Nuclear peace
Encyclopedia
Nuclear peace is a theory of International Relations
(IR) which argues that under some circumstances nuclear weapon
s can induce stability and decrease the chances of crisis escalation. In particular, nuclear weapons are said to have induced stability during the Cold War
, when both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. possessed mutual second-strike retaliation capability, eliminating the possibility of nuclear victory for either side. Proponents of the nuclear peace argue that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for inducing stability. Critics of the nuclear peace argue that nuclear proliferation not only increases the chance of inter-state nuclear conflict, but increases the chances of nuclear material falling into the hands of non-state groups who are free from the threat of nuclear retaliation.
The major debate on this issue has been between Kenneth Waltz
, the founder of neorealist theory in international relations, and Scott Sagan
, a leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics. Waltz generally argues that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Sagan argues that "more will be worse", since new nuclear states often lack adequate organizational controls over their new weapons, which makes for a high risk of either deliberate or accidental nuclear war, or nuclear theft by terrorists.
In a condition of mutual assured destruction, there are civilian “hostages” on both sides. This facilitates cooperation by acting as an informal mechanism of contract enforcement between states. There are economic equivalents of such informal mechanisms used to effect credible commitment - for example, corporations use hostages (in the form of initial setup costs that act as collateral) to deter subsidiaries and franchisees from cheating.
Nuclear weapons may also lessen a state's reliance on allies for security, thus preventing allies from dragging each other into wars (a phenomenon known as chainganging, frequently said to be a major cause of World War I).
Since the death of civilians is an essential part of mutually assured destruction, one normative consequence of nuclear weapons is that war loses its historical function as a symbol of glory and measure of national strength.
Actors are not always rational; bureaucratic procedure and internal intrigue may cause sub-rational outcomes. Related to and reinforcing this point is that there is always an element of uncertainty. One can’t always control emotions, subordinates, equipment. One has limited information and is faced with high stakes and fast timetables. There are unintended consequence
s, unwanted escalation, irrationality, misperception, and the security dilemma
.
Another reason is that deterrence has an inherent instability. As Kenneth Boulding said: “If deterrence were really stable…it would cease to deter.” If decisionmakers were perfectly rational, they would never order the large-scale use of nuclear weapons and the credibility of the nuclear threat would be low.
Yet another set of reasons is that there can still be the possibility of the loss of mutual second-strike capability. This can come about from the gain of decisive first strike capability or the creation of a nuclear missile shield.
Moreover, critics argue that nuclear bipolarity is a special artifact of the Cold War, and that the increased uncertainty of nuclear multipolarity, along with the existence of international terrorist networks seeking access to nuclear sources, means that the Cold War-era ideas about the nuclear peace cannot be applied to today's world.
Proponents of the nuclear peace counter that nuclear weapons induce stability in all regimes, and that states have managed to control their nuclear weapons even in times of great instability, such as during China's Cultural Revolution
.
Critics have also argued that although nuclear weapons contribute to stability at a strategic level, they can encourage smaller instances of instability that are not believed likely to blossom into full-scale warfare. This process is known as the Stability-instability paradox
, and is perhaps best exemplified by the small wars (small relative to the possibility of a nuclear exchange) that sprang up during the Cold War, such as Vietnam and Korea.
International relations
International relations is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations , international nongovernmental organizations , non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations...
(IR) which argues that under some circumstances nuclear weapon
Nuclear weapon
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter. The first fission bomb test released the same amount...
s can induce stability and decrease the chances of crisis escalation. In particular, nuclear weapons are said to have induced stability during the Cold War
Cold War
The Cold War was the continuing state from roughly 1946 to 1991 of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition between the Communist World—primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies—and the powers of the Western world, primarily the United States...
, when both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. possessed mutual second-strike retaliation capability, eliminating the possibility of nuclear victory for either side. Proponents of the nuclear peace argue that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for inducing stability. Critics of the nuclear peace argue that nuclear proliferation not only increases the chance of inter-state nuclear conflict, but increases the chances of nuclear material falling into the hands of non-state groups who are free from the threat of nuclear retaliation.
The major debate on this issue has been between Kenneth Waltz
Kenneth Waltz
Kenneth Neal Waltz is a member of the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University and one of the most prominent scholars of international relations alive today...
, the founder of neorealist theory in international relations, and Scott Sagan
Scott Sagan
Scott Douglas Sagan is the Caroline S.G. Munro professor of Political Science at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation . He graduated from Oberlin College and completed his Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1983...
