“…to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright,
and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so,
you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.”(Machiavelli, The Prince)
While reading Schelling’s piece, A World Without Nuclear
Weapons, I couldn’t help but think of this quote from The Prince.
Schelling’s piece relates to this quote when he asks the question of
“what does it mean to have nuclear weapons?”. The conclusion that he arrives at
is that just having to ability to create nuclear weapons constitutes as having
nuclear weapons. Even though the
world may be free of nuclear weapons, it is very well known that a nuclear
weapon is the most powerful bargaining tool out there. For this reason, the second that crisis
erupts in a “nuclear free world”, a race towards rearmament beings and we are
right back where we left off with nuclear weapons. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t believe we can ever rid the
world of nuclear weapons so long as the international community is
anarchic. We acquire nuclear
weapons because we don’t trust those who have them. And I am supposed to somehow believe that these same nations
will all of a sudden trust that other nations are in fact free of nuclear
weapons. The cost of cooperating(free
of nuclear weapons) while another nation defects may be too damaging that no one
really wants to risk that. Nuclear
weapons are also a sign of standing in the international community. All of the major players in the world
have nuclear weapons. No one wants
to show up to a fight unprepared and outmatched. So even if a nation has no
intention of ever using a nuclear bomb or is in no imminent threat of being a
target of one, they still may wish to have nuclear weapons as a way to say, “Hey,
look at me. I’m important too!” I expect the next step in nuclear warfare to be
preventive measures. There are
already weapons used to defend against long-range missiles, however defending
against a nuclear weapon is a bit more complicated.
You make a very good point when you state that "nuclear weapons are a sign of standing in the international community". If you really think about it you could question if a country is really respected internationally if they do not have a nuclear weapons program. In a way preventing some countries from having nuclear weapons programs could be seen as a form of discrimination against some of the smaller countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Roy when you make the point that nuclear weapons are almost a symbol of power in the international realm. Roy also makes a very good point that it seems almost discriminatory for the stronger countries that are already armed with nuclear weapons to want to prevent others from becoming powerful as well. I also agree that it would be impossible to rid the world of nuclear weapons since all nations want to be able to counterattack and protect themselves. No nation would want a repeat of the horrendous atomic bombings in Japan, and a nuclear free world would potentially allow for a repeat in history if nations couldn't defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteStephen,
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that you take a look at Lea's post about nuclear zero, which is a very strong argument in favor of it that I didn't mention in the lecture. How would you respond?
In fact, it might be best if everyone arguing with Schelling took a look at that post.