This article consists of 5 pages and 1729 words.
In order to have full access to this article, please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
Nuclear Weapons and Realist Theories, 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 is not clear.“Realists argue that“development of the nuclear weapons” did not fundamentally alter the structure of the international system.”However, Nuclear Weapons and Realist Theories 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 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 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, Nuclear Weapons and Realist Theories 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 expansion of power to preserve national interest.
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…
Recent Comments