Introduction
The rise of nuclear weapons around the world has altered international politics as they continue playing a crucial role in how international politics are shaped. The influence that nuclear weapons have in international politics can be seen from two viewpoints, defensive realism, and offensive realism. There are countries which see it necessary to develop nuclear weapons as a defensive tactic in that they can only use such weapons in case they the. Such countries are mostly concerned with defending their sovereignty and thus not in any way involved in causing international conflicts around the world. Offensive realism includes countries which develop nuclear weapons and use them to exert their power around the world or even in the own countries. Some dictatorial regimes around the world mostly focus on developing such weapons as a way of terrorism their neighbors or even using them against their citizens in case they oppose their rule. The use of nuclear weapons influences international politics through bringing like-minded countries together to create a block or prompting opposing countries to form a block as well. The paper below will study how nuclear weapons influence international politics through discussing offensive and defensive realism and some of the countries involves such as United States, Iran, Russia, North Korean and Iraq.
Offensive realism
The theory of offensive realism was advanced by John Mearsheimer and argues that the anarchic nature of the international system is to blame for the aggressive state behavior which is mostly witnessed internationally. What the offensive realism theory means is that powerful countries around the world use the nuclear weapons to intimidate smaller countries to accept their international dominance. Even in the international arena, superpowers are the only countries which have the capability of possessing nuclear weapons and the more they have, the most powerful they are regarded to be. The influence of nuclear weapons on international politics shows the anarchy around the world where the powerful nations use such weapons to intimidate other nations and force them to accept their demands (Bahgat, 2007).
A good example the 2014 Russian annexation of Ukraine part called Crimea can be attributed to offensive realism whereby Russia used its power to annex the region under the pretext that it had many ethnic Russians. One can see that the fact that the Russian Federation possesses nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction played a key role in intimidating the republic of Ukraine from retaliating even though it is the sovereign state. A country like Russia can play the role of a leader and harass such small countries thus ensuring that anarchy continues to thrive in international politics despite organizations such as the United Nations. Offensive realism for such nations occurs due to the belief that such smaller nations cannot defeat them militarily because they have superior weapons or technology. In this case, the nuclear weapons give such countries a sense of confidence in that even if they are attacked, they can defeat the aggressor in a matter of time (Bellany, 2006).
Another example of offensive realism is the case of North Korea whereby even though it is a small country, it continues to use nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbor South Korea. The two countries have been technically at war since the 1953 Korean civil war which resulted in the country being divided into South and North Korea. From ever since the North Korean regime has been arming itself with the objective of attacking the South and reuniting the two countries. The North Korea offensive towards the south has attracted western nations such as the United States and Britain which continue to aid South Korea in the case of any attack from the north. North Korea, on the other hand, has been counting support from mainland China which has played a primary role in boosting the country’s economy in the wake of economic sanctions imposed the united nations. Such happenings influence international politics by grouping countries according to their ideologies and beliefs. The United States siding with South Korea means that it respects sovereignty and democracy whereas China supports North Korea because it practices communism and thus it has an ally in such a country (Blanchard, & Blanchard, 2010).
International politics have also for a long time been shaped by dictators who practice offensive realism not only as a way of maintaining their national security, but also represent aggressive intentions and ambitions of such leaders. A good example is the late Saddam Hussein who as the president of Iraq had high aspirations of using nuclear weapons to become the head of the Arab world and also to expand territory and influence in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein attacked the neighboring country of Kuwait with the hope of annexing and making it the 19th Governorate of Iraq. Such a move is said to have been a bad mistake as it made a significant influence on international politics such as turning former allies the United States and Saudi Arabia into enemies. The main reason why Iraq attacked Kuwait was the ambition to get its oil and also the belief of Saddam that having nuclear weapons would deter other countries from getting involved in the conflict. The United States bombed most of the nuclear plants in Iraq and thus forcing Saddam Hussein to pull his troops from Iraq, and fronting United States as the defender of democracy and sovereignty around the world (Hanson, 2002).
Muammar Gadhafi, former Libyan president, also used nuclear weapons to intimidate neighboring countries as the dictator had ambitions of uniting the Arab world and later on the African continent. Countries which refused his goals such as Chad and Egypt were attacked, making the strongman emerge as one of the world’s most provocative leaders. Libya having nuclear weapons and using them to intimidate its neighbors meant that its international relations with neighbors and also other western countries were stained and mostly portrayed the Libyan president as a terrorist. Such ambitions culminated into the United States bombing Libyan capital Tripoli with the home of killing Muammar Gadhafi as they argued that he was supporting terrorism in many countries such as Palestine, Afghanistan and the even United States. Such aggressions saw the Libyan leader killed in a civil war which was highly sponsored by Western countries which saw him as unstable and sharing many characteristics with Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president (Novicic, 2005).
