Is Nuclear deterrence a stabilizing factor in the Post Cold War Scenario?

Essay Presented by Abdelhamied El Rafie Under the supervision of Professor Pierfransisco Moscuzza For the Course Nature of force , Peace and non violence

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

Introduction : I am trying in this essay to answer the question Is Nuclear deterrence a stabilizing factor in the Post Cold War scenario ? I will try to answer this through discussing the following points: 1. The Impact of Nuclear weapons. 2. The current Nuclear Scenario. 3. The argument about the validity or the significance of Nuclear weapons.

4. What is the post cold war scenario? 5. Finally I will try to answer the essays question from as a conclusion from the previous analysis. My hypothesis will be that The current Post cold war scenario on Nuclear deterrence is formulated by the fact of that acquiring nuclear weapons depends totally and completely on the balances of power within the International System on which any trial to maneuver the current balances will face real obstacles.

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

The Impact of Nuclear weapons: Nuclear arms and weapons have great impact on the Universal historical and contemporary politics , and despite the fact of that most International relations theorists and strategists have put a number of deterrence theories but these would face obstacles in applying these theories in case of there is a real situation were nuclear weapons can be used. There is a statistic according to John Muller made by the Brookings institute states that the United States had spent 5.5 trillion dollars during the period 1940-1998 on nuclear weapons. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/think_again_nuclear_weapons ?page=full) The current Nuclear Scenario: Despite the Obama Initiative Nuclear weapons are decreasing for example in 2002 the warheads deployed by the US and Russia decreased from 70000 to 30000 and it is currently 20000

. France and the UK are under huge debate internally and under pressures for the reasons they are still acquiring these weapons . What about China? We will find that they developed fewer weapons than those they could develop and all what they have is not more than 180 warheads. The result to all what is above that there is a smaller probability to have any aggressive or offensive arms race between those five powers which consist what is known the Nuclear club.

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

Despite the reports which mentions that AlQaeda is trying to obtain nuclear warheads and despite the claims that the Russian nukes are facing problems in security these claims did not convince the Intelligence community in the US. And the Russian weapons are more secured in the time being because of their fear of being attacked within their lands of dominance .(,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/think_again_nuclear_weapons? page=full) What about the Rogue States like Iran and North Korea if we look at the Iranian case we will find that their intentions are based upon a strategy of defense and threatening if they are attacked this might change the balance of powers in the Middle East meaning that their program is quite of reaction rather than action. If we move to North Korea we will find that they are basically isolated and have economic internal problems so part of their acquiring the Nuclear weapons is for the people inside by claiming that they are in fight with imperialism but if we look to the balance of power in the region of North Asia we will find that Russia and China who are the North Koreans allies but if any one would think that this might threat South Korea and Japan he is completely wrong because there are American Military bases in both countries plus they are covered by the American Nuclear Umbrella. Then according to analysts China and Russia are out of the Poker game of deterrence they have their own balances with the US but countries like Iran and North Korea are still having their Poker Faces The US indefinitely knows what they have Therefore the US under Obama who fought in his Presidential campaign against the war in Iraq is not ready

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

to take a risk of having another war with Iran or North Korea even the primitive attacks will have smaller possibilities for him before putting his sold on the table In my humble opinion he will lean more towards Diplomacy with the possibility of more economic sanctions and pressures on both countries. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/playing_with_a_full_deck) The argument about the validity or the significance of Nuclear weapons: According to John Mueller strategist Bernard Brodie mentioned two facts about nuclear weapons the first is that it is available the second that it is enormously destructive, but Mueller argues that since the invention of these weapons its sequence developments doesnt compact with its occurrence in 1945 and all what it has lead in his opinion is humanity's unhealthy obsession with them, a preoccupation that has inspired some seriously bad policy decisions . He claims and I agree with him that these weapons has raised International subconscious on what historian Spencer Weart notes, "You say 'nuclear bomb' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/the_rise_of_nuclear_alarmism) According to Stephen M Walt He mentions a quote from Bernard Brodie in his book The Absolute weapon (1946)"Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them." But He argues unlike Mueller That despite the fact of that a small number of countries acquire nuclear weapons but this didnt prevent World leaders to decrease their defense budgets , requirements and developments because they have in his opinion great confidence in the deterrent power of these awesome weapons Then He sums up his opinion by saying The lesson I draw from this is that nuclear weapons have very limited value. A handful of survivable weapons makes it very unlikely that another state will attack you directly or try to invade and take over your 5
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

