This article consists of 5 pages and 1725 words. Nuclear Weapons and Realist Theories In order to have full access to this article, email us at thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
Ref No: 916
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, 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….
Recent Comments