A DISCUSSION TOWARDS NUCLEAR PROLIFEFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL STABILITY

In discussions regarding international stability and security, the issue of nuclearproliferation is central. Global politics is influenced by conflicting interests, securityquandaries, and a desire for deterrence as states grapple with the effects of both horizontal andvertical proliferation.

Taken into account current issues and the proliferation debate, we aregoing to examine how nuclear weapons and the sustainability of stability in the internationalsystem interplay in this essay.

International relations entered a new phase with the development of nuclear weaponsin the middle of the 20th century. The devastating effects of the World War II atomic bombson Hiroshima and Nagasaki highlighted the potentially disastrous nature of nuclear warfare. After the war, the US and the USSR became the two main nuclear powers in the world, ushering in a period of nuclear brinkmanship and ideological competition referred to as theCold War. As a result, there is a broader debate concerning the proliferation of nuclearweapons and whether or not they maintain international order.

One proponent of the nuclear deterrence theory, Kenneth Waltz, argues that havingnuclear weapons in multiple countries may enhance stability. He claims that because allparties recognize the catastrophic effects of nuclear war, there is less chance of all-out war in a world with nuclear-armed enemies.

For instance:

- Cold War: United States and Soviet Union: The nuclear weapons of the US and theUSSR served as a disincentive to engage in direct combat throughout the Cold War. Becauseof the widespread acceptance of the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD), neither sidewas able to start a major war.

  - India and Pakistan: Considering their nuclear weapons, both nations have shownprudence despite their many disputes and tensions. Large-scale violence has been preventedby the fear of it escalating into a nuclear war.

On the other hand, Scott Sagan highlights the vital role of technical and organizationalsafeguards in reducing the likelihood of unintentional or inadvertent use of nuclear weapons. Sturdy command and control systems and strict safety procedures lower the risk of nuclearaccidents, which promotes stability. For example:

- United States and Russia: In spite of their hostilities, the two countries' nuclearcommand and control systems have successfully avoided occurrences of unintentional orinadvertent nuclear launch.

Sagan additionally conveys concerns about the possibility of misconceptions andmistakes in judgment in nuclear-armed state crisis scenarios. He contends that decision-makers may make choices that raise the possibility of a nuclear exchange due to cognitivebiases and the fog of war. The Cuban Missile Crisis is one instance of this. Due tomisunderstandings and inadequate interaction, the US and the USSR came dangerously nearto nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The crisis brought to light the risks associatedwith brinkmanship and the possibility of unintentional escalation.

On top of that according to offensive realism proponent John Mearsheimer, competition and war are caused by state power dynamics and security considerations. He contends that the presence of weapons of mass destruction can worsen security issues andraise the possibility of arms races. North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons is one instance of this. East Asian security worries have increased as a result of North Korea's nuclear weaponsacquisition, prompting surrounding countries to consider developing their own nuclearweapons programs or strengthening their conventional military might. Tensions andinstability in the region have been exacerbated by this dynamic.

Numerous viewpoints about the benefits and drawbacks of the spread of nuclearweapons arise in the discussion of nuclear proliferation. Kenneth Waltz is a proponent of laissez-faire policy and argues that increased nuclear weapons could increase stability viadeterrence. John Mearsheimer, on the other hand, supports selective proliferation, arguing thatnuclear weapons should be held by mostly responsible states in order to balance out anyaggressors. These divergent viewpoints highlight how difficult it is to control the spread of nuclear weapons and how complicated the proliferation argument is.

In conclusion, the dynamics of proliferation and deterrence affect how nuclearweapons and the sustainability of stability in the international system interact. Althoughstrong safeguards and deterrence make nuclear weapons potentially stable, they also presentserious problems in terms of misinformation, incorrect calculations, and security quandaries. While Scott Sagan's "more will be more" stance stresses the significance of strict safeguardsand risk reduction measures, Kenneth Waltz's "more may be better" perspective on nuclearproliferation highlights the possible advantages of a multipolar nuclear system. Preservingstrategic stability and halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons is crucial for preservingglobal peace and security even as states negotiate the intricate details of nuclear politics.

Overall, serious thought must be given to the complex dynamics surrounding nuclearweapons and how they affect global stability. In my opinion, it is reasonable to suggest thatnations may turn to the deployment of nuclear weapons if they believe there are no effectivediplomatic channels or benefits to be gained via post-conflict talks. The prospect forcatastrophic reprisal weighs heavily in strategic calculations, making the nuclear capabilitiesof adversarial governments even more unknown.

The simplest possession of a solitary nuclear weapon carries the potential to wreakhavoc across a large area, hence compelling nations to proceed with caution when engaging in military operations. Given these facts, the idea that "more may be better" makes more sense—as long as proliferation remains within acceptable boundaries. By encouraging a balance of power among governments, controlled proliferation, when combined with strong protectionsand verification procedures, could improve stability. Unchecked proliferation, however, carries serious hazards, especially in terms of escalating geopolitical tensions and maintainingpower disparities. Proliferating governments may see nuclear weapons as a way to defendtheir interests and fend off possible enemies as long as there are gaps in economic andgeopolitical power.

As a result, one must exercise prudence when pursuing nuclear proliferation andbalance the advantages of deterrence against the dangers of instability. Under controlledcircumstances, the notion that "more is better" seems reasonable; yet, unchecked expansioncould jeopardize global peace and security. To reduce the hazards and preserve the sharedinterest in a stable and peaceful global order, coordinated actions to control and managenuclear proliferation are therefore crucial.

---

Bibliography

“Nuclear Proliferation and Stability on JSTOR.” www.jstor.org. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26281636.

“Nuclear Proliferation in the Twenty-First Century: Realism, Rationality, or Uncertainty? Realism, Rationality, or Uncertainty? On JSTOR.” www.jstor.org. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26271593.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association. www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance.