The Dangers of Nuclear Weapons in Our World
This page discusses some of the major concerns that arise from the proliferation of nuclear weapons in today's world and potential drawbacks to the reliance on nuclear deterrence.
Political Stability Concerns
Case Study: A.Q. Khan Pakistan’s Abdul Qadeer Khan is an example of how one individual can shake the balance of nuclear power in a negative way. According to Robert S. Norris of Encyclopedia Britannica, Kahn was a European-educated scientist that “founded the Engineering Research Laboratory, or ERL, for the purpose of developing a uranium-enrichment capability” (par. 6). Norris also goes on to discuss the broad range of Kahn’s network, including a successful transfer of nuclear capabilities to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and attempted sales with Libya. He writes again that “Libya, supplied by Khan, embarked upon a nuclear weapons program until it was interrupted by the United States in 2003” (par. 7). As we know, countries like Iran and North Korea are not very stable in terms of their government and leadership, making the actions of people like Khan a major liability to the concept of nuclear deterrence and the political security of the modern world. |
According to Robert S. Norris of Encyclopedia Britannica, Kahn was a European-educated scientist that “founded the Engineering Research Laboratory, or ERL, for the purpose of developing a uranium-enrichment capability” (par. 6).
|
Note:
For our purposes, the numbers in the table represent the security level of each side (higher number=higher level of security), reflecting whether or not each side "defects" (arms with nuclear weapons). Possible Outcomes in the Prisoner's/Security Dilemma:
|
Security Issues
Case Study: United States and North Korea One of the more infamous foreign policy relationships today exists between the United States and North Korea. In terms of nuclear capabilities, the United States has been a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and thus also has had access to nuclear weapons for awhile now. On the other hand, North Korea is a relative newcomer to the 'Nuclear Weapons Club" so to speak, having been a part of the second wave of proliferation at the hands of A.Q. Khan. Kwanwoo Jun discusses this lack of deliberation of states with regards to negotiations between the United States and North Korea. Jun writes, “North Korea has no plans to negotiate with the U.S. unless it rolls back its hostile policy, the statement said, without referring to any specific demands.” (par. 4). Nuclear deterrence can keep us in this very difficult dilemma. We can even consider the process of nuclear deterrence to be a series of mind games with the hope being that no misunderstandings occur that could lead to an attack. This lack of open communication and transparency regarding nuclear weapons has essentially driven all of the major global players into their own corners in which they are not fully able to peer into the minds and psyche of other rival states in terms of whether they have nuclear capabilities or not. As a result, we see a resurrection of a classic political science game theory model called “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (depicted in the table to the left). Prisoner's Dilemma (also called the Security Dilemma):
|
Ethical Questions to Consider
In his article, “The Dimensions of Contemporary War and Violence”, Robert Jay Lifton discusses the misconceptions regarding peace and human rights in a world where lives are at the total mercy of advanced weaponry. He writes, “the peaceable-world claim is deeply misleading in its failure to confront a revolution in the technology of killing and the increasing capacity for detached slaughter or numbed technological violence” (10). If anything, this puts each individual’s human rights on the line and can result in lost lives at the push of a button. Such inaction bypasses all understandings of international law, most of which come from the presence of the United Nations. By resigning to this principle, we’d be going against the purpose single biggest intergovernmental organization (IGO) on the planet, which was designed so that active policies could be made to better our world. Is this something that we as a society are willing to let happen? Is there anything we can really do to stop it? |
“The peaceable-world claim is deeply misleading in its failure to confront a revolution in the technology of killing and the increasing capacity for detached slaughter or numbed technological violence”- Robert Jay Lifton (10).
|
Final Thoughts
Regardless of the dangers we face from the existence of nuclear weapons, there is still the opportunity for us make progress in limiting the impact that they have on our world. Jonathan Schell provides a positive outlook on the situation in his article “The Old and New Shapes of Nuclear Danger”. He writes, “The hopeful aspect may be that in our fractious time there are still some issues that can recall us to our common humanity” (11). And with that, the focus turns to you. What are your aspirations, goals, and dreams? How do you envision the world to be in the years to come? We ask you to weigh the options for yourself, but consider the obvious political, security, and ethical risks that arise today in a world of nuclear weapons, and just how much brighter our future could be if we took significant steps to eradicate or seriously distance them from society.