In order to fully understand the powerful role of precedence in the international control of violence, one should consider the impact that precedents have had on the use of nuclear weapons on a global scale. The topic doesn't require extensive research. Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used - The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This incident in 1945 served as an experiment to test the potency of nuclear arms. Needless to say, the results were better than expected. Roughly 170,000 immediate Japanese casualties, and the death toll rose to 200,000+ following the event due to lingering conditions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki set an international precedent that year. The bombings marked a critical turning point for the human species. As Einstein warned and the first atomic bombings demonstrated, a single primitive nuclear weapon could destroy an entire metropolitan region and devastate its people. Senior Manhattan Project scientist Arthur H. Compton observed that the atomic weapon “introduces the question of mass slaughter, really for the first time in history.” Now we, as an international community, suddenly had all of this power. So what did we do? We all tried to buy one!
There are now approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the nine nuclear-weapon states, many of them 20 to 30 times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. Recent widely accepted scientific studies demonstrate that an exchange of just 50-100 nuclear weapons would result in nuclear famine, killing more than a billion and a half people in the Northern hemisphere. An exchange of hundreds of nuclear weapons could result in nuclear winter and the extinction of the human and many other species.
So why hasn't anyone else used nuclear warfare?
Precedent - Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated to the world that nuclear warfare is too costly. The images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after nuclear intervention are so deeply embedded in our minds, that it is too difficult to justify nuclear action. There have been numerous historical examples since 1945 that were prime opportunities for the use of nuclear force. I believe that refraining from using nukes has become an internationally accepted norm.
So why do states even possess them?
Simple - precedent again. Although states are apprehensive about using nuclear weapons. Everyone seems to agree, for the most part, that nuclear weapons do still symbolize a state's strength. In other words, even though states might not have any intention on using their nuclear arms, they are still very interested in maintaining their nuclear program as a deterrent to pre-emptive attacks on their sovereignty.
The age of nuclear existence is still very young, and surely only time will tell us if there is validity in my optimism. But for everyone's sake - I sure hope I am right!
Competing hypothesis: States do not use nuclear weapons because they realize that using them would bring their own demise - mutually assured destruction. So it is self-interest that is driving both the accumulation of nuclear weapons and their non-use.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFatima, as a thought exercise, I chose to restate your question, and offer yet another competing hypothesis. Why are states seeking to possess nuclear weapons, given the threat of conventional military force from existing nuclear powers? (U.S., France, Israel, etc.). One might argue that in each case where a country has sought nuclear armament, it is to equal or surpass its rivals in a balance of power dichotomy. Examples of this analysis include the U.S. v Russia, Pakistan v. India, Israel v. Iran, etc. This theory posits that the weapons are largely defensive, because a nuclear first-strike would lead to mutually assured destruction, as Professor Shirk noted. Mutually assured destruction gets diluted when we incorporate non-state actors, because there is little potential for a counterattack. I'm also curious how international norms on targeting civilians would affect a third party countries willingness to launch a nuclear counter-attack following a nuclear first-strike against a non-nuclear power.
ReplyDelete