Introduction to International Relations

Submitted to, “Mr. Kamran Shahid”

Submitted by, “Muhammad Waqas Khalid”

 To What Extent the Nuclear Weapons Indicate a Stable Future

National Security is the utmost priority of every sate in this world. Whether a state is
developed or still it is under development, the prime task of the government is to make its
security plan foolproof. In the world of severe competition power and development,
every country wants to get more than she has. In the race of fulfilling personal needs
many states invade other states to get the possible gains from that state. In order to avoid
these invasions every state wants to make its defense non challengeable. This activity of
the states gave birth to the race of Nuclear Weaponry in the world.
In order to see that whether the Nuclear Weapons indicate a stable or destabilized world,
first it should be seen that what motivates the states to invade other states. In this regard
the states attack one another if they see that if the defense of the enemy is contestable or
not. If the defense of the enemy state is contestable for that state, it is likely to held a war
between those two states and vice versa. Secondly, if there is the possibility of any
relative gains from that invasion. If the attacking state thinks that if there is any
possibility for that state to get any relative gains in the form of land and resources from
its enemy state then, the War Between the States becomes inevitable. Thirdly, the power
strengths of that state. Whether it is superior or inferior in its defense and power to the
attacking power. If so there are more chances to happen a war between those two states.
Fourthly, is there any defeated war or victorious war held with that state. If the attacking
state is confident enough that it will defeat the enemy state or it had any defeated war in
the past it provokes the state to attack on the enemy state. Fifthly, the limited destruction,
uncertainty of the destruction and the long time frame makes the wars to happen. These
five points indicate the possibility of wars between the states. This is the simple answer to
the question why wars happen in the conventional warfare?
In the circumstances, mentioned above, the wars between the states become inevitable.
To avoid the wars the states should try their best not give roam to other state to find any
weakness in its defense. If we see the powerful states like United Kingdom, United
States, France, Germany, China and India how strong the defensive system they have
then its becomes impossible for their rival states even dare to attack them. In this way the
states can avoid the destruction in the world. When the states fail to achieve it the wars
become their destiny.
Characteristics of Nuclear Weapons:
Nuclear Weapons unlike the conventional military weapons have some special
characteristics. These characteristics include:
 Mass Destruction
 Speed of Destruction
 Certainty of Destruction
The nuclear weapons are special due to their mass destruction. In the past the destruction
was on a very low scale, but in the nuclear war the destruction can be so severe that even
the losses can never be amended for the centuries. We have the example of the Japanese
cities like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the effects can still be observed. So every state
is aware of the fact that the weapons of just some kg can do what the huge air forces and
navies can never do. So the every country is familiar with the fact of its mass destruction.
Secondly, the speed of the destruction, in the conventional warfare the states were in the
position to plan and think about the attacks, but in the nuclear war it becomes impossible
to even move from one part to another in the same territory. This attack is just of seconds
which has the everlasting effects. Thirdly, certainty, now every state is aware about the
certainty of the destruction. In the conventional warfare system the countries did not
know how much they or their enemy will loose after the war, or they will be the one of
the losers or the winners. But now the states know that what will happen in the end of the
nuclear war.
By looking at the motives of the war we can see why the wars happen. But here the
nuclear weapons give no roam to the countries to produce any one of those causes. For
example the concept of relative gains (as mentioned above) which are likely to be an
attractive thing for the attacking power. But in the presence of the nuclear power or
nuclear weaponry it is quite obvious that with the fire of the nuclear weapons nothing
will remain alive. Everything will vanish of both the countries. So in this way neither of
the countries would be able to get any relative gain from each other. So the purpose of the
war will vanish automatically. In this way neither of the countries would like to attack on
the rival powers. Secondly, the concept of the contestability of the defense system of the
rival power will no more be a factor of war, because in the presence of the nuclear
weapons the defense of every state will be uncontestable and unchallengeable. The
defense of both the rivals will be strong enough that neither of them would like to attack
on the other by just thinking that the rival’s defense is contestable, so all the international
wars on the basis of the contestability of the defense will go to an end. Thirdly, when the
countries would know that the enemy state is just equal to us in power because of the
presence of the nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. They equalize all the states
militarily. Fourthly, both the rivals would know the speed of the destruction so they
would be in the position to know the certainty of war. Fifth, nuclear wars are more costly
than the conventional warfare, so it becomes impossible for the states to attack the other
rival and peace is more likely to happen. Sixth and the last, unlike the conventional
warfare it creates the state of “Death or Survival” instead of “Winning or Loosing”. So
nobody is willing to kill himself. So peace between those states is like to be held. In this
way the international wars will come to an end but the cold wars can initiate.
Criticism on the Nuclear Weaponry Proliferation (Critique’s approach):
In as far as the elimination of international wars via nuclear weapons is concerned there
are two schools of thoughts. According to the one nuclear proliferation is decreasing the
international wars but others think that it has imposed a serious threat to the world peace.
