Peace Through WMDs

[METALLICA]

Can Weapons of Mass Destruction become our only way to secure worldwide peace?

If we take a look at states that have nuclear capabilities, we notice the majority enjoyed peace, and save for terrorist attacks and militia-like skirmishes, they have been able to avoid full-fledged wars, or, the other way around, full-fledged wars have avoided them.
How strong is deterrence and will it stop states from ever attacking each other, or is too much of a risk to take.

Deterrence_ A defense policy in which a country ensures that it has sufficient military power to deter a potential enemy from making an attack. Deterrence is fundamental to U.S. policy, and underlies all the arguments about the need to keep the military strong. The greatest deterrents are considered to be nuclear weapons. Although they have existed since 1945, they have never been used since the end of World War II. The mere possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to deter an enemy, because, unless a country's entire nuclear arsenal could be wiped out by a first strike, the destruction caused by the inevitable retaliation would be too great a price to pay. The doctrine of deterrence through nuclear weapons is a paradox: weapons of mass destruction have kept the peace.


What's your take; Realistically, should a country like Iran be allowed to own nuclear capabilities, something that would greatly change the balance of nuclear power in the region, and based on history, lead to less escalation between Iran and its supporters on one hand, and Israel & the USA on the other hand.
The risk however, is great. Any unintended signaling interpreted as military threat could wipe out a huge portion of the Middle East.

Are you willing to take that risk and present an ultimatum of peace or destruction to the conflicting parties?

[Haruun]

The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is the basis of WMD's, personally I think the treaty is unsuccessful when you consider the failure of the NPT to contain or effectively deal with India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and ultimately Iran. South Africa I think is the only country to ever voluntarily forfeit its WMD's and I highly doubt any other nation will do that again or today.

Peace will happen once there is COMPLETE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT, we don't need nuclear weapons!

With one-hundred eighty-seven signatory states, the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is one of those most successful expressions of collective security and concern in the history of the globe. The NPT is resultant of decades of hard work and intense discussions amongst the superpowers of the world and provided another unique point in history were matters of communal concern were negotiated and ultimately consolidated in the form of a treaty.
During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s there was global concerns about the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and particularly the proliferation of nuclear arms. There were global discussions trying to counter this intense arms race between the world’s two superpowers. Originally a concept advocated by the Irish, then the Swedish, and ultimately agreed upon by the world’s powers, the NPT was ratified in 1968 and implemented by 1970.
Under the terms stipulated by the NPT, states were classified under two categories: Nuclear-Weapons States (NWS’s) and Non-Nuclear-Weapon States (NNWS’s). All States at the time were considered Non-Nuclear powers except for nations that conducted nuclear tests before January 1, 1967. The official Nuclear-Weapon States are as follows: United States, Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, China, and Russia-then Soviet Union.
Under the terms of the treaty Nuclear-Weapons States are not allowed to transfer nuclear weapons or devices to other states, originally a problem for the United States and in regards to its desire for further cooperation and the basing of its weapons in Europe through its NATO allies. Nuclear-Weapon States are also prohibited from “encouraging” any Non-Nuclear Weapons State from carrying out any research or programs in the hopes of developing their own nuclear programs. Non-Nuclear Weapons States are also obliged under the terms of the treaty not to manufacture or collect any nuclear weapons or the related. They are prohibited from accommodating any nuclear weapons and are also subject to inspections, if and so deemed necessary, by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Most significant and perhaps a negative aspect of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is the permissible clauses of the treaty that give current Nuclear-Weapon States the right to keep their weapons.


