Contemplating A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

If there is one idea that continues to remain present throughout this class it is the idea that countries will never feel secure enough to let their guards down militarily. In my first blog post, I mentioned Meirsheimer and spoke of how he reiterated the role of fear in international conflicts. He talked about how since no country can ever be sure if another country is planning to attack, they must be militarily prepared to attack and fight for their country at all costs, at all times. Now when asked to consider whether or not there can/should be a world without nuclear powers, I can’t help but think back to this idea of fear and security that Meirsheimer put forth.

In Thomas Schelling’s article, “A World Without Nuclear Powers”, he mentions how officials all over the world have been recently coming together to speak about the potential for a world free of nuclear weapons. At one conference, it was even reported that “participants were in general agreement that complete and eventual disarmament … is the objective”. Now in theory, this sounds great. If our final goal is a peaceful world, it seems only fitting that we put an end to the presence of nuclear weapons once and for all. However, then Schelling presented a question that made me think. In regards to research representing the desire to remove nuclear weapons globally, Schelling writes: “None explicitly addresses the question, why should we expect a world without nuclear weapons to be safer than one with (some) nuclear weapons?

            While the sound of “nuclear weapons” often sends a chilling fear down our spines, we mustn’t forget that even with multiple countries in possession of nuclear weapons, it’s been nearly 70 years since a nuclear weapon has been used in warfare. With this in mind, many may then wonder, “well, what’s the point in even having them?” And that all comes back to Meirsheimer’s view that countries will never feel secure, unless they are in the best spot militarily. And in this case, what that means is having access to the strongest, most detrimental weapons--- nuclear weapons.

            The reason the US has been able to stay one of the leading powers of the world for so long is because we have access to these nuclear weapons, which make us a large threat to any country contemplating engagement in war with us. In 1945, the US used nuclear warfare against Japan, killing hundreds and thousands of Japanese citizens. And the idea that at any moment, the US could do that again to any country that poses a threat to us, causes many countries to reevaluate starting conflict with us. So considering this idea, I can only wonder what would happen if the US didn’t have nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of any who dare mess with us. And I can only assume the result would be chaos. This would mean weaker countries without nuclear weapons could now engage in conflict with bigger countries, without the fear of being completely destroyed.

           While it may sound bad, personally, I think the threat of nuclear weapons is necessary in keeping world order. In order to feel secure, powerful countries need something in order to deter other countries from starting conflict. Although there’s no guarantee these countries will continue to not use their weapons, I think conflict is seriously less likely to occur with the fear of engaging in war with a country in possession of a nuclear weapon. Otherwise, what’s stopping every country from going to war with each other if they see it fit?

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)