StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Horizontal Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
From the paper "Horizontal Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" it is clear that there is little doubt as to the long-term consequences of the nuclear arms race - it will inevitably lead to mindless destruction. Hence, the sensible option is deterrence at every level of nuclear weapons development…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER97.5% of users find it useful
Horizontal Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Horizontal Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"

International Relations and Strategic Studies: What are the main arguments for and against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons? Warfare is one of the most tragic institutions devised by humans. Many philosophers and intellectuals of by gone eras have pondered over the destruction left by war. They have questioned the merits behind purported motives for war. The scale of human and material loss incurred in wars is hard to justify through reasoning. If conventional warfare is bad enough then nuclear confrontation is even more catastrophic. The only known instances of the deployment of nuclear bombs happened toward the closing days of World War II, when Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom bombed. It led to the loss of nearly a million civilian lives and total destruction of the city. Even those who survived this event, continued to suffer under effects of radioactive radiation for many subsequent years. A generation of Japanese children were born with congenital defects as a result of mothers’ exposure to radiation. Political leaders of today will have to consider their nuclear weapons program in the backdrop of this ghastly human disaster. The rest of the essay will point out the pros and cons of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is very difficult to talk of the merits and demerits of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons without considering the effects of vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation is the acquisition of know-how, technology and material by a nation-state or a political/militant group so as to manufacture nuclear weapons of their own. The term ‘horizontal proliferation’ is used to refer to nation-states or similar entities that do not already have nuclear weapons but aspire and endeavour toward this goal. Vertical proliferation is the process of consolidation and improvisation of nuclear weapons by nation-states already well-established in making nuclear weapons. It is fair to say that vertical proliferation induces horizontal proliferation, as the latter group feel more and more insecure with their militarily well-endowed neighbouring states. In the years after the Second World War, Cold War was the political theatre upon which various nations placed their rationale for developing nuclear weapons. Yet, even as recently as a decade ago, only a handful of nations were classified under the nuclear-enabled category of states. (Krepon, 2012, p.44) Recent geo-political developments, especially in the wake of September 11, 2001 terror strikes on the United States have significantly altered the internal political dynamics of many nations in the Middle-East and Asia. It is these two continents which are most keen to become nuclear-enabled. But the irony is that their main perceived threat is not Islamic terrorism but the excesses of US imperialism and the neo-liberal project. Emerging economies in the Middle-East and Asia see the United States and its allies as the greatest threat to their prospects. As a result, they are put in a position where embracing nuclear weapons becomes a prudent defence strategy. American governments of the past, especially the one run by George W. Bush showed unequivocal disrespect for international law and arms control treaties. For example, “The invasion of Iraq, carried out despite the lack of a United Nations Security Council endorsement and even though UNMOVIC reported that Iraqs nuclear capability had indeed been dismantled, is the primary example of such disdain. The termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Administrations assertion of a prerogative for "preemption" that amounts to "preventive war” are further reasons for horizontal nuclear proliferation." (Quester, 2008, p.143) Even though the dangers of horizontal nuclear proliferation are identified by the players involved, there are compelling reasons why they cannot avoid participation. The foremost compulsion is the unmatchable power and reach of the United States and its nuclear-enabled allies. This is why, the nuclear disarmament program has been moving at a very slow pace. Moreover, this program is looked at with pessimism by even well-intentioned participants. For example, the program has so far reduced the nuclear warhead count by 23,000 units, but has left intact wholly operational 27,000 units in place. The program is articulated in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Even in the 2005 treaty review conference, talks of its further implementation met with stiff opposition. As a result, “pessimism is now often expressed about the prospects for survival of the non-proliferation regime, given Iran and North Koreas apparent intentions to acquire such weapons. But because nuclear proliferation needs to be restrained, it is much too early to give up on the treaty.” (Quester, 2008, p.145) One of the main reasons why developing nations feel insecure and thus are willing to jump on the nuclear arsenal bandwagon is the ineffectiveness of international law. They fear, quite rightly so, that an unjustified military offense against their sovereignty might not get effective censure and punishment through international law. International law has a long tradition of engagement with the issue of WMD proliferation (especially nuclear arsenal). The International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons illustrates, that there are three bodies regulating WMD – arms control treaties, international law on the use of force, and international humanitarian law. Of these three, it is the arms control treaties which pay focussed attention to WMD proliferation. Provisions under arms control treaties have led to “international agreements designed to prohibit or limit the development, possession, and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons by states. Through such treaties, states and international organizations crafted a body of international law dealing directly with the control of WMD.” (Fidler, 2004) But the biggest drawback for these laws is their enforcement. There