To what extent does nuclear proliferation promote peace and stability?

?

To what extent does nuclear proliferation promote peace and stability?

Advantages

  • The fact that there has been an absence of nuclear war since the first nuclear weapons were used in 1945 to hasten the end of the war in the pacific, suggests that they are almost entirely symbolic and not of practical or strategic importance.
  • Many states acquire and develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Realists for instance believe that they lead to a balance of power that will prevent conflict because of mutually assured destruction. The devastating impact that would befall the aggressor makes nuclear war virtually unthinkable between two states- This was evident throughout the cold war, with neither the USA or the USSR launching a nuclear attack.
  • Vertical proliferation has not caused conflict in the international system as it preserves the balance of power. The gradual speed in the increase of nuclear weapons is better for stability than a rapid increase would be as this would lead to an arms race and possibly war.
  • Nuclear statesmanship- The posession of nuclear weapons by a state can instil a greater sense of responsibility and a bias towards caution in a leader. This is possible even if that state has tended to be aggressive in the past. For instance, further conflict between India and Pakistan is now far less likely that both states possess nuclear weapons.

Disadvantages

  • Fallibility of deterrent systems- No matter how people argue that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, the very existence of nuclear weapons always carries the threat of nuclear war. Conventional wars may also escalate into nuclear wars if hasty decisions are made under the stress of a war time situation. Somebody with the rationale and childish ego centrism of Donald Trump might be particularly vulnerable to this.
  • There is no guarantee that nuclear proliferation will result in a balance of power. Proliferation inevitably creates temporary imbalances in nuclear capability that any one state might be willing to take advantage of at any time. The only two nuclear weapons ever deployed were deployed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for this very reason.
  • The production of nuclear weapons in recent years has been primarily focused on the development of a more precise impact from nuclear weapons, making them more 'useable'. This suggests that these 'battlefield' or 'tactical' nuclear weapons are not of symbolic importance but are designed for practical application, making the use of nuclear weapons seem more likely.
  • Irresponsible nuclear powers. There is always the possibility that nuclear weapons will fall into the wrong hands in the modern multipolar and more unstable global system, which has often been dubbed as 'the second nuclear age'. The possibility of a nuclear first strike depends on the existence of a political or military leadership which is not adverse to taking risks or persuing symbolic violence as a method of total war. These could be terrorist organisations or military dictatorial regimes. - North Korea/Kim Jong Un etc

Evaluation

Overall, it is likey that the existence of nuclear weapons has been effective over the past 72 years at maintaining a stable and peaceful global system (if you ignore all of the conflicts and proxy wars between the Soviet Union and the USA during the cold war), as nuclear weapons have never been deployed since. However this is not to say that conflict hasn't continued, only that conflict between states that possess nuclear weapons has not occurred. 

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Government & Politics resources:

See all Government & Politics resources »See all Nuclear proliferation and disarmament resources »