A reader was kind enough to send William Pfaff’s latest column in the IHT, which gives us a realist perspective on the problems of non-proliferation:
Nuclear proliferation does not itself promote aggression. Take the alarmist scenarios routinely cited by American and Israeli officials. There is no imaginable way by which nuclear aggression by Iran against Israel could have other than catastrophic results for the attacker. The same is true for any attack by North Korea on an American base in East Asia, or by India on Pakistan, or Pakistan on India.
The existing nuclear states, on the other hand, could attack a non-nuclear nation and escape military retaliation, although not huge political and moral opprobrium. Since everyone sees this, it adds to the perceived injustice of the American position defending the nuclear monopoly of these states.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, an eminent member of the “realist” school of policy analysis, notes that everyone understands that the implicit aim of U.S. nonproliferation policy is to prevent limits being placed on America’s freedom of action in dealing with other countries. He writes, “The country that acquires nuclear weapons becomes unattackable. It is precisely for that reason that it wants them.”
The usual antiproliferation argument contends - to quote a recent French analysis - that “a world in which 20 or 30 states have the bomb would be uncontrollable.” Usually added to the argument is the proposition that some weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists. Indeed they might, but is this any more likely than now, when much former Soviet nuclear material is still unsecured?
The aim of the governments that want to acquire nuclear weapons is security. This implies more stability, not less. The leading American academic authority on proliferation, Kenneth Waltz of Columbia University, makes the argument for proliferation by saying that since the only real utility of nuclear weapons is dissuasion, proliferation logically should “contribute to stability, peace and prudence.” This again is a rational argument made by a political realist.
Read the rest on your own — it poses some very tough questions for proponents of non-proliferation.
13 Comments
The aim of the governments that want to acquire nuclear weapons is security. This implies more stability, not less.
That works great until some terrorist sets one off in your neighborhood, which might ruin your day. Pfaff’s been living in Paris too long and it shows.
“Pfaff??s been living in Paris too long and it shows.”
Yet few countries are as anti-proliferation, “we-get-nukes-and-the-rest-don’t,” as France.
Nuclear proliferation is the future. That and other WMDs.
The US can’t handle all that get close to the threshold. We can’t do it in terms of our society’s own internal dynamics, and we can’t do it in consideration of the pressure from the outside world.
And it won’t be North Korea or Iran getting them that will soldify this future.
It will be nations like India or the South American nation(s) that are seeking them.
The only thing I can see changing the path we are on is a detonation against another nation. An exchange between India and Pakistan or in a former Soviet republic or anywhere else.
Until then, arguments like these — that every nation has the legal, moral, ethical right to have nukes if the US, France, and so on have them — will carve out enough room for any nation with the money and will to get them to have one.
And as I said before, in poor wording, is what I expect to see as a result —
more limited warfare between nations and regional conflicts as the US becomes more isolationist and the UN and any other multinational group that might want to interfere find they don’t have the balls to do so
The US maybe?
Besides France has learned about terrorism the hard way long before the US lost some pricey real estate…
He was looking at one side of the coin and one real rationale, but there is another one along the same lines.
A nation like Iraq (and possibly/probably North Korea) want nukes to deter the US — yes — for what other reason besides security? — so they can move to fullfill ambitions like another Kuwait or against Iran or perhaps against Israel.
It is a darn good deterent that will make American citizens tell our government how we feel about risking American lives in a nuclear blast to push Iraq off Kuwait or Saudi oil fields — or push North Korea out of the South if USFK ever does leave.
Perhaps security can be maintained is the nations around the new nuclear state gains the weapons at the same time — like a Pakistan-India situation.
Is that really the security the world wants?
And what if war breaks out? Just as in the Cold War, if two nuclear powers do go to war, there will be a drive to prevent it from going nuclear — that both sides having nukes convince both sides that still felt the need to go to war will keep it non-WMD.
But, it will still keep others out — like the US or any group the UN might want to put together (as if it would ever do so without the US participating).
And then what happens when things begin to go out of control? In the US, we took it for granted one day the USSR or the US would screw up and things would spiral out of control and the world would be blown to pieces.
Nukes being common place in nations that can afford and build good sized armies will not ensure security.
It will go a long way to insuring the United States (and other nations) will stay out of the way —
but I believe that will see a return to more warfare by nations rather than less.
It will give more nations a green light to seek to fullfill ambitions.
I do not believe it will bring about less warfare.
This situation is becoming a real dilema. Does one stop the spread of this technology by going to war to stop it or does one allow it to build up until armageddon becomes a de facto reality?
While I have a gut-level feeling that North Korea will not be an overt source of nuclear mischief, I see more signs that Iran is going to have a real problem in the near future. The current president of Iran and his recently appointed cabinet does not bode well for anyone.
Daily linklets 15th August
James Tien goes a-crawling. South Korea has again blocked blogspot and typepad, according to Kevin, Jodi and Nomad. The second instalment of lost in, or gained from, translation? Bringing hitchhiking into the 21st century. Cultural imperialism in Chin…
If there is a 1% chance that a nuclear power will use their weapons over a course of 100 years (or whatever statistical probablity), then having 100 nuke holding countries increases that chance (maybe not a hundredfold, but it does). MAD as a deterrent will only work up until a point. Just increases the chance that some one not rational or someone who believes their own propaganda will hold the button.
Yes its pragmatic for a country for a country to want their own weapons of Mass Destruction, but its equally pragmatic for us to do anything we can to stop more countries from having them.
Political columnists — you’ve gotta love em. I thoroughly enjoyed the way Pfaff solemnly intones his sublimely superior wisdom to his readers (”…proliferation logically should ‘contribute to stability, peace and prudence’…”).
Yet somehow Pfaff seemed to refrain from making the “rational” obvious conclusion to his column, along with the consequent recommendation. And that is — that the current nuclear states should immediately share their nuclear weapons technology with their friends and allies, in order to more rapidly bring about the desired state of stability.
After all, this would save the current non-nuke countries an enormous amount of expense and time, thus freeing up resources that could be better used to hopefully improve their own societies, or even that of their poorer neighbors.
So — if proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable and indeed even to be welcomed, perhaps as one of Martha Stewart’s “good things” —
then may I presume that we can count on Pfaff’s (also the professors mentioned in his column) approval for an immediate transfer of a couple dozen operational US nukes to Japan and South Korea, to “balance” those of NorK? With “stability” assured, the US can bring its troops home and save itself some resources as well as reduce its exposure to the risk of being involved in a local war in NE Asia.
I will look forward to reading Pfaff’s specific approval of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt having their own nukes to balance those of Iran’s. Once this occurs, no doubt things will start looking up in that area of the world as well. With stability assured there, the US can also leave that region too — in fact I’d like to see US out of Europe also, as the remaining non-nuclear European countries can obtain their own nukes to deter any potential aggression that might happen to come their way from that direction.
Should provide plenty of further material for Pfaff to editorialize about.
Paul H.,
Excellent point…
Yes, good point.
My adviser as an undergrad is somebody I’ve kept in touch with for many years. He had an interesting take on proliferation.
He said to him proliferation included the wholesale shipping of small arms, small rockets, handgrenades, and the typical stuff of the day to day street fighter. He said more people have been killed around the world in the past 30+ years due to that kind of proliferation than people who have been killed by chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
I can’t deny that….