is no centralized international authority that can take punitive action against breach of these laws. In what constitutes a vicious circle, this feebleness is further rationale for developing nations to adopt nuclear weapons. Hence, as long as international law enforcement remains weak, ambitious or insecure states will find it fit to have nuclear weapons in their armoury. If horizontal nuclear proliferation continues, then it augurs badly for the prospects of survival of our species. But in terms of geo-political considerations at the level of nation-states, a few strategic rationales could be offered. Firstly, there is a tendency among many nations to “seek local military and political potency vis-a-vis traditional enemies”. (Gray, 2006, p.34) Secondly, there is the broader motive of ‘counter-deterrence’ outside immediate reach. This is especially a valid rationale considering the United States’ inclination to be proactively intervening in regions of strategic interest. Even if the nuclear ammunition in the possession of a rogue state is very small, it is enough of a deterrent to put off active intervention by the de facto ‘international policeman’ – the United States. Many countries find this a highly desirable scenario for the lack of American intervention can re-vitalize local democratic institutions, re-orient domestic policy as per the will of the population and help national sovereignty. To illustrate, “if Saddam Husseins Iraq had been believed to possess a handful of nuclear weapons in 1990, Coalition risk-benefit assessment would have been radically different than it was.” (Gray, 2006, p.34) There is another incentive for smaller nations to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. This is not to make retaliatory nuclear strikes, but to thwart conventional military attacks from the United States and its allies. In other words, “The very potency in non-nuclear military striking power that the West presently enjoys has to provide strong motivation for aspiring great powers to seek some non-linear "knights move" by way of a strategic offset. Nuclear acquisition, threat, or use could qualify as such a discontinuity for critical strategic effect.” (Gray, 2006, p.35) While conceding that threat of American intervention is the biggest motivation for smaller nations to develop nuclear weapons, there yet remain other crucial questions. Is it really feasible that we could achieve total or near total nuclear disarmament in the future? Though such an objective is attainable in theory, there are many practical stumbling blocks. In the tense and suspicious atmosphere of international politics, verification of the implementation of disarmament programs is going to be very challenging. We thus need to know whether “the halting of horizontal nuclear proliferation is really so impossible if Moscow and Washington feel that they have to retain substantial nuclear arsenals. There are persuasive arguments that nuclear disarmament of the existing superpowers would actually spur nuclear weapons programs in Iran or Brazil, rather than holding them back by the power of "good example."” (Quester, 2008, p.146) In conclusion, there is little doubt as to the long-term consequences of nuclear arms race - it will inevitably lead to mindless destruction. Hence, the sensible option is deterrence at every level of nuclear weapons development. In order to be able to achieve this end, a significant change in the attitude of participant nations is essential. For starters, the idea of associating nuclear weapons with greater security will have to be dismantled. A renewed respect and adherence to the already subscribed treaties is imperative. Though the threat of a full-fledged nuclear war has somewhat reduced due to diplomatic efforts, all it takes is a press of a button to unleash great human damage. Hence, while there are many valid reasons for horizontal proliferation – the foremost being national security and strategic advantage – unfettered horizontal spread will most likely lead to disaster. Hence, voluntary deterrence is the right approach to adopt. We can derive hope from the fact that “157 states are now parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which was signed in 1968 - which means there is widespread concern. It also highlights the commitment of the major nuclear weapon states to total nuclear disarmament and reflects the expectations of the non-nuclear weapon states that this commitment will be honoured at an early date.” (Wrobel, 2002, p.6) References Cimbala, S. J. (Ed.). (2001). Deterrence and Nuclear Proliferation in the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fidler, D. P. (2004). International Law and Weapons of Mass Destruction: End of the Arms Control Approach? Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 14(1), 39+. Gray, C. S. (2006, Spring). Three Visions of Future War: ... "Cyberwar," Nuclear Armageddon, or the Good Old War of the Rifle. Queens Quarterly, 103(1), 34+. Karsh, E., Navias, M. S., & Sabin, P. (Eds.). (1993). Non-Conventional-Weapons Proliferation in the Middle East: Tackling the Spread of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Capabilities. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Krepon, M. (2012, March). A Perpetual Menace: Nuclear Weapons and International Order. Arms Control Today, 42(2), 43+. Lord, C. (2001). The Past and Future of Nonproliferation. Naval War College Review,54(4), 153+. Quester, G. H. (2008). Why Nuclear Disarmament Matters. Parameters, 38(4), 143+. Singh, J. (1993, October). The Bomb or Peace. UNESCO Courier, 35+. Wrobel, P. (2002, November). Testing Times. The World Today, 55(11), 6+. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“What are the main arguments for and against the horizontal Essay”, n.d.)
What are the main arguments for and against the horizontal Essay. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1618455-what-are-the-main-arguments-for-and-against-the-horizontal-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons
(What Are the Main Arguments for and Against the Horizontal Essay)
What Are the Main Arguments for and Against the Horizontal Essay. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1618455-what-are-the-main-arguments-for-and-against-the-horizontal-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons.
“What Are the Main Arguments for and Against the Horizontal Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1618455-what-are-the-main-arguments-for-and-against-the-horizontal-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Horizontal Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Neorealist and Neoliberal Alternatives to U.S. - Russian Security Cooperation

