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

Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Jonathan Paul Kenny: 4007055 Weapons of Mass Destruction Dr.Rendell Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal? Many regard the talk of the elimination of nuclear weapons as utopian rhetoric. It is strongly contested that nuclear weapons both deter conventional and nuclear war. Conflated with the discerning reality that nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, a genuine intellectual challenge facing analysts is to imagine a real world in which states come to agree to abolish all nuclear weapons (Wheeler and Booth, 1992, pg21). Numerous theorists find the contention of a complete u-turn very difficult to conceptualize and thus are almost unanimous in dismissing it as an unrealistic goal. Therefore the inherent question is whether nuclear disarmament would enhance Britain's security; a subject has been debated since the dawn of the nuclear age. One can identify two competing security conceptions on nuclear abolition. The strategic community dismisses the idea and attests that we need to cope with the nuclear age, focusing on nuclear deterrence, while ruling out the utopian fantasy of disarmament. Nuclear abolition from this realist perspective, would impact directly on ideas of sovereignty, national autonomy, prestige and security. ...read more.

Middle

Minimum deterrence as strategists advocate does work in a US-Russian context but uncertainties resonate when applying deterrence rationality in the politically volatile Third World. Waltz and strategic theorists believe states co-exist in a condition of anarchy with a very real security dilemma existing (Waltz, 2002, pg4). The concept of deterrence, as history shows, has prevented a general war between major powers since 1945. This is why many heavily criticise the case for nuclear disarmament and instead champion the concept of minimum deterrence. Minimum deterrence is a practical policy of reducing arsenals low enough without jeopardizing a countries security. Advantages include reducing damage, making forces easier to control and setting a good example to potential proliferators. Charles Glaser claims that total disarmament could make war more likely thus adopts the strategy of minimum deterrence. He attests that the pre-requisite for disarmament is excellent robust political relations. However if relations are this good the probability of nuclear war would be just as low in a nuclear armed world (Glaser, 1998, pg113). In his article 'The Flawed Case for Nuclear Disarmament' he illustrates the problems of designing arrangements to provide states with the confidence that they would be secure in a disarmed world. ...read more.

Conclusion

Strategic realists believe stable nuclear deterrence can be made to work forever. However they work on an unusual paradox. Their beliefs are based on the philosophy and understanding of a state of anarchy yet they still believe nothing can go catastrophically wrong with order founded on nuclear deterrence. For many this equates to a 'realist fiction' (Wheeler and Booth, 1992, pg 29). Furthermore as Schell states " it is easy to forget that nuclear peril flows from the nations that process nuclear weapons not from those that don't" (Schell, 2000, pg42). Therefore Britain should pull its proverbial finger out and set a good example to the rest of the world. Rendell agrees and contests that "Britain and France should disarm, other nuclear powers should cut the potential costs to future generations by adopting a strategy of minimum deterrence" (Rendell, 2005, pg2). It is inconceivable, moreover unrealistic, to predict a grand treaty and instant security parity. The most promising approach is through 'process utopia' with intermediate stages, gradual adjustments and partial accomplishments (Wheeler and Booth, 1992, pg53). The European Union has the potential to be at the forefront in the development of fresh more realistic strategies in attempt to work towards reducing the resonating effects of drugs throughout society, losing the U.S. deterrence paradigm along the way. Is this possible? Only time will tell. ...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. International Relations Assess the arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons

    Why fight if you can't win much and might lose everything?"9 'NWs used for deterrence do more for national security than does the acquisition of territory...A state using NWs as a deterrent strategy does not need territory as much as a state relying on conventional defense.

  2. Describe the historical claims of Britain and Argentina to the Falkland Islands

    Although the British were so organised and able the Argentinians had the upper hand where numbers were concerned. The 1000 troops that first landed on the islands had just a garrison of 80 British Royal Marines to contend with. However it does not seem that the Argentines used this to their advantage.

  1. Why did the superpowers find it possible to reduce their nuclear arsenals in the ...

    perceived political power to be closely linked to their nuclear arsenal which could not remain in a state of inferiority. Thus even if an option for disarmament were available, both sides would be perpetually worried that the other was poised to steal a decisive march by restarting production of nuclear and other weapons.

  2. History of the United States

    president (1885-89; 1893-97; although he won a popular-vote plurality in the election of 1888, he lost to Harrison in the electoral college). Reared a Jacksonian Democrat, he believed that society is always in danger of exploitation by the wealthy and powerful.

  1. Do nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are they just ...

    been called an occupation by foreign powers, suggesting that we have changed the meaning of war in order to avoid nuclear war (for instance the Soviet Union was aiding Vietnamese rebels as opposed to attacking American troops). One view is that Nuclear weapons actually brought stability into an otherwise very

  2. American History.

    *Improvements in Transportation* - Following the War of 1812 the states invested in roads, canals and railroads. This increased the importance of the northeastern seaboard cities, which were already financial centers, by centralizing exports from the South and West there.

  1. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    both China and the USSR * The US got the UN to condemn the invasion, and authorise the creation of a UN army to help South Korea. * The USSR could have blocked this UN decision. However, they were boycotting the UN in protest at the UN's refusal to recognise the new Chinese government.

  2. Atomic diplomacy revised - U.S. nuclear security policy.

    Even at this early point, Kennen began to also recognize the potential of the bomb to completely wreck balance of power arrangements. Simply achieving higher potentials of destruction would not necessarily lead to a better negotiating position with the Soviets.

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