| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 The Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons: The New International System and the Middle East By Kevin F. Jowers Nuclear weapons entered the arena of international politics with the close of World War II. Although the ensuing Cold War passed without these weapons being used in combat, the post- Cold War world has introduced a new international system. As a result, many of the conditions that helped maintain nuclear peace during the Cold War have disappeared and risks of future proliferation and use of nuclear weapons have increased. This article examines the changes in the international system since the end of the Cold War and discusses the realist arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The author also focuses on the Middk East, the dynamics of which make the region a useful paradigm for assessing the risks posed by future proliferation to the international system. INTRODUCTION The threat of