Deterence in international politics essay
Deterence in international politics essay
World Politics Foreigners instead generally ascribed the tests to what they saw as petty motivations: a desire to elevate India's international status and an attempt to bolster the BJP-led government's fortunes. First of all, it is very important to define the key points of the issue that will be analysed. In fact, the enlargement of the nuclear club has increased the likelihood of a nuclear strike taking place: since a single weapon is sufficient to conduct such an attack, it can be deduced that, while vertical proliferation the growth in the number of warheads within a country does not make the eventuality of such an attack more likely, horizontal proliferation does. However, this model does not consider the current relevance of non-state actors and so-called rogue states and their asymmetrical relationship with the traditional players. Virtually everything known about human psychology suggests that this is absurd. The Chinese, Cuban, Iranian and Nicaraguan revolutions all took place even though a nuclear-armed US backed the overthrown governments. Consider, as well, a US president who shows signs of mental illness, and whose statements and tweets are frighteningly consistent with dementia or genuine psychosis. The main role it held during the First Nuclear Age is lost, but its relevance, although resized, is not. For example, if one side is willing to be annihilated in a counterattack, it simply cannot be deterred, no matter the threatened retaliation. However, recognising the fact that the arrival of the nuclear bomb has changed the purpose of military strategy fundamentally, namely from the purpose of winning wars to the purpose of preventing wars, inevitably leads to a new concept of conflict. This strategy is designed to prevent nuclear attacks conducted mainly by state actors, but can as well be applied to conventional attacks Quackenbush, International and Intertextual Relations.
This attitude by the international community is reinforced by the presence of international regulations which severely affect the legitimacy of a nuclear first-strike use Tannenwald, Oxon: Routeledge.
With the declaration of war on terror in although the process started well beforethe threats posed by non-state actors have replaced interstate conflict as the primary source of insecurity for the US.
Evolution of deterrence theory
In fact, these have continued to experience major conventional conflicts it is, for example, the case of Russia with Georgia. This way of understanding deterrence is particularly significant when we consider the security relations among the traditional protagonists of nuclear deterrence: in this case, we can envision a trend of continuity in their strategies. The quest for global status has been a staple of Indian foreign policy since the country's emergence as an independent state in , and Loading, please wait Smith, S. The question of whether the possession of nuclear weapons was still useful in the post-Cold War world divided the academia, with some scholars arguing that there were still reasons justifying the existence of nuclear arsenals like Quinlan, and others who interpreted the historical situation as an opportunity to build a nuclear weapons free NWF world see for example MccGwire, A is the initial deterrer and is deterring B. In a report, the US Secretary of Defense indicates as the current most urgent causes for concern terrorism and nuclear proliferation US Secretary of Defense, 9. Throughout this examination, particular attention will be paid to the official policies adopted by the United States of America: the US is currently holding the role of hegemon superpower, and is the homeland of the classic strategic thought concerning nuclear deterrence. NATO has stated in its Deterrence and Defence Posture Review that the current amount of its strategic nuclear weapons is dependent on the reciprocal level of these weapons on the Russian soil, so it is very unlikely that there will be drastic reductions, similar to those that occurred at the end of the Cold War, by the US and its allies in the foreseeable future. Nuclear deterrence has a role also in averting conventional attacks in a regional context. Nuclear deterrence has traditionally been associated with the neorealist view that a world with more nuclear actors, and ideally a world composed only by nuclear actors, is the prerequisite to a lasting peace founded on the fear of nuclear war Berkowitz,
New York: Harcourt Dunn, L. One of the most serious challenges to nuclear deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age is, in fact, represented by the issue of its applicability to actors with a different behaviour than the Cold War-era US and USSR Walton, Their devastating effect led to a worldwide fear of atomic bombs, but could not, however, prevent a number of states from developing these fatal devices.
It presumes that those with their fingers on the nuclear triggers are rational actors who will also remain calm and cognitively unimpaired under extremely stressful conditions.
London: Lexington Books. Third, deterrence theory assumes optimal rationality on the part of decision-makers.
Anyway, at the moment the official strategy of the US is oriented differently, and the same can be said for Russia. Similarly, the US lost the Vietnam War, just as the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan, despite both countries not only possessing nuclear weapons, but also more and better conventional arms than their adversaries.
Moreover, the strategies officially adopted by the US governmental bodies are unclassified and accessible to the public.
The end of the Cold War led to a sudden change in the security agenda of Western policymakers.
based on 38 review