to embody both prestige and influence on the global political scene for it to possess any kind of legitimacy in deterring international conflicts.
Nuclear weapons can be mobilized to uphold deterrence, defined as “a policy of attempting to control the behavior of other actors by the use of threats” (Brown, McLean, McMillan, 2018: 155). This is relevant when considering the history attached to nuclear weapons, as they became “the center piece of foreign policy” during the Cold War (Betts, 1998: 26).
Having already witnessed their destructive power, the main actors of this conflict – Soviet Russia and the U.S – mobilized each of their nuclear arsenals to promote their ideological superiority.
For nuclear weapons to be used for the purpose of diverting war rather than enabling it, there needs to be a consensus on the part of the actors involved which would stabilize political tensions: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensures that the agents implicated in a conflict will avoid warfare on the grounds that the “costs of [a nuclear war would] outweigh the benefits” (Craig, Goodman, Moody, Pelopidas, 2019: 11) because it would lead to the destruction of all parties involved.
Several examples throughout history illustrate this point. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 exemplified the success of deterrence policy, as a nuclear conflict between the U.S and Cuba might have taken place due to heightened tensions over the fact that the communist Cuban leader had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba directed at the U.S under the Russian Premier Krushchev’s orders.
Through calculated exchanges in the lines of deterrence policy, American President John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev had come to an agreement in which “the US would remove its…missiles from [Soviet range], and in return the Soviets would remove their offensive weapons from Cuba” (Craig, Goodman, Moody, Pelopidas, 2019: 15) so as to avert a nuclear war that would have been disastrous for both parties.
Furthermore, governments around the world deployed nuclear weapons to solidify their sovereignty. In 1990, Ukraine adhered to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which aimed to limit the use and spread of nuclear weapons “as a way of separating itself from the Soviet Union” (Sagan, 1996: 81). Following the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956, France advocated for nuclear proliferation, using the atomic bomb as “a dramatic symbol of French independence” which would cement the nation’s status as “a great power” (Sagan, 1996: 79).
Continental alliances have been created in which “states…join a balancing alliance with a nuclear power, utilizing a promise of nuclear retaliation by that ally as a means of extended deterrence (Sagan, 1996: 57). Nuclear weapons are maneuvered to fulfill political agendas that can stabilize political turmoil.
It is key for military prowess to be secured in order to cement a nation’s power amongst a myriad of others advocating to do the same; hence why the possession of nuclear weapons is in of itself a political statement. To have acquired nuclear arsenal conveys that a nation state is powerful, therefore making it less susceptible to the possibility of an attack. International stability is solidified by the existence of nuclear weapons.
Moreover, much debate surrounds not only how nuclear weapons are mobilized, but whether they should even exist at all: nuclear deterrence, a policy aiming to lessen the likability of conflict, utilizes nuclear arsenal as a means of disabling any conflict from taking place; when the probability of this would be eliminated completely if nuclear weapons too were eliminated.
Nuclear power should be eliminated in order to secure international stability as deterrence policy has proven to be counterproductive: the purpose of this strategy is to manipulate weapons of mass destruction to avert any possibility of this occurring, yet the fact that nuclear weapons exist renders the policy obsolete.
Political and military agents have little grounds to prove that nuclear weapons are the reason why conflicts throughout history have not taken place: these counterfactual claims base themselves on the prevention of an alternate reality – one in which nuclear warfare would have taken place – rather than what led state actors to believe that an armed conflict could have transpired. This is exemplified through the case of Soviet Russia and Western Europe, in which there was little evidence that the former contemplated invading the latter, “much less that it was restrained by the West’s nuclear arsenal” (Barash, 2018: 5).
Furthermore, the political manipulation maneuvered around nuclear weapons are to an extent inefficient. For one, although deterrence remains an effective policy, the use of nuclear weapons within this strategy is counterintuitive as it aims to deescalate tensions through violent means that could escalate them further.
If nuclear deterrence fails, mass destruction for all parties involved ensues: this policy could not be implemented when tensions rose over NATO concerns that the Red Army could claim Western Europe. Due to the proximity between both parties, “defending Europe with nuclear weapons would destroy it” (Barash, 2018: 11). It must also be remarked that nuclear deterrence “relies on the…theory that undergirded Cold War policy, dominated by…the threat of second-strike retaliation” (Betts, 1998: 34) rendering it obsolescent.
Additionally, nuclear weapons are a threat to international security because of how “increasingly accurate” they have recently become, to the extent where the possibility of a counterforce strike is made insignificant by the fact that “nuclear states are…able to target their adversary’s nuclear weapons for destruction” (Barash, 2018: 12).
Nuclear deterrence is credible only if the actors’ arsenals “remains invulnerable to attack” (Barash, 2018: 12). With military technology becoming increasingly more advanced, the threat of nuclear weapons is undeniable to the international community if there are technological programs created precisely to destroy them.
International security is threatened by the prospect that state actors are not necessarily rational agents: there is no guarantee that under immensely stressful situations in which an attack could be likely that actors would make decisions “based solely on a cool calculation of strategic costs and benefits” (Barash, 2018: 13). These strains have led political actors to respond in incautious ways, as seen in 2004 when the “Syrian President…stated that [he] would agree to destroy [weapons of mass destruction] only if Israel agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal” (Enemark, 2011: 393) which it promptly refused, reinforcing ongoing tensions. The destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons aggravate political strains, rather than alleviate them.
Nuclear arsenal challenges international stability through its ability of mass destruction that perpetuates a constant state of uncertainty in how nations interact with one another. Deterrence theory lacks credibility when it is intertwined with nuclear arsenal because the former negates the latter: the presence of nuclear power is enough to create animosity between state actors that could provoke an armed conflict. International communities are threatened by nuclear weapons, not safeguarded by them.
In conclusion, nuclear weapons do not fully embody the protection necessary to solidify international stability. Rather, they have rendered human society susceptible and vulnerable to attacks only reinforced by the current uncertain political climate. Nuclear deterrence has little place in the modern world, in which political strains and technological advancements have left such policy in the Cold War era.
The destructive abilities of these WMDs could create unprecedented damage to millions of individuals, much of which would be irreversible. It would however be unwise for nations having already procured themselves of nuclear arsenals to surrender them as this would change the currently stabilized relations between hostile state actors. Nuclear weapons exist to generate devastation, to perceive them as mere political tools would be incautious.
Bibliography
Barash, P. 2018, Nuclear Deterrence is a Myth. And a Lethal One at that, The Guardian, 5-13
Betts, R. 1998, The New Threat of Mass Destruction, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 1, 26-34
Brown, G. McLean, I. McMillan, A. 2018, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University Press, Fourth Edition, 155-395
Craig, M. Goodman, M. Moody, S. Pelopidas, B. 2019, Have nuclear weapons helped to maintain global peace?, History Extra, BBC History Magazine, 11-15
Enemark, C. 2011, Farewell to WMD: The Language and Science of Mass Destruction, Contemporary Security Policy, Volume 32, 2011 - Issue 2, 382-393
Loss, A. 2009, The Role of Nuclear Weapons in International Politics: A Strategic Perspective, National Security Program, Program on Teaching Military History, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2-3
Normile, D. 2020, How atomic bomb survivors have transformed our understanding of radiation’s impacts, Science Magazine, 4-11
Sagan, S. 1996, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb, International Security , Winter, 1996-1997, Vol. 21, No. 3, The MIT Press, 55-81
Ward, A. 2018, This is exactly how a nuclear war would kill you, Vox, 27-28