, a leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics. Waltz generally argues that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Sagan argues that "more will be worse", since new nuclear states often lack adequate organizational controls over their new weapons, which makes for a high risk of either deliberate or accidental nuclear war, or nuclear theft by terrorists.
The nuclear peace argument
A nuclear peace results when the costs of war are unacceptably high for both sides. In a two-sided conflict where both sides have mutual second-strike capability, defense becomes impossible. Thus, it is the very prospect of fighting the war rather than the possibility of losing it that induces restraint.In a condition of mutual assured destruction, there are civilian “hostages” on both sides. This facilitates cooperation by acting as an informal mechanism of contract enforcement between states. There are economic equivalents of such informal mechanisms used to effect credible commitment - for example, corporations use hostages (in the form of initial setup costs that act as collateral) to deter subsidiaries and franchisees from cheating.
Nuclear weapons may also lessen a state's reliance on allies for security, thus preventing allies from dragging each other into wars (a phenomenon known as chainganging, frequently said to be a major cause of World War I).
Since the death of civilians is an essential part of mutually assured destruction, one normative consequence of nuclear weapons is that war loses its historical function as a symbol of glory and measure of national strength.
Criticisms of the nuclear peace argument
Critics argue that war can occur even under conditions of mutually assured destruction, for several reasons:Actors are not always rational; bureaucratic procedure and internal intrigue may cause sub-rational outcomes. Related to and reinforcing this point is that there is always an element of uncertainty. One can’t always control emotions, subordinates, equipment. One has limited information and is faced with high stakes and fast timetables. There are unintended consequence
Unintended consequence
In the social sciences, unintended consequences are outcomes that are not the outcomes intended by a purposeful action. The concept has long existed but was named and popularised in the 20th century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton...
s, unwanted escalation, irrationality, misperception, and the security dilemma
Security dilemma
The security dilemma asserts that both strength and weakness in national security can be provocative to other nations. If a nation is too strong, this can be provocative since “most means of self-protection simultaneously menace others.” On the other hand, if a nation is too weak, “great dangers...
.
Another reason is that deterrence has an inherent instability. As Kenneth Boulding said: “If deterrence were really stable…it would cease to deter.” If decisionmakers were perfectly rational, they would never order the large-scale use of nuclear weapons and the credibility of the nuclear threat would be low.
Yet another set of reasons is that there can still be the possibility of the loss of mutual second-strike capability. This can come about from the gain of decisive first strike capability or the creation of a nuclear missile shield.
Moreover, critics argue that nuclear bipolarity is a special artifact of the Cold War, and that the increased uncertainty of nuclear multipolarity, along with the existence of international terrorist networks seeking access to nuclear sources, means that the Cold War-era ideas about the nuclear peace cannot be applied to today's world.
Proponents of the nuclear peace counter that nuclear weapons induce stability in all regimes, and that states have managed to control their nuclear weapons even in times of great instability, such as during China's Cultural Revolution
Cultural Revolution
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, commonly known as the Cultural Revolution , was a socio-political movement that took place in the People's Republic of China from 1966 through 1976...
.
Critics have also argued that although nuclear weapons contribute to stability at a strategic level, they can encourage smaller instances of instability that are not believed likely to blossom into full-scale warfare. This process is known as the Stability-instability paradox
Stability-instability paradox
The stability-instability paradox is an international relations theory regarding the effect of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. It states that when two countries each have nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them greatly decreases, but the probability of minor...
, and is perhaps best exemplified by the small wars (small relative to the possibility of a nuclear exchange) that sprang up during the Cold War, such as Vietnam and Korea.
See also
- Deterrence theoryDeterrence theoryDeterrence theory gained increased prominence as a military strategy during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, and features prominently in current United States foreign policy regarding the development of nuclear technology in North Korea and Iran. Deterrence theory however was...
- Mutual assured destructionMutual assured destructionMutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction , is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of...
- Nuclear weapons debateNuclear weapons debateThe nuclear weapons debate is about public controversies relating to the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Even before the first nuclear weapons had been developed, scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were divided over the use of the weapon. The Little Boy atomic bomb was detonated...
- Peace through strengthPeace through strength"Peace through strength" is a conservative slogan supporting military strength for the purpose of creating peaceful international relations.For supporters of the MX missile in the 1970s, the missile symbolized "peace through strength." The phrase was popular in political rallies during 1988...
- Balance of terrorBalance of terrorThe phrase "balance of terror" is usually used in reference to the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War....