While discussing international relations between sovereign nations there has been an ongoing debate between the impact two predominant theories – neorealism and neoliberalism have on shaping approaches, attitudes and policies of nations as to how they would interact with one another.... ... ... ...
14 Pages (3500 words) Essay

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

It also reinforces the rationale of states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons capability in order to maintain the balance of power through nuclear deterrence.... Many theories exist on the 'why' and 'how' of nuclear proliferation such as 'classical realism' and 'neo-realism' but what is generally accepted is that the locus is external in nature.... The paper "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" tells us about prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons

The spread of nuclear weapons is officially termed as 'Nuclear Proliferation'.... While on the other hand, horizontal proliferation occurs when the use of nuclear weapons spreads from one nation to another.... However, right after that, the idea that the possession of nuclear weapons by some country might lead to the spread of nuclear technology in the world did worry people.... This compels one nation to another to take a step towards the possession of nuclear weapons....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Nuclear Proliferation

Later in 1968, a treaty on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was signed to see to it that there were no cases of nuclear technology spreading especially to new states.... Conventional thoughts hold that Truman's intention was to save humanity from the many effects that were to be brought by the improper use of nuclear weapons.... This treaty is by far the only confirmation that nations using nuclear weapons were to see to it that disarmament was achieved....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Is Deterrence Still a Useful Concept in the Post-Cold War World

It is submitted in this paper that the deterrence theory is no longer appropriate as a comprehensive theory for explaining the role of nuclear weapons in international relations.... demonstrates that whilst the 'First Nuclear Age' of the pre-Cold War era clearly supports a link between deterrence and nuclear weapons; the post-cold war gradual proliferation of nuclear programmes.... This phase highlights how nuclear weapons' programmes were rooted in the need of both superpowers to assert power in the arms race3....
12 Pages (3000 words) Research Paper

South Koreas Strategy in Response to North Koreas Nuclear Weapon

It is submitted in this paper that a consideration of the psychology behind the development of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea in the current 'Second Nuclear Age' is vital to the evaluation of whether nuclear possession is the right choice for South Korea; particularly in light of the recent military attacks by North Korea on Yeonpyeong Island.... This paper tells that the literature review of the deterrence theory demonstrates that whilst the 'First Nuclear Age' of the pre-Cold War era clearly supports a link between deterrence and nuclear weapons; the post-cold war gradual proliferation of nuclear programmes in states such as North Korea; clearly point to a shifting justificatory rationale for nuclear weapons....
14 Pages (3500 words) Research Paper

Arms Control and Disarmament

okoski and Koulik (1990:7) and Schear (1985:141-182) have given examples of arms control agreements and treaties that include the 1968 treaty on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT), the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the 1993 Convention on Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC) and 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).... Meyer (1984:111-126) states that a greater percentage of arms control treaties are multi-lateral while others have limited application to certain states- as outlined by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) that was integrated into the 1990 Convectional Armed Forces in Europe Agreement (CFE), the 1990 Open Skies Treaty (OST) or nuclear weapons Free Zones Treaty (NWFZT)....
10 Pages (2500 words) Assignment

Controlling Nuclear Proliferation

The international community faces a resurgence in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.... Even though different countries have defended their decisions to acquire and maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons as having been motivated by the 'right to protect themselves,' there is a need to control nuclear proliferation through strict rules and principles set out by the United Nations, which state that no country can purchase, supply, or create materials for nuclear weapons....
6 Pages (1500 words) Research Paper
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us