The current international system and relations are characterized by anarchy which fuels the race to make nuclear weapons in the name of offensive realism. The world lacks a central authority which is capable of enforcing rules and punishing the aggressors since international institutions such as the United Nations rely mostly on diplomacy to solve world conflicts. The anarchy in international politics leads to states constantly fearing each other, and thus they result in using self-harming tactics to survive and stay ahead. Moreover, some countries prefer being on the offensive instead of waiting for their enemies to attack as it was witnessed in 1979 when Iraq attacked Iran and sparked an 8-year long war which claimed many lives. Saddam Hussein attacked the neighboring Iran with the hope that he could use a nuclear weapon on them but Israel destroyed the reactor before it could make the required bomb. The main reason for Saddam Hussein attacking Iran was the fear that the Islamic revolution would also take place in his country which had a Shia Islam majority just like Iran. Such fears made Saddam Hussein be on the offensive to defeat the regime in Tehran before it could instigate a revolution in his country. The United Nations had no military powers to stop such aggression because Iraq was supported by many countries which were opposed to an Islamic revolution in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States.
Defensive realism
The theory of defensive realism was advanced by Kenneth Waltz and argues that the anarchical structure of the international politics and relations encourages nations to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security or protect its sovereignty. Defensive realism differs from offensive realism in that the latter achieves security through dominance and hegemony while defensive realism achieves security through having systems and weapons to defend it. Through the theory of defensive realism, security experts can point out that conflicts occur because some countries are trying to defend themselves from external aggression since the aggressors want to expand their influence through intimidation and aggression. Some nations around the world have defended their development of nuclear weapons under the pretext that they are defending themselves against external aggression. Some of such countries include Iran, Syria, North Korea, India, Cuba and Pakistan (Fitzpatrick, 2008).
The case of Iran represents one of the longest conflicts of using nuclear weapons as a case of defensive realism where the country is said to be developing nuclear weapons to protect itself from external aggression. While Iran views its ambitions as a case of using all means to defend its borders, other states including Israel and Saudi Arabia view it as a case of offensive realism since the country wants to increase its influence in the Middle East. Iran is said to be supporting some militants in the Middle East such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Houthis Yemen. Iran began developing a nuclear weapon a long time ago after it was threatened by the external aggression of Saddam Hussein the neighboring Iraq. Such plans became dangerous under the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wanted to expand the influence of Iran as a leader in the Middle East after the death of the competitor Saddam Hussein left a power vacuum in the region (Rajagopalan, 2013).
The case of Indian and Pakistan looks complicated in that both countries have been technically at war since the war of partition which claimed some lives and left the region of Kashmir neither in any of the two countries. There have been cases of escalation and cross-border attacks between the two neighbors who argue that their possessing of nuclear weapons is a defensive strategy and they do not plan to use such weapons in any other country. What this means is that India will only use such weapons if Pakistan attacks and vice versa. North Korea is also another case of defensive realism whereby it defends its production of nuclear weapons under the reason of feeling threatened by the alliance between South Korean and the United States. North Korea argues that it has to be prepared if its southern neighbor attacks with advanced U.S military weapons since the two neighbors have been threatening each other since the end of the civil war which divided Korean into two countries. Cuba is also another case of defensive realism where during the height of cold war it stocked Russian nuclear weapons while arguing that they could only be used in the event where United States attacked the country (Subrahmanyam, 2010).
Conclusion
International politics and relations are continuously shaped and reshaped by nuclear weapons in that countries have grouped themselves according to the sides which they support. Countries developing nuclear weapons can be categorized into powerful, aggressive countries and lesser powerful countries which use nuclear weapons to defend themselves. The influence of nuclear weapons in international politics and relations can be categorized into two broad categories; offensive and defensive realism. Offensive realism refers to the countries which use the power of having nuclear weapons to intimidate other nations such as Russia annexing Crimea, North Korean threatening South Korea, Iraq attacking Kuwait and Iraq attacking Iran. Such countries see nuclear power as a perfect way of advancing their ambitions and ideologies around the world. Defensive realism refers to the countries which use their nuclear capability as a strategy of survival through defending themselves against external aggression. Whichever way that nuclear weapons are used, they can influence international politics through wars, nations attacking each other and states forming alliances.
References
Bahgat, G. 2007. Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, 1-18. doi:10.5744/florida/9780813031668.003.0001
Bellany, I. 2006. Nuclear weapons and international security. Curbing the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, 48-73. doi:10.7228/manchester/9780719067969.003.0003
Blanchard, D., & Blanchard, R. 2010. Offensive and Defensive Aggression. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 484-489. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-045396-5.00085-3
Fitzpatrick, M. 2008. Will Nuclear Energy Plans in the Middle East Become Nuclear Weapons Strategies? International Relations, 22(3), 381-385. doi:10.1177/0047117808094184
Hanson, M. (2002). Nuclear Weapons as Obstacles to International Security. International Relations, 16(3), 361-379. doi:10.1177/0047117802016003004
Novicic, Z. (2005). Nuclear weapons in international politics. Medjunarodni problemi, 57(4), 505-528. doi:10.2298/medjp0504505n
Rajagopalan, R. 2013. Nuclear Weapons, Indian Strategy, and International Politics. Political Science, 271-330. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198085409.003.0006
Subrahmanyam, K. 2010. The Role of Nuclear Weapons in International Relations. Strategic Analysis, 34(2), 326-339. doi:10.1080/09700160903553366
