Why Have Nuclear Weapons Not Been Used in Conflict Since 1945?
Why have nuclear weapons not been used in conflict since 1945?
Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the modern world the mass media are often critical about nuclear weapons and the threats they pose for society, but this begs the question; why have nuclear weapons not been used in conflict since 1945? To answer this question the issues of taboo and deterrence and the arrival of virtual nuclear arsenals must be called into question, as well as theoretical ideas such as rationality from proliferation optimists and proliferation pessimists. I will also look at whether we currently live in a non-proliferation regime, and look at the alternatives for peace and nuclear non-usage.
The first area of nuclear non-usage I will look at will be the arguments brought forward by proliferation pessimists and optimists. Kennitz Waltz, a proliferation optimist argues on one hand we cannot stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It’s inevitable because states seek power through nuclear weapons; even smaller, less powerful states align themselves with nuclear wielding states for protection and security. But on the other hand, Waltz argues states are rational actors, and believes nuclear weapons will be used responsibly, which is why nuclear weapons have not been used. For Waltz, more states who have nuclear weapons, the better. Waltz writes, “A blatant
Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the modern world the mass media are often critical about nuclear weapons and the threats they pose for society, but this begs the question; why have nuclear weapons not been used in conflict since 1945? To answer this question the issues of taboo and deterrence and the arrival of virtual nuclear arsenals must be called into question, as well as theoretical ideas such as rationality from proliferation optimists and proliferation pessimists. I will also look at whether we currently live in a non-proliferation regime, and look at the alternatives for peace and nuclear non-usage.
The first area of nuclear non-usage I will look at will be the arguments brought forward by proliferation pessimists and optimists. Kennitz Waltz, a proliferation optimist argues on one hand we cannot stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It’s inevitable because states seek power through nuclear weapons; even smaller, less powerful states align themselves with nuclear wielding states for protection and security. But on the other hand, Waltz argues states are rational actors, and believes nuclear weapons will be used responsibly, which is why nuclear weapons have not been used. For Waltz, more states who have nuclear weapons, the better. Waltz writes, “A blatant
Bibliography: Gray, C. S., (2005) ‘Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare’ (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson) Howlett, Darryl ‘Nuclear Proliferation’ in John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2001, second edition) Kissinger, H. (1994) “Diplomacy” (New York: Simon & Schuster) Mazarr, Michael J., (1995) ‘Virtual nuclear arsenals’, Survival 37:3, pp Sagan, S. D., (1994) ‘The perils of proliferation: organisation, theory, deterrence theory and the spread of nuclear weapons’, International Security 18(4): 66-107 (E-Journal). Schell, J., (1984) The Abolition (London: Pan Books) Tannenwald, N., (1999) ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use’ International Organization 53(3): 433-48 Tellis, A.J (2001) India 's Emerging Nuclear Posture (Santa Monica: RAND) Waltz, K ----------------------- [1] Howlett, Darryl ‘Nuclear Proliferation’ in John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2001, second edition) [2] Waltz, K. N. (1981) ‘The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better’ Adelphi Papers, 171. Available at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm [3] Sagan, S [6] Kissinger, H. (1994) “Diplomacy” (New York: Simon & Schuster) [7] Gray, C [8] Gray, C. S., (2005) ‘Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare’ (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson) [9] Mazarr, Michael J., (1995) ‘Virtual nuclear arsenals’, Survival 37:3, pp [10] Mazarr, Michael J., (1995) ‘Virtual nuclear arsenals’, Survival 37:3, pp. 29-92 [11] Tellis, A.J (2001) India 's Emerging Nuclear Posture (Santa Monica: RAND) [12] Schell, J., (1984) The Abolition (London: Pan Books)