country But I do argue here if is the case like he mentions why the superpowers specially the US have put procedures that limits other developing countries from acquiring the Nuclear technology by piutting restrictions on the Know how of these technologies even for peaceful purposes by claiming that this technology might be transferred to a military one and why the US never mentions or put these restrictions on countries who are currently nuclear powers with its military meaning like Israel , India and Pakistan ????why is this because they are allies therefore it depends in my opinion on the International relations among countries and the balance of power regionally and Internationally and the weight and volume of each country which tries to poses these weapons. (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/03/rethinking_the_nuclear_revolution) What is the Post Cold war scenario?

Again Walt debates the value of acquiring these nuclear weapons it is obvious in my opinion that having 100 bombs might destroy 100 cities and this will be extraordinary damage to humanity as he mentions but I still insist and Iam here against his opinion of reducing the number of weapons and preventing new powers to obtain these weapons BUT WHY?? Its part of the inequality in the contemporary International relations which ironically say I have the gun and I know how to produce it and I will prevent you by all means to get it because I still have the gun in my hands and I will shoot you If you try to get a gun !!! (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/24/all_the_nukes_that_you_can_use) These are the dynamics of the current international affairs because the System is like a pyramid where you have on top of it the United States and on the second level from above we find powers like the EU , Russia, China, Japan , Then a third level where we find the rising economic powers Like The ASEAN the new Economic tigers then on the

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

bottom of the pyramid we find the developing countries so lets imagine a country like Iran which is considerably a developing country and Iam not justifying its trial to acquire nuclear weapons- who tries to play against the structure of that pyramid ?? Therefore countries who are trying to or already acquired nuclear weapons like Iran and North Korea are trying to challenge the current system , the same thing can be applied to what Al Qaeda is doing by executing terrorist attacks against the US and its allies thats why I would think that such disputes The leading powers in the World would succeed in their combat against their challengers but these powers specially the US will be exhausted this might fasten up towards the development towards a complete Multipolar International System . The Answer to the essays question : I would think that Nuclear deterrence can not be a stabilizing or a destabilizing factor in the Post cold war scenario unless something major happens in the International balances of power globally or regionally , and even if we assume that the International system will be transferred soon into a multipolar system I dont think the contradictions between the poles of this new system might lead to a major nuclear arms race but this does not deny the fact that there will be new powers in which will try to obtain and acquire these nuclear weapons , but in such scenario I would believe that there will be more restrictions about safety measures concerning the use of these weapons.

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

Bibliography : 1. John Mueller , Think again: Nuclear weapons , Foreign Policy ,January- February 2010 ,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/think_again_nuclear_weapons? page=full . 2. Playing with a full deck , Foreign Policy , August 2009 ,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/playing_with_a_full_deck . 3. John Mueller, The rise of Nuclear alarmism, Foreign Policy , October 2009, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/the_rise_of_nuclear_alarmism . 4. Stephen M Walt, Rethinking the Nuclear Revolution , Foreign Policy , August 2010, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/03/rethinking_the_nuclear_revolution . 5. Stephen M Walt, All the Nukes That you can use, Foreign Policy , May 2010, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/24/all_the_nukes_that_you_can_use .

6. Colum Lynch, The Nuclear caste system, Foreign Policy , April 2010, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/30/the_nuclear_caste_system . 7. Stephen M Walt, Nuclear posture review(or Nuclear public relations) , Foreign Policy April 2010 ,http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/06/nuclear_posture_review_or_nuclear_pub lic_relations . 8. Stephen M Walt, America Unbound, Foreign policy , August 2009, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/06/america_unbound .

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

9. Taha Ozhan ,Multilateralism in foreign policy and nuclear swap deal, Foreign policy , June 2010 , http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/multilateralism_in_foreign_policy_an d_nuclear_swap_deal . 10. Stephen M Walt, Five big questions, Foreign Policy , July 2010, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/wordpress_category/thesis_ideas .

Abdelhamied El-Rafie

10

Abdelhamied El-Rafie