A popular notion amongst Cold War politicians, International Security critics, and intellectuals over the past couple of decades was an abstract one perfectly expressed by Queen Elizabeth’s description of nuclear weaponry, in that their ‘awesome destructive power has preserved the world from a major war for the past thirty-five years’ (Siracusa, 2008). To fully assess and determine the most effective method for combating our current state of nuclear proliferation, it’s necessary to reiterate that ‘security threat’ in this context is open to threaten its multiple forms, i.e. National Security (protecting the state), Human Security (protecting fundamental freedoms) and Military Security.
This essay aims to prove that ‘Deterrence’ is the most effective response to the security threat posed by nuclear weapons; it will be conducted by assessing the benefits and drawbacks of implementing ‘Deterrence’ and the reason for its advantage over the other proposed solutions: ‘Arms Control’ or ‘Multilateral Disarmament’. To focus the essay further, each suggested approach and its key features will be defined and linked to the aforementioned different forms of security referents to widen the scope of the essay.
‘Deterrence’ by definition is ‘a policy of attempting to control the behavior of other actors through the use of threats’(Brown, 2018). Initially, deterrence has always been understood as a core aspect of human behaviour, however, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents in 1945 and the beginning of the Cold War, Deterrence became a central theory to ‘Strategic Studies’(a positivist approach focused on the prevention of war between states) (Brown, 2018).
During the progression of the Cold War, the effect of nuclear proliferation had expanded beyond the two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, onto Britain, France and China. By 1960, the leading states had covered all security referents through simply having nuclear weapons; national security was assured through the concept of ‘mutually assured destruction’ as no weapon can be fired on any leading state without the expectation that the first strike would disable the aggressor’s retaliatory forces. Human security was established as key factors such as ‘Freedom from Fear’ were guaranteed, due to the existence of Nuclear weapons, to keep the citizens feeling safe and fearless.
Deterrence during the Cold War was an extremely beneficial strategy due to the equality in nuclear distribution amongst superpowers and leading states; as seen through the Arms Race, the United States and the Soviet Union were focusing on levelling their nuclear capacities, their nuclear strengths, and their nuclear strategic positions. At a wider scope, the theory of deterrence looked alarming, however, within each state, the security threat was managed and the fear was controlled through the knowledge that nuclear weapons were being built for security reasons and yet held at bay to avoid the aforementioned ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ concept (ThoughtCo, 2018).
The Cold War, interestingly, was also the platform to suggest that Deterrence as a theory wasn’t foolproof as seen. One crucial implication that resides in the very core of the theory was that each state’s security only exists on the makings of nuclear threats; nuclear threats alone can determine whether the deterrent functions or not. A deterrent only works if the aggressor has full intentions to actually use the nuclear weapons, not a ‘bluff’ (Kenny, 1985). The Deterrent Credibility is the underlying secret for deterrence as a theory to prove its success; willingness and intention should be at its core. Therefore for a deterrent to work we must consider two contrasting notions that work collectively: peace and fear. A successful deterrence instills constant fear to maintain long-lasting peace.
The view on Deterrence is split; there are those who rationalise the possession of nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence based on the possibility of using them legitimately, and there are those who rationalise the deterrence of nuclear weapons and defend their possession but completely disagree with their physical use. In this case a contradiction rises between the moral imperative (Kenny, 1985) of avoiding the use of such inhuman means, and the possibility of taking a necessary security measure to willingly use them in defense if needed.
‘Arms Control’, the establishment of written agreements regarding reduction and abolition in fighting capacity between states (Brown, 2018), is an approach that was attempted previously during the Cold War throughout the period of ‘Detente’(History.state.gov, 2018), a period of temporary stability between the two superpowers. A core aspect that reflects this approach is ‘Liberal Internationalism (Foreign Affairs, 2018); internationalism focuses on political, social and economic state cooperation, with the basis that all motives should be focused on international welfare rather than personal gain and self-interest. Liberal internationalism is simply an in depth focus into liberal international values such as universal human rights; this can be seen most successfully within the United Nations and other supporting organisations that attempt to provide basic human physiological needs at an international scope. This international, peaceful forum that is the United Nations exemplifies the essence of arms control as it shows that peaceful cooperation can be attained through talks and debates.
