On Thursday October 22, 2015, the Iranian government stated
that they will begin to completely implement the nuclear deal that was made.
President Hassan Rouhani made it clear though that he would make sure that the
other parties would also fulfill their part of the deals. For example,
international sanctions on Iran from major powers must be lifted. What this
Iranian deal shows is that a world with nuclear weapons does not mean any
country can have nuclear weapons, and countries with nuclear weapons can use
this over other countries in order to make deals. Therefore, what I take from
this article is that some nuclear
weapons is a good thing. It has allowed or caused a long peace between great
powers. Russia and the United States fear a war with each other due to the fear
of a nuclear war. What this article also shows, is that countries with nuclear
weapons even with differing forms of government (China and United States) can
work together, in this case using sanctions to deter other countries from
gaining nuclear weapons. With all this being said would all the problems be
solved by having no nuclear weapons? Schelling in “A world without nuclear
weapons?” would say no. I completely agree with Schelling that a world with
some nuclear weapons is safer than a world with no nuclear powers.
I believe this because firstly, the ability to know for
certain that a country does not have a nuclear power or is not intending on
making one is incredibly difficult. Therefore if countries stated they did not
have a nuclear power no one really knows if they are telling the truth. This
could be seen in the Iraq War when Sadam Hussan was unclear whether or not he
had a nuclear weapon. Secondly, without the fear of a retaliation attack why
wouldn’t that country keep making the nuclear weapon and hold it over a power
greater than themselves. Third, Schelling makes the point that a non-nuclear
world may just consist of mobilized bases that at any point could make a
nuclear weapon if necessary. Meaning, if for example, China were to begin
fighting with the U.S., those countries would most likely have in place a base
ready to make a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible to hold over each other. Lastly,
Schelling argues that he has seen 63 years without a nuclear weapon used and he
believes that great powers will keep each other “quiet” by all having nuclear
weapons and can work together when “rogue” threats come up. Iran was a rogue
threat, and as we see in the article the great powers that Schelling mentioned
did work together in order to prevent a nuclear Iran. Nuclear Weapons in this
case almost seem necessary for peace. I would go as far as to say that they are
necessary for peace because now that they have been made and countries if they
wanted could possibly obtain one, other countries must also have nuclear
weapons in order to prevent one country from taking over all other countries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good post. It deals a lot with MAD and I think you bring up some good points. I like what you have to say about the mobilized bases. I had never heard or thought of that before. But I do have to question your last sentence. You state that in order to avoid world domination, nuclear weapons are paramount in multiple nations, and especially not a single nation. However, this has already occurred in the world. At the conclusion of WWII, the US was the only nation with nuclear weapons. The world was also mostly in shambles and the US had a fully mobilized military force, If ever there was a time for a nation to take over the world it would have been by the US in the years following WWII. However, despite being the only nation with nuclear weapons, they did not. The world has survived to this point without nucs. However it has only lasted about 70 years since their implementation. While wars are costly, they don't have the total destruction possibility that nuclear weapons, especially if there are many out there possessed by multiple nations. While MAD has worked so far, how do we know it will persist?
ReplyDeleteHi Ryan, I like the topic that you chose for your post. While I believe that if nuclear weapons had never been invented, then that absence of nuclear ability would make for a safer world than the nuclearized world we live in. However, as we discussed in class and read in the readings, now that we have invented nuclear weapons, we will always have the ability so there is no going back. Therefore, given this context, I agree that having nuclear weapons makes for a safer world. However, your argument rests on the point that a few nuclear powers lording their nuclear capability over each other makes for the long peace. My question in response is if that type of peace is desirable? Or is that long peace simply a matter of constant intimidation and threats?
ReplyDeleteHi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really solid post. I agree with your argument that a world with some nuclear weapons is safer than world with no nuclear powers because at this point, even if every nuclear power did get rid of their nuclear weapons, any country could restart their nuclear weapons program within hours. With that said, I think that nuclear weapons are more important for a country’s own security rather than for actual use. It seems quite unlikely that any country would use nuclear weapons against another country because they would fear the ramifications they would face by the allies of the attacked country. Thus, I think the fact that nuclear weapons provide a sense of security to smaller, less powerful states is a good thing; so long as there remains this understanding that nuclear weapons are not for use, but for a country’s own sense of security.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteNice job. You address some key points. I really liked the point you made about countries being able to make nuclear weapons whenever deemed necessary, and that countries can't be trusted because of that. One point that should also be talked about though is that of supporting terrorists. It is sometimes argued that Iran would support terrorists who are against Israel, U.S., other European countries, Saudi Arabia, etc. and those terrorists would work with Iran to target/attack those countries. As a result, it is argued, the U.S. intervention in the Middle East would no longer be possible and this would prevent the U.S. "from hitting Iran" (Sokolski article - Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran). However, there is no way that Iran would be able to trust terrorists with such valued nuclear weapons because...how could you legitimately trust them?. I know you obviously can't include everything in your post but I think this issue is important. And to address your last sentence, do you think states want to possess nuclear weapons to actually prevent other nations from attacking - do they actually think that the states would attack them? Or do states want nuclear weapons just to keep the balance of power in order? For instance, Israel has nuclear domination in the Middle East. Could Iran possibly want nuclear power just to shift the balance of power, or are they actually afraid of Israel, or do they want dominance? And could Israel be afraid of Iran if they obtain the nuclear weapon, perhaps causing more conflict in the Middle East?
Really good post.
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI like how you were able to boil down the nuclear deal with Iran, and the intricate issues of WMDs into such a concise piece. The only question or perhaps issue I would like to bring up is the Russia vs US nuclear 'battle'. This example is the most interesting to me because it seems that from what we know Russia would be biggest country that would be most likely to employ such weapons. From what I have read and understand their military doctrine almost dismisses the premise of nuclear determinants, and sees these weapons as a feasible solution given the right time and place. Given this statement, what would you say the US should do? If nuclear weapons failure to deter conflict, what will the world turn to?