In order to have full access of this Article, please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
Nuclear Weapons and Realism, The “cold war era and the nature of U.S-Soviet relations promoted the idea of reassessment of the effects of nuclear weapons on world politics.” The question that rose at that time was if there has been a “nuclear revolution”, however, the meaning and implications of the revolution for the states are not clear. Realism is the theory based on different propositions such as the international system is anarchic, Nuclear Weapons and Realism thus there is no international system controlling the state but states must make alliances with other states on their own, to protect their national security.
According to realism theory, the primary concern of states is to protect their national security.” Realists argue that “development of the nuclear weapons” did not fundamentally alter the structure of the international system ”However, at the same time realists argue that the limitation to use of nuclear weapons put after cold war indicates a source of structural change in the international framework.
If nuclear deterrence is considered,“ the superpowers have acquired a new role of “joint custodianship” of an international system.”The role differentiates the role of states from other states, i.e. the “international system” has new values that are different from the standard realist perception of anarchy.
The structural change in the 1970s and the processes used by the leaders of Washington and Moscow to adjust to the change could not be sustained. However, it is argued that cooperation of superpowers in today’s system will lead to changes that will be beyond what one can consider consistent the with standard arguments of realists. Realists have different stances on nuclear weapons, i.e. there are different arguments of realists about nuclear power and why states want to develop nuclear power; depending on the type of realism under consideration.
Offensive realists believe that it is human nature to desire power, and states are ruled by humans thus it is eminent for states to expand their military power, structural realists believe that states always fear the threat of war from other states thus they wish to expand power, whereas classical realists believe that in order to preserve national security and interest states develop their power.
The primary difference between the three is that structural realists and offensive realists focus on states’ desire of expansion of power due to the nature of states and people running the state, whereas classical realists focus on the expansion of power to preserve national interest. Realist theory is mainly concern with protecting national security thus the evaluation of development of nuclear weapons in terms of realist perspective is important to understand the impact of nuclear weapons on national security.
In order to understand the realists’ stance on nuclear weapons it is important to first understand realist ideology. Realists argue that“ interstate relations are complex and usually tend to exist in anarchic condition in the international system. ”Moreover, there is no authority that control systems of all states and control the power struggle to maintain national security of the states. Therefore, in order to survive, realists argue that “survival is the key and power is the currency of international politics” (Primiarziki, 2012) i.e. for realists it is important to achieve and safeguard national interests of state and for that military force is the most important tool in designing and running a state’s foreign policy.
The realists emphasize on self-help for the state to survive. Consequently, “contemporary realism is divided into two divisions that give diverse clarifications about state’s conduct with a specific end goal to survive. ”The first branch is offensive realism that argues that states must build up their“ military power relative to other states in order to survive in the international system.”
Offensive realism can be defined in terms of human nature i.e. humans are born with the will to gain power and rule, which causes great powers to be led by individuals who are inclined to having dominant states and treat their neighboring states as rivals. According to offensive realists, nothing can be done to alter that desire to rule and gain power, Nuclear Weapons and Realism thus the aggressive behaviour of states is expected when it comes to international politics. Nuclear weapons are a source of power and security for states, and as mentioned earlier the disturbed balance of power created after the cold war and with states developing nuclear weapons, if the international system is under a threat of nuclear war damage would be uncontrollable.
Therefore, offensive realists argue that states should gain the power to pursue hegemony. According to the theories, “it makes perfect sense for states to gain as much power as they can to ensure their own national security” (John Mearsheimer, 2001). Therefore, according to offensive realists developing nuclear weapons is justified for states and can maintain the balance of power because it’s ensuring states security. If two rival states have equal power or nuclear power, Nuclear Weapons and Realism it is likely that they would not attack each other because the consequences of the nuclear war can be drastic. For example, realists i.e. John Mearsheimer argue that European states should have nuclear weapons to avoid domination of one powerful state like Germany because that can cause one state attempting to conquer other states and violate their sovereignty.
Therefore to maintain a balance of power states should build up their power, and in a contemporary world, that power can only be acquired by developing nuclear weapons. Structural realists believe that human nature does not have anything to do with“ why states want power?”On Contrary the architecture of the international system leads the state to desire power.
The contemporary international system that has no higher authority ruling over great powers, Nuclear Weapons and Realism and with no guarantee of if states will attack each other, it is eminent for states to expand their power to protect their national security in case of an attack.
John’s Mearsheimer’s theory can be described by one of his arguments listed below:
According to him in the contemporary world it is difficult to determine the amount of power that can be enough for today or tomorrow, thus the best way for states to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony. The purpose of achieving hegemony is to eliminate any possibility of a threat faced by another great power. According to his theory, only a misguided state would not be a hegemon state given the opportunity because it thought to already have sufficient power.
Considering John Mearsheimer’s theory and contemporary international relations hegemony is the key to preserve national security. However, if the theory is analysed in contemporary international relations it might be considered flawed because hegemony cannot really be achieved in terms of military power in contemporary world politics if only military power is considered. In order to achieve hegemony in international politics today, Nuclear Weapons and Realism it is important to have economic ties as well as military power. Moreover, weaker states attempting to build nuclear weapons can be considered as a source of threat, so to protect their national security it is important for them to have allies in the international system.
Proponents of offensive realism i.e. John Mearsheimer support the expansion of nuclear power to maintain a balance in the international system. On contrary classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau argue that states are key actors in an international system, he argues that “signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power” (Morgenthau, 1970).
According to classical realists national interest comes before everything and states act on the sole motto of maintaining their national interest, and in order to preserve that national interest, it is important to expand power. Therefore, if classical realists’ arguments are considered the development of nuclear weapons is important to preserve the national interest of states. The difference between the two arguments mainly lies in the interpretation of action of states, where offensive realists believe that it is in human nature of diplomats or rulers to desire power and go on war with…
Recent Comments