The Impact of the Nuclear Weapon to the International Politics
In the recent years, nuclear weapons have become the most feared weapons because of its enormous destructive power. Scientists describe a nuclear weapon as an obsolete weapon, and if used, the weapon can cause immeasurable destruction than any other weapons used in the war (Van Wyk, et al. 2007). Horowitz (2009) suggests that the proliferation of the nuclear weapons can have profound effects on global events such as international politics. However, as Jervis (1988) notes, there has been no serious crisis in over half a century among the world’s superpowers, possibly resulting from the fear that no country will benefit from any war. Jervi (1979) suggests that albeit wars on a smaller scale, the increase in nuclear superpowers has been the real reason why nuclear peace has been maintained between superpowers such as the U.S., U.S.S.R, and China. Thus, it is necessary for countries investing in nuclear weapons to consider the potential cost that the use of the weapon can bring and whether a nuclear weapon is beneficial in any way. The impacts of a nuclear weapon to the international politics are fiercely debatable, as scholars have come up with varying findings regarding the subject. The results of the concerning the consequences of nuclear weapons have both academic and policy relevance. As such, analyzing these effects can help one understand the factors that are the threats to the world peace, cohesiveness, and security.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of the nuclear weapons to international politics, with the focus on highlighting facts, data, and literature findings showing the way the spread of nuclear weapons is influencing international relations. For a detailed discussion based on factual information, the literature on the topic of the nuclear weapon is reviewed with the aim of coming up with a well-structured discussion. The first section of this essay will present the development and usage of the nuclear weapons, followed by the reasons that make some countries to continue campsite nuclear weapons. After an understanding of the why some countries have focused om increasing their use of nuclear weapons, the study will touch on the concepts of international politics and the way nuclear weapon have affected the international politics.
The downfall of Soviet Union marked the end of using nuclear weapons. In this era, the world was more peaceful than it is today (Taggart 2008). Before the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, nuclear weapons were used strategically, as most of the countries that were developing the weapon did not use it openly. Taggart (2008) reveals that countries like Soviet Union used nuclear weapons through the means of deterrence. Although many states never used nuclear weapons in war, the weapons had influence on the international relations. As such, the nuclear weapons revolutionized warfare, as the countries that were in possession of the weapons became politically strong and broad, leading to the aspect of superpowers. In the modern age, political leaders in the world confront various types of nuclear threats.
The nuclear threats as revealed by the U.S. Department of State (2010) include the possibility of terrorist groups using the nuclear weapon to carry out attacks and the accidental or intentionally use of the weapons by the nine countries that have developed nuclear weapons. The other nuclear weapon threats are the addition of countries that have new nuclear-armed weapons such as North Korea and Iran as well as the failure to prevent or control the proliferation of nuclear weapons (U.S. Department of State 2010). Some of the countries that are known to be in a position of handling or owning nuclear weapons include India and Pakistan; the U.S administration claim that both countries have tested the weapon secretly. The U.S. Department of State (2010) points out that North Korea and Iran have at one time attempted to create weapons yet to be identified. Additionally, Taggart (2008) posits that today, the role of nuclear weapons has become a contested matter, as global superpowers are yet to eradicate the manufacture of these weapons, which is affecting the international relations since many countries refuse to engage in international discourse concerning the matter and other issues relating to security.
Moreover, nuclear weapons have become a target for most of the terrorist groups. Indeed, it is a challenge for the international community to deal with the threat that terrorism and developed terrorist groups including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda pose. For example, in 2007 reports of an increase in possibilities that Al Qaeda and the world’s largest terror group, ISIS, acquiring the technical knowhow and support to develop nuclear weapons increased (Taggart 2008). Today, even though Jervis (1979) suggested that nuclear attacks are not a threat to international security, terrorism is; the possibilities of countries that have been branded as sympathizers supporting this vision cannot be ignored.
Horowitz (2009) argues that nuclear weapons influence the success of states in the international dispute. Similarly, Taggart (2008) suggests that terrorists may use nuclear weapons to convey a radical message, in particular when facing powerful opponents like the U.S or Russia. In this context, during the resolving of the dispute between the nuclear weapons states and the countries that have not acquired the weapons, the chances are that the outcome will be favorable. As terrorist groups across the world continue to attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or resources to build them, it has become hard for the international community to solve some of the political events happening in different nations.
Nuclear weapons can inhibit the development of political relations between the United and Russia. After the end of the cold war, Doyle (2013) posits that the relationship between the U.S and USSR (Russia) was unsteady, and the two nations took a lot of time to develop a progressive relationship. Both countries had ideas that were opposing each other, mostly in the use of the nuclear weapon in the war. This had the effect on their allies of which it created a negative international relationship between countries such as China, United States, and Europe (Doyle 2013). This means that nuclear weapons created a divide, which affected the international relations between Russia and Unites States together with their allies. In support of Doyle argument, Bell and Miller (2013) state that nuclear weapons brought global dyads, which created a divide between America and Russia. Bell and Miller (2013) research outline that the nuclear dyads were 2.7 million times less to participate in a war or to start a war that will affect the international politics. Similarly, as Jervis (1979) notes, while nuclear weapons have seen a truce between superpowers, their allies have not been exempted: China fought Vietnam, while Vietnam went to war with Cambodia.
On the other hand, Bell and Miller (2013) found out that the dyads where one state possess a nuclear weapon are always more prone to low-level interstates conflicts, but not more prone to start a global war. In this context, the dyads that were created by the states possessing the nuclear weapons and states that did not possess the weapons was actually influencing the backgrounds of international political. The dyads made the international states to operate in two groups that had varying ideologies. Horowitz (2009) show that the nuclear dyads were always falling into a disagreement, hence, becoming hard for the international states to measure the proliferation of nuclear weapon.
