Dissection of Global Denuclearization

Ingrid Hoopes

1 March 2022

POLS 170

The reading by Thomas C Schelling A world without nuclear weapons? presents an interesting dialogue about the safety of nuclear weapons within international relations and proposes different outcomes if they were to be eradicated. Realistically, getting rid of nuclear warfare globally could be even more detrimental to the safety and relationships of the nuclear weapons states. Schelling states that the meeting convened by the Stanley Foundation agreed that “global zero” is the global future objective. There are many reasons that this is unlikely to happen, which is a majority of Schelling’s argument, however, due to the recent events between Russia and Ukraine, it seems even more improbable. The proposal of total denuclearization is unrealistic because states are constantly in arms races; if there were to be the eradication, it could possibly trigger the opposite effect, making certain states feel the need to keep their power and become the highest nuclear superpower. World leaders who possess nuclear weapons would not stand down while others still have them, which would lead to zero progress. 

Schelling also argues that if denuclearization was successful, that the threat of mutually assured destruction would be the exact same as it is now. I agree with this proposal considering that every “past” nuclear weapon state would still possess all of the resources to produce nuclear weapons and they are able to be created very quickly. There are still laboratories, factories, and documented science in every nuclear weapon state. It is a common belief that making something illegal or unauthorized can incentivize secretive use, which in the case of nuclear weapons would be even more detrimental. Not knowing which states are possessing or producing nukes is dangerous, therefore their existence needs to be documented and known, which is mostly is currently. Also, certain world leaders have different views on nuclear weapon usage, despite the many treaties and laws that constrain their use. This is very relevant in today’s global events, as Putin has just ordered his nuclear forces on high alert due to NATO’s statements against his invasion of Ukraine. Schelling finds “war most worrisome”, which he states on page 126, which is also very relevant in today’s global political climate. The current debate between if the US should intervene with Russia or not is centered around the threat of nuclear destruction. With Putin currently on a different consensus about nuclear usage, global denuclearization is highly unlikely to be seriously put in play anytime soon. 

Comments

  1. Jack CahalaneMarch 2, 2022 at 8:48 PM

    Ingrid, I think this was a really thoughtful post. I think that your discussion over denuclearization was spot on relative to its improbability but furthermore in contextualization to current events regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I believe that even through denuclearization there is always the threat of utilizing near equally destructive weapons highlighting the importance of diplomacy and soft power in international relations. Overall, very good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BlakeMarch 7, 2022 at 5:32 AM

    I like the approach you took to this article. I would agree that we probably will not see denuclearization in the near future due to mistrust and inconsistency amongst world leaders. A world with one state having nuclear weapons is much more dangerous than many states having them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 4

                                                                        Paris climate accords The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying ...
Read more

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more