In addition to the five “formally recognized” nuclear states (United States, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, China, Russia) and the additional one-hundred eighty-seven non-nuclear states, the following countries are not signatories of the NPT and thereby do not fall under the legal obligations of the treaty: India, Israel, and Pakistan. However, there are roughly nine nations that are presumed to possess nuclear weapons. North Korea was a member of the NPT but eventually negated the treaty in 2003. In February 2005, North Korea officially declared it had nuclear weapons and thus became a nuclear state. It was widely believed North Korea possessed nuclear weapons or was implementing a nuclear program since the early 1990’s, even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that it believe North Korea posses at least four nuclear bombs. Israel has never acknowledged nor denied it had a nuclear weapons program but nonetheless, it is informally considered a nuclear power. Its nuclear weapons program was built in coordination and assistance from France. India’s nuclear program is widely believed to benefit initially from Canadian and US assistance with the original intent for peaceful purposes. Pakistan’s program was advanced through the help of primarily China. By not signing the NPT, Israel, India, and Pakistan are not constrained by any legal binding that prohibits them from developing weapons of mass destruction; technically, they are not breaking any laws.
In accordance to the realist theories of international politics, the NPT is only a buffer in the way of states acquiring nuclear weapons. Realists will approach the NPT through the typical realist perspective, perhaps pessimistic or realistic; NPT is not successful and is only a delay. Liberal political ideology is essentially optimistic when approaching the NPT, particularly happy that this is an expression of a worldwide system working through a collective effort to protect the human race and ultimately contain proliferation. It’s a success because it has managed to gain the support of one-hundred eighty-seven separate nations that come from various backgrounds (political, social, economic, geographic etc.) and through collective efforts such as this we can look forward to world peace and the limitation and maybe the abolishment of nuclear proliferation.
The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is an unsuccessful remedy for the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world. The treaty is a cosmetic remedy to this extensive issue and it success has already been challenged with the renegade approaches of countries such as North Korea and Iran, and equally, countries like Israel, India, and Pakistan. In actuality, nuclear weapons and most importantly the approach of the world body are another expression of the largely Global North’s authority over the entire world and the practice of double standards. The MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) is certainly one of the most troubled regions in the world. Iran is currently pursuing nuclear technology under suspicious yet legitimate grounds and yet Israel is still a nuclear power, regardless of the inconspicuous circumstances surrounding the states’ program. The MENA region should be completely free of all nuclear weapons at the very minimum; perhaps the total abolishment of all arms and weaponry will give this bleeding region another chance. The NPT is unsuccessful because it is still a voluntary mechanism, the world body must institute reforms in the UN that will give the organization more authority, ultimately, enforce disarmament throughout the world. So as long as the “international decision making” is the mouthpiece of a select few Global North nations and true representation is absent- so as long as double standards and self-interests are taking precedence before the interests of mankind, we will continue to see bloodshed and the treaties such as the NPT will only be a cosmetic solution to the genuine and underlying problems that face the world. The NPT has been contradicted and the rules it stipulates have been loosely implemented. Many of the developing nuclear powers such as Israel, India, and Pakistan, as well as North Korea developed their programs with the help, whether directly or indirectly, of other states. The NPT clearly stipulates that member states are prohibited from encouraging or helping in the development of nuclear programs for non-nuclear weapons states.
In conclusion, the NPT has been successful in the sense that is has coordinated and consolidated a collective security agreement between so many countries but it has been unsuccessful in its dealing with North Korea, Iran, Israel, India, and Pakistan.

Source: Myself lol I recently wrote this article for a workshop on the NPT

[Sniper]

if you put 2 ennemies inside a closed room without a weapon they will fight of course , if give one of them a weapon and keep the other without any weapon the one with the weapon will kill the other, if you give them both equal weapons no one will try to fight the other.

[Stella]

Thanks Haruun for sharing with us your paper, I appreciate it much!

As for Iran, it never have been a black and white question. It seems to me that deterrence is working in this case. The USA can never launch a war against the present Iran, they know that both so the suspected Iranian WMD is a successful mean of deterrence so far. But Iran, Pakistan, India and Israel are securing a shaky balance based on those WMD, that safety is quite dangerous! According to Game Theory, if a country would change its position now, it would surely loose against the others, so thats why I think the present situation is a shaky balanced one, but maybe the least worse for each country and to the region.
However I think that the proliferation of WMD shall be eliminated in the long run, and of course the best would be if the states could agree on disarmament, but we cant talk about it seriously till the USA doesnt give us a guide from disarmament. And it probably wont.