There are two main types of ‘arms control’. The first is ‘Limitations of Development’, this refers to limiting the initial creation of nuclear weapons; examples of this would be the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (Armscontrol.org, 2018) signed in 1972 between the two superpowers that agreed to limit anti-ballistic missile systems and their creation used in defending areas against ABM’s. An immediate issue with this type of arms control is shown in ‘Rogue States’ as an example of horizontal proliferation (The Nuclear Times, 2018); rogue states have no nuclear weapons of their own but are attempting to obtain them, thus the immediate problem is their unwillingness to limit the creation of a certain product they wanted and have been attempting to attain, only to have it deemed unlawful.Therefore in this case, national security for any rogue state would be at a disadvantage as they would be lacking the nuclear weapons needed to defend themselves; thus the security threat remains an issue through the use of this type of arms control.
The second type of arms control is the ‘Prohibition and Reduction’ of arms; this essentially refers to states with existing nuclear resources and would be forced to reduce or destroy a certain amount in order to meet a certain limitation or quota. An example would be any of the SALT Treaties (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018) that were created for the purpose of straining the arms race and nuclear proliferation. Vertical proliferation (The Nuclear Times, 2018) is at stake here with the nuclear states or ‘Great Irresponsibles’, as it goes against the basic laws of nature to simply give away something that belongs to you without a form of compensation. In terms of national security, an act as such would undermine the security of the state and would leave the people extremely vulnerable, leading to negative impacts on human security. Therefore, whilst Arms control seems most logical to implement in theory as it wouldn’t be taking extreme measures, just simple gradual limitations, it is perhaps one of the hardest to actually enact in practice; arms control would have been the perfect approach for a short term solution as it relies on trust, to remain in effect in the long run; states are naturally untrusting.
‘Multilateral Disarmament’, the reduction of weapons agreed upon by three or more parties (Brown, 2018), is the final proposed approach for the security threat posed by nuclear weapons. It essentially requires all states involved in the agreement to completely disarm in order for the security threat to disappear. An example would be the recent ‘Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons’ (Un.org, 2018) signed in July 2017 as the first international legally binding piece of legislation to prohibit nuclear weapons, in the hopes of eliminating them completely in the future. To assess the effect of this treaty now would be too soon to determine whether it had been a success or a failure thus limiting the ability to fully assess its benefits and drawbacks. It is important to note however, that the majority of the states, precisely 115 out of 193 have become nuclear-free zones (Iaea.org, 2018) in the last ten years, thus potentially showing the successful hope of multilateral disarmament. However, while 115 is an impressive statistic, it is also crucial to understand the context of this number; 115 includes all states that would not have been economically viable to own nuclear weapons to begin with, thus the impressive ratio doesn’t immediately link back to multilateral disarmament as the reason. It is also unrealistic to assume that all 193 states would be willing to sign the disagreement agreement to willingly give up their nuclear weapons. Surrendering and abolishing their weapons would be unrealistic as it would require the relinquishing of power, a foreign concept in the practice of politics. With regards to fixing the security threat, multilateral disarmament would not function successfully unless it became a unanimous decision between all 193 states to disarm. Hence it would perhaps be the least effective method as it would take the longest to implement and even longer for it to be trusted. National Security and Human security in this case would be at a constant threat due to their relinquishing of power.
Conclusively, while all three proposed solutions have the potential to fix the current security threat, it should be considered which have the capacity to remain the most effective in the long term. Thus why the theory and practice of Deterrence, although ironic, seems the most suitable; it is the ‘balance of terror’ (Siracusa, 2008) a description by Sir Winston Churchill, and the hunger for power that ensures future prolonged safety from the security threats surrounding us today.