Benchmark III
Authors: Beloglazov
Pavel
Ovchinnikov Sergei
Novouralsk, Gymnasia # 41
Concluding
our research we are going to show our view and understanding of the role of
nuclear weapons.
The unstable situation before World War II stimulated nuclear weapon
researches, the war period even witnessed the nuclear catastrophe in Japan.
When
the Second World War ended in spring 1945 it seemed that mankind would be very
cautious not to begin a new one. Unfortunately, even the common victory of the two
superpowers could not stop the following antagonism and hostility. And by
1961, there were enough bombs to destroy the world.
Of
all weapons of mass destruction nuclear weapons are the most powerful and
effective. First, they kill and destroy. You cannot protect from them while
there is protection from chemical and biological weapons because they do not
destroy but only kill provided that the environmental conditions are ÒfavourableÓ.
Second,
nuclear weapons are able to seriously affect the balance of power and world
order. The use of non-nuclear types of weapons of mass destruction also has
dire implications for the entire world. However, in the power games that take
place in the international relations sphere they are no match to nuclear
weapons kept in the arsenal or those already put into action.
Can
nuclear weapons give a country the desired outcome of a military operation?
They can help win a victory in a war against a non-nuclear state, but can
hardly contribute to bringing the situation back to normal after the military
conflict. The use of nuclear weapons will lead to disastrous consequences in
and outside the target state, which will most probably outweigh the advantages
of its use.
The
fact of possessing nuclear arms does not ensure a stateÕs international status
or prestige. For example, North KoreaÕs influence has not increased, and the
country has turned from a headache that you can ignore into a problem that has
to be solved. Nuclear weapons have not helped Israel become a world power. They
have not made Pakistan equal to India, moreover, IslamabadÕs lagging behind was
made worse after each of the two countries demonstrated their capability to the
world by carrying out a series of nuclear tests in 1998. Nuclear weapons can
hardly help a country run a nuclear blackmail against a non-nuclear country.
This kind of policy will most probably prompt other nuclear powers to offer the
injured party a compensating long-term deterrent to prevent any further attempts
of nuclear blackmail.
The
actual use of nuclear arms in a conventional war in order to even the score is highly
unlikely. The violation of the nuclear taboo is very likely to cause a surge of
indignation and steps like sanctions and formation of alliances acting as a
counterbalance. All this will adversely affect the violatorÕs national
security.
Thus, nuclear weapons do not
give those who own it prosperity, respect or an easy victory. But the very fact
of a countryÕs owning nuclear weapons plays a role as significant as that
played by nuclear weapons at a battlefield.
Nuclear
weapons act as a deterrent only when it is necessary to counteract blackmail or
a threat to use nuclear weapons. It was this incentive that has underlain the
proliferation of nuclear weapons up until the present time (Soviet Union vs USA; China vs USA and Soviet
Union; India vs China; Pakistan vs
India; North Korea vs USA; Iran vs
USA and, possibly, Israel). As
proliferation continues (we are inclined to believe that it cannot be stopped)
this motivation will provide a powerful stimulus for many governments to seek
membership in the expanding nuclear powers club despite the fact that that
would involve 2-3 years of international pressure.
Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent and means of survival for countries which
are aware of their own uncompetitiveness in the field
of conventional arms. Such considerations motivated countries like Israel to
gain nuclear weapons. Pakistan and North Korea, which sought to counterbalance
the means from unfriendly countriesÕ arsenal, became nuclear powers for the
same reason.
In
the age of warfare revolution the phantom of ever expanding gap between
military potentials of the most powerful states and states of average
capability make the latter rely on nuclear arms.
They are the most efficient means of keeping more powerful states from a
military intervention aimed at bringing down a stateÕs regime. Such necessity,
which is considered a strategic one, accounts for North Korea and Iran striving
hard to gain nuclear weapons. The French president says that Òstrategic
resources suppliesÓ are part of those Òessential interestsÓ of his country,
which are under protection of the French Ònuclear umbrellaÓ. In this situation
it is quite reasonable to suppose that strategists of five to seven countries
are already thinking about the benefits they can receive in terms of security
and survival of their countries.
