Essay Sample 1

Does the spread of nuclear weapons make for more conflict or peace? Summarize the debate on this question and then state your own position on the issue. 

5 thoughts on “Essay Sample 1”

  1. The spread of nuclear weapons increases the rate of destruction in the case of a conflict, yet they have also been shown to provide more peace. When countries have nuclear weapons they are less likely to enter a war and wars that do occur will remain limited, and there is also less reason for them to enter a conventional arms race. Also, with nuclear weapons, weaker countries can be included under a nuclear umbrella, meaning that they will be viewed as less aggressive and will therefore be less likely to enter into a conflict.

  2. a. More Conflict
    i. Can destroy a city quickly killing many people
    ii. Security dilemma, if one country has nuclear weapons others will want them also in order to protect themselves (ex. India and Pakistan) This only causes more destruction because it makes fighting more dangerous by using nuclear weapons
    iii. The use of nuclear weapons can be second-strike so that the other country will fight back creating conflict.
    b. More Peace
    i. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped end WWII
    ii. First-strike, because it would prevent the other country from attacking in response, but this is still brutal and may lead to attack in the future
    iii. Can act as a method of deterrence and act as a threat so that a country has the capability to protect itself, or in the act of type 2 deterrence help protect a third-party (for this to work though, the other countries have to believe that the threat of nuclear weapons is credible

  3. You may want to focus on the rational deterrence theory (there is a reading on blackboard from the relevant week, authors: Waltz and Sagan)

  4. a) Debate for peace

    i) Deterrence- State actors are less likely to attack with full scale nuclear war a possibility.
    ii) Rational actors do not do things that consequences will outweigh its gains.
    iii) Even madmen can be deterred by his generals.
    iv)Wars less likely to be fought over a nuclear’s nation vital interest.
    v)Even if deterrence fails, Wars less likely to be taken as far due to nuclear threat.
    vi) Even terrorist act rationally and can be deterred.

    b) Debate for Conflict
    1) Tension and fear amid spread of nuclear weapons.
    2) Military organizations without srong civilian control more likely to act in their own self-interest.
    3) State actors are not always unitary and rational.
    4)Increase likelihood of preventative wars due to militar biases.

    If I had to choose one that best fit what would happen in reality I would have to agree with Watz. I think most state players are rational people and focus on their counrtires self interest. The consequences of starting a nuclear War is far more dangerous then the benefits of achieveing a cause. The only thing that I would not agree with is the fact that terrorist will be deterred too. It is harder to nuke a terrorist organization because many of them work through many different countries and do not have one governing body that one can blame for the attack. Terrorist have less to lose if they nuked a nation but also have less resources to actually do that.

Comments are closed.