• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Do nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are they just a danger to peace?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Gawain Williams page one (1/7) International relations essay Do nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are they just a danger to peace? When considering whether nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are just a danger to peace we can see strong arguments from both sides, with followers of Realism such as Kenneth waltz arguing that it is in each states security interest to gain nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack from a rival state (Shmidt.2001, p.152). However, Liberal internationalists such as Richard Falk argue that 'interdependence' (where each state relies on one another for economic and security reasons-e.g. the European Union) between states deterred war to a greater extent then the high tension that nuclear weapons bring to international politics(Dunne.2001, p.173). A main argument that nuclear weapons are beneficial to the world is that they act as deterrence to states that may be tempted to resort to war in order to solve their differences, this can be seen because there has not been a world war in the past sixty years despite Two Hegemonic super powers rising with opposing ideologies and an array of disputes (Cuba, Korea, Afghanistan, Berlin). Perhaps this is out of fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (where the only reason preventing one power from attacking with a nuclear device is the knowledge that the attacked power will hit back with nuclear missiles before it is destroyed- destroying both sides) ...read more.

Middle

war with since every military action would risk the end of the world, thus creating an end to war on the basis of M.A.D .The Gawain Williams page four (4/7) notion of sharing nuclear technology was even considered by America after 1945 (Howlett.2001, p.428) but the ensuring Cold war showed the mass availability of nuclear weapons to be a very dangerous idea since the more countries that have the ability to strike with nuclear weapons means that there is more of a chance of an irrational leader gaining this power and starting a nuclear war. Throughout History there has been a strong argument for nuclear weapons to be used as an instrument of deterrence with the American president Eisenhower stating "atoms for peace" (Howlett.2001,p.430). However, there is a strong argument that nuclear weapons are a danger to peace between states. This can be seen throughout various nations such as Switzerland, Holland and Latin American countries that have renounced nuclear weapons and became NWFZ countries (nuclear weapon free zone), and south Africa revealing that in the 1980s it developed six nuclear weapons but destroyed them in 1986 this is a clear statement from some major countries that nuclear weapons can only have a negative effect on the world (Howlett.2001, p.416). This point can be seen again at the NPT (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons) treaty review in 2000 where five of the seven NWS (nuclear weapon states) (including American and Russia) stated that their eventual goal for their nuclear arsenal is for it to be dismantled completely (Howlett.2001, p.415).This suggests that despite these world powers ...read more.

Conclusion

a nuclear preventative strike in the hope of destroying your enemy before they can strike back, this is a massive danger to peace and means there is a continuous threat to peace (Howlett.2001,p.429). The idea that war is far less likely now because nuclear weapons can be used is clearly incorrect, with America even using nuclear weapons as an excuse to begin a war, by invading Iraq in an attempt to discover banned weapons of mass destruction. This Gawain Williams page seven (7/7) Creates the impression that nuclear weapons can now be the cause of wars instead of acting as deterrence. In conclusion to the question of nuclear weapons being instruments of deterrence or a danger to peace I would have to side with them being a danger to peace since the only use of nuclear weapons resulted in the destruction of two major cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) here a major argument can be seen that a deceive with its only use is to kill millions of people can never be anything but a danger to peace. Despite the possibility that M.a.d. brought stability to the cold war, the fact is the cold war is over with America fighting a different type of battle against terrorist where nuclear weaponry has no use and now these weapons should be on there way to decommissioning. However despite nuclear weapons acting as a danger to peace, humans now hold the technology to wipe themselves, this can not be lost or forgotten so we must strive to find ways to lower the risk of a nuclear Armageddon. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    What if, in a demonstration, they failed to detonate? Thus, as horrible as it may seem in retrospect, no one ever seriously doubted the necessity of dropping the bomb on Japan once the weapon was perfected. On the Russian issue, however, there now seems little doubt that administration officials thought long and hard about the bomb's impact on postwar relations with the Soviet Union.

  2. International Relations Assess the arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons

    ones risk retaliation, they have little incentive to fight."8 This leads on to Waltz's next point that "states will act with less care if the expected costs of war are low, and with more care if they are high...Think of Kennedy and Krushchev in the Cuban missile crisis.

  1. The Cuban Missile Crisis

    It is clear from similar incidents that a need to appear strong led each superpower to use a certain degree of deception in its dealings with the other. This did not essentially cause the conflict, however; as already stated, the missile crisis had been set up by intensifications in the

  2. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the blockade

    as well, to prevent the fighters from getting shot down while making their bombing runs. This significantly increased the scale of the attack, which worried many people.xxv As a result of this, it was decided that an invasion would need to follow the air attack, as the military of Cuba

  1. "Buddha is smiling"[1] is what D.P Dhar, Indira Gandhi's principal advisor and close friend, ...

    The actually testing of the bomb was on 28 May 1998 more than ten years after all the facilities for producing nuclear weapons were acquired [Pakistan Defence.com Nuclear Chronology.]. The eventual outcome of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests was based upon each other.

  2. History of the United States

    Responding enthusiastically, Congress poured out billions of dollars to finance the project. (After the APOLLO PROGRAM succeeded, on July 20, 1969, in landing astronauts on the moon, the space effort remained in motion, if at a reduced pace.)

  1. The world would be a better place without nuclear energy. What do we use ...

    We would have no deterrent against other countries using their nukes on us. What would have stopped the USSR from firing their nuclear bombs if America didn't have any? Nothing, but then again there wouldn't have been a war if America didn't have the bomb and if America didn't have it then no one would have since they invented it.

  2. American History.

    New England only had one thing England wanted - trees. So, to get more stuff? from England, the colonists sold food to the English islands, which needed to feed their slaves. So by the 1640s, New England was already indirectly dependent on slave consumption.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work