Nuclear
arms can also serve an evil purpose of disguising aggressive intentions to gain
regional dominance, which will undermine the protective role of the external
power providing security for the non-nuclear states of the region.
Finally,
nuclear weapons cannot give a poor or an ÒoutcastÓ country a Òrich and nobleÓ
image, however, they will not let their status fall after countries of equal
power take possession of nuclear weapons.
That
is why Delhi moves, however logical and justifiable they might seem, may prove
fatal for the non-proliferation regime. Other countries are bound to consider
whether they should follow IndiaÕs example, especially given the recognition
and praise it received after 1998 (although, they may have been mostly due to
their economic success, not the possession of nuclear weapons). Raising oneÕs
status and prestige may be something sought by Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, RSA and, surprisingly
enough, Iran.
The Cold War ended long ago but the problems of confrontation and
nuclear proliferation are still topical. India, Pakistan, Israel and North KoreaÕs wish to
strengthen their position as nuclear powers does not contribute to the
disarmament and nonproliferation process.
Non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons is a public benefit. Everyone likes living in a secure
environment when potential competitors and enemies forego development of
nuclear weapons and many countries are ready to follow this example. There is hope that the recognition of the terrible
consequences of nuclear confrontation by the world leaders will lead them to
exercise caution and restraint. The exception is leaders with apocalyptic
world-views, fanatics and mentally unbalanced statesmen who, unfortunately,
sometimes reach the peaks of the political Olympus. But in any case you cannot
expect deterrence to become as sharp as it was during the Cold War.
Some
regions of the planet may see the establishment of a Òstability-instabilityÓ
paradox. There is a view that a limited war using conventional weapons without
attacking the enemyÕs essential targets is not only possible but is a safer
undertaking than it was before the invention of nuclear weapons when nothing
could keep enemies from extreme escalation of conflicts. PakistanÕs decision to
attack IndiaÕs region of Kargil in 1999 and a
horrible series of terrorist acts against India in 2001 and 2002 appears to
prove that this paradox was not invented by politicians but is a real approach
widely used in the modern world.
The
problem is that it cannot be guaranteed that the aggressor will not make a
mistake in identifying the line beyond which lie the enemyÕs essential
interests. Besides, countries coming under attack may decide that the aggressor
objectives are not limited but total. That increases the risk of any
confrontation finally leading to the exchange of nuclear strikes. That is why
the world with a great number of nuclear powers is definitely more dangerous
than the world with few or without them at all.
Concluding our report we must say that nuclear
weapons were
meant to be nuclear deterrent. But their role was changing in the process of
history depending on political, economical, geopolitical situation in the
world. The countriesÕ leadersÕ personalitiesÕ and antinuclear movement also
added to their changing role. Nuclear weapons have greatly influenced the world
policy and world scientific technologies; as a matter of fact they have
irreversibly changed the way of life and the way of thinking of whole nations
as well as individuals.
Deterrence is still an essential concept in the
post-Cold War environment, but todayÕs circumstances, such as increasing
proliferation, mean that weapons must be more flexible.
TodayÕs threats are terrorist groups and regional
powers armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery
mechanisms.
The process of development
can not be smooth. There is always someone who
is more progressive. The competition exists and will exist. We wish India and
Pakistan overcame their antagonism quicker than in case with the USA and the
USSR. It is hardly possible that nuclear weapons will be totally eliminated.
The world without nuclear
weapons is possible but from todayÕs point of view is hardly probable.
Bibliography
1.ÓNuclear WeaponsÓ, Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2009.
2.ÓInternational relationsÓ, Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2009
3. Sarah J.Diehl,
ÒWhat is the role of nuclear weapons
today?Ó California,
2008
4. ÒThe Changed Role of Nuclear
WeaponsÓ
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/wm721.cfm
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200404/ai_n9395216/
- 43k -