For example, the study by Horowitz (2009) highlights that while some of the countries in the two dyads coded that Israel obtained the nuclear weapon in 1966, some said that Israel acquired the nuclear weapon in 1972. Similarly, the dyad with nuclear and without nuclear weapon engaged into arguments when some states members claimed that India acquired its first nuclear weapon in 1974 and it did carry out a test by exploding a peaceful nuclear device. The argument came out when some nations in the dyad said India acquired its first nuclear weapon in 1988 and others 1990 (Horowitz, 2009).
Nuclear weapons are viewed as a new source of specialist, supremacy, and international political influence. The application of nuclear technology marked a crucial turning point in the international relations and source of conflicts between different states (Van Wyk, et al. 2011). For instance, states such as Russia and United States, the nuclear weapons were seen as a status symbol. This created a differentiation between countries that had such weapons and the nations that did not have the weapon (Van Wyk, et al., 2011). Evidently, the creation of nuclear weapons required very sophisticated and developed scientific materials. Van Wyk, et al. (2011) note that the materials that were used to make the nuclear weapon product were assets that not every country would have afforded, hence affecting the political integration of different nations across the world. Baylis, Smith, and Owens (2013) assert that the introduction of nuclear technology had an influence on the international political since many countries that owned the nuclear weapons changed their international affairs. Most of the countries that had the nuclear weapons did not focus on international political affairs but focused on developing the weapons through nuclear programs, conducting test, and attempting to apply the weapon. For example, the U.S. Department of State (2010) reports that an explosion power of the largest fusion bomb was tested in 1961 and produced 50,000,000 mega tons of TNT.
With the number of countries developing nuclear weapons continuing to increase, there is the possibility of a war that will involve many countries worldwide happening. If a war happens because of nuclear weapons, this will have a huge risk on the international relations, as the war can bring conventional conflicts between states leaders. Basing it on the stability-instability paradox, Jamal (2014) indicates a war that will be perpetuated by the presence of nuclear weapons is likely to occur, which may turn out to be a nuclear war. Along the same argument, Bell and Miller (2013) contends that the stability-instability paradox nuclear weapon may deter a nuclear war between two or more countries and intensify the conflict between local leaders. A good example of the states that can be faced by this problem are the countries described as symmetric nuclear dyads, where the nuclear dyads has a possibility of experiencing a predictable war and local conflicts; but for the nonnuclear dyads, such wars and conflict are rarely to occur (Bell and Miller 2013). Another examples that relates to the stability-instability paradox nuclear involves one of the situations in the Middle East, in which the possession of the nuclear weapon by many states in South Asia may escalate a minor conflict in the region and then turn it into a conventional nuclear war (Jamal, 2014).
Further, nuclear weapons influence the international politics through its impact on the state’s foreign policy. The concept of the foreign policy refers to the grand strategy set to deal with a state’s relationship with other nations (Bell 2014). Bell (2014) points out that nuclear weapons provide military capabilities that many states did not have in the previous period. The nuclear states participating in the international affairs have the ability to carry out destruction attack on a short period and little effort to any country opposing their agenda. Thus, the states with nuclear weapons can affect the foreign policy, in the manner that they want. For example, when South Africa and Pakistan attempted to test nuclear weapons, this indicated the ability to threaten other states, and it affected the foreign policy between the two country and other countries across the world (Bell 2014).
Indeed, nuclear weapons have had an inherent effect on international politics and serve as a major technological and industrial revolution. The increase in countries possessing nuclear weapons continues to evoke irrefutable images of destruction, promotes terrorism act, power, security, international political wrangles, interstates conflicts, and affects the foreign policies. While possession of nuclear weapons by superpowers has supported the current nuclear peace with no major wars between countries in over a decade, small-scale wars are a revelation that nuclear superiority may still be a major threat to international relations. Even as countries come together to fight terrorism and prevent terrorist groups from owning nuclear weapons, the major threat is on how its impact may trickle down and affect international relations. The theory of stability-instability paradox explains how nuclear weapons are affecting international politics and may be the spackle of another war.
Bibliography
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P., 2013. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Bell, M. and Miller, N. 2013. Questioning the Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(1), pp.74-92.
Bell, M. S. (2015). Beyond Emboldenment: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on State Foreign Policy. Unpublished Manuscript. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Doyle, J.E., 2013. Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons? Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 55(1), pp.7-34.
Horowitz, M., 2009. The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons And International Conflict: Does Experience Matter? Journal of Conflict Resolution. pp. 1-44
Jamal, U., 2014. The Iranian Nuclear programme: Impact on Regional Stability and Security. E-International Relations Students.
Jervis, R., 1979. Why nuclear superiority doesn’t matter. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), pp.617-633.
Jervis, R., 1988. The political effects of nuclear weapons: A comment. International Security, 13(2), pp.80-90.
Taggart, M., 2008. Do Nuclear Weapons still have a Role in International Relations in the Post-Cold War Era?
U.S. Department of State, 2010. A World Free of Nuclear Weapons. International Information Programs. 15(2) pp. 4-41
Van Wyk, J., Kinghorn, L., Hepburn, H., Payne, C., and Sham, C. 2011. The International Politics of Nuclear Weapons: A Constructivist Analysis. Scientia Militaria – South African Journal of Military Studies, 35(1), pp.23-45.
