Nuclear Weapons: The Ironic Necessity?

            The arms race has built up drastically within the past half century due to the immense progress in creation of nuclear weapons across the world. As nuclear weapons have become more powerful over the years, having the ability to kill thousands of people and tremendous portions of land at once, some people have become fearful of the threat the weapons may pose to the future of mankind. Some have proposed the idea of a world with complete nuclear disarmament, implying that a “nuclear-free” world would be a safer world. However this plan concerns me and I do not believe it would make us safer, but in fact hurt us and force us to lose all trust for other states, and live in a “nervous world”, as Thomas C. Schelling argues in his article, A world without nuclear weapons?

            In a situation where someone, such as the United Nations, attempted to create some type of system to eliminate all nuclear weapons, I believe it would ultimately eliminate all allies and positive international relationships between states. I completely agree with Schelling's argument in his article, which states that this is because everyone would always be in constant fear that other states secretly had weapons, and they would persistently accuse one another of possessing them, without any way of knowing true facts. Every state would always turn against each other, and the world would very well possibly end in some colossal war due to lack of trust. As Schelling further suggests, “Just as today’s intelligence agencies and their clandestine operators are devoted to discovering the location of terrorist organizations and their leaders, in a non-nuclear world the highest priority would attach to knowing the exact locations and readiness of enemy nuclear mobilization bases.” (127) 

            Though obtaining nuclear weapons may not have been a necessary defensive safety tactic a hundred years ago, they have been created and their existence is inevitable. The safest scenario is to leave the arms race untouched and let those who can obtain nuclear weapons keep them, because assuming all states will act rationally with the proposed movement is not a reliable strategy, since everyone defines ration differently. I often classify myself as a constructivist, and this is a clear example of a topic where I take a quite constructivist stance, as I argue that all state actors have had different experiences and, in this case, different experiences with nuclear weapons, and therefore may all have different ideas of what acting rationally means when it comes to things like atomic bombs.
            This claim I make that relying on states to act rationally is not dependable can be further illustrated by the prisoner’s dilemma, which ultimately suggests that when two criminals are being held captive, they will both “rat” each other out because they will not trust each other because they won’t know what the other will do. Similarly, in a nuclear-free world, all states will essentially constantly be “held captive” of one another, not knowing if the others will secretly obtain nuclear weapons or not, and will lose all trust for each other. Eventually, I believe we would end up in a much less safe place than we are now, for every state would solely be focused on “ratting” each other out, or getting ready to fight. We would live in constant fear, similarly to how people may have felt living during the Cold War during the beginning of the nuclear arms race, or how Israelis and Palestinians live every day not knowing what the other party has planned. But even Schelling admits when describing a nuclear-free world, “I believe that a “responsible” government would make sure that fissile material would be available in an international crisis or war itself. A responsible government must at least assume that other responsible governments will do so.” (126)

            Though a world free of mass destruction may seem utopian, unfortunately nuclear weapons have already been invented and instead of trying to fight against them as a society, we must accept the fact that they have a place in the future of our society. We must focus on sensible negotiation plans to enhance international relations, and focus on re-building international trust. We cannot change the past, but I believe there is hope for the future. 


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

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)