They are also right to their point. They argue that, the existence of nuclear weapons has
imposed a big threat to the regional peace. Secondly, the regional as well as world peace
is also at stake if the weapons come under the control of the rigid or extremists areas.
Thirdly, every new nuclear state would like to produce the more destructive and cheap
technology and in this way the nuclear weaponry race will start. Fourthly, the spread of
nuclear weapons among the weaker states poses a great threat to the world safety. Lastly,
the weaker nuclear states because of their insecurity against strong enemies are more
irresponsible and immature in using the nuclear options.1
The first argument of the critiques fails about the nuclear order to see the closeness of
nuclear strategic environment because the majority of the nuclear states exist side by
sides so share the common border. Their closeness to each makes them more cautious
about the use of nuclear weapons. Same can be seen in the south Asian world. Most of
1
“International Relations and Political Theory” by Mr. Kamran Shahid, ch: Nuclear Proliferation
Devastating Yet Inevitable, P:47
the nuclear powers are in the forms of the clusters so they are more vigilant about using
this nuclear weaponry. Secondly, the command of nuclear weapons by rigid and fanatic
leaders is not at all a worrying matter. The contemporary studies have shown that the
extremists or the rigid are toned by arriving in the arena of international affairs and
competition. They are not at extreme as in the domestic affairs. So the argument that the
extremists or the rigid pose a great threat to the regional and world peace is not true
enough. Thirdly, one declines to accept that the nuclear arsenals encourage the
armaments race and hence promote wars. The nuclear balances are inherently stable. The
extra spending of some nuclear states on the military armament does not initiate the
armament race because it neither threatens nuclear balance nor frightens the other nuclear
states. Once the states acquire the necessary security through nuclear deterrence she no
more needs extravagant spending on the purchase of armaments. The possession of
nuclear weapons even at small scale is solid guarantee to the safety of a nation state.
Fourthly, it is quite rational to believe that the new middle states or the weaker states are
capable of keeping those nuclear weapons program. They have a very limited material
that why it is quite easy to handle. If sometimes any accident occurs then the destruction
will also be on a very limited scale. There is no threat of devastation from the weaker
states with limited technology but it is from the other giants that are having the millions
of the warheads. Lastly, the weak states of the system responsible in handling the nuclear
program along peaceful lines, first of all, they are neither the major nor the regional
powers that could provide the nuclear umbrella or support to other states and fight for
their sakes. Their objectives are less destructive and only limited to their security goals.
They are weak enough and know that they will lose quickly. So they will avoid using the
nuclear weapons. Their option for the use of nuclear weapons will be just for their
survival.
‘Organizational Theory’ A Critique of Nuclear Proliferation:
The critiques of the nuclear proliferation theory argue that nuclear proliferation has
imposed a serious threat to the world. They gave the organizational theory instead of the
national security nature of the nuclear weapons. According to them the new emerging
nuclear states are either dictatorships or the weak civilians. So it imposes the treat of use
of the nuclear weapons. They argue that the army officers are trained for the wars and
wars strategy. They are least interested in solving the conflicts with the democracy of
diplomacy. So they can use the nuclear weapons more often than the civilian democrats.
The same threat is also expected from the weak civilian governments.
In the answer to this the scholars of International Relations say that during the Korean
War 1950, the military officials tried their best to avoid the nuclear war. They insisted to
start a general war instead of the nuclear war but it was the civilians’ leader which
insisted on the use of the nuclear weapons. Not only the one military official insisted on
the general war but also others insisted the same. So it was cleared that the dictatorships
are more likely to start the general war instead of the nuclear war.
The scholars of international relations further argue that, In as far as the knowledge is
concerned; there is no such a law or theory of international relations that envisage that
military is less rational, less patriotic and reckless than civilian government in provoking
wars and conflicts. Secondly by virtue of what logic one must believe that a soldier or a
general whose life becomes more insecure at the advent of the war should express deep
inclination for reckless bloody combat? They negate the organizational thesis. There are
valid reasons to believe that the nuclear weapons would not be misused by the military
organization and peace of the future would not be intact under both military and civilian
led government.
First of all military leaders are least interested in the nuclear weapons. They drive their
strengths from the control and command of the traditional warfare. Unlike the scientists
they prefer to lead the troops in the battlefields. They have been trained in traditional way
of fighting, therefore it is illogical to think that the military led underdeveloped states
would certainly become the nuclear powers and pose threat to the peace and stability.
Secondly, the generals are as patriotic as the civilians. They prefer to avoid wars in
‘unfamiliar conditions’. The nuclear warfare generals uncertainty about the possible
outcomes. The only certain aspect of nuclear war is human sufferings and massive
killings. Both civilians and military rulers are aware of this simple fact, therefore it is
wrong to conclude that the generals are reckless while handling the nuclear options.
Thirdly military believes in the cautions. It always informs first and then it may go for the
attack. The use of force is only when all options are closed. In the history this fact has
been prove to be true. So it demonstrates that the use of force is only when there is
nothing left over.
Historical Background Relating the Nuclear Weaponry:
The following states became the nuclear states in the last century.

Names of the States Year of Nuclear Tests

United States 1945
USSR 1949
England 1952
France 1960
China 1964
Israel 1970s
India 1974
Pakistan 1998
North Korea 2006

In the era of conventional warfare the wars between the states were common. In the
conventional warfare following wars held which became the nuclear states later on.
1- India and China war 1964
2- Pakistan and India Wars i.e. 1948, 1965 & 1971
3- Arabia states attack on Israel 1960
Historical background of present nuclear powers shows that India and China had a war
between them in the 1964. There held no war between nuclear China and Nuclear India
after 1964. The same case is with the nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India. Pakistan and
India had three international wars in 1948, 1965 and in 1971 in conventional warfare. But
neither of them had any of the international wars after 1971 war. India became the
nuclear power in 1974 and Pakistan became the nuclear power in 1998. It has stabilized
both the states. The same story was seen in 1960 with Israel. But when the Israel became
the nuclear state it saved itself from the threats of the international wars.
Conclusion:
By keeping in view both the paradigms (i.e. nuclear proliferation and nuclear non
Proliferation) it is concluded that the nuclear weaponry has reduced the international wars
and it has stabilized the world. By the emergence of the nuclear weapons the
contestability of the national defense, possibility of relative gains and resources has also
come to an end. Now the countries cannot afford to bear the heavy costs of the wars. It
has enforced the peace among the nuclear states. Now the countries are aware that with
the use of the nuclear force the possibility of any type of nuclear gains is never ever
possible. Now by the war the death or survival state will arise. If all the countries will be
proliferated then every country would try to use the diplomacy and meetings to resolve
the conflicts rather than wars. If all countries would be proliferated the defense of ever
country would be invulnerable, hence no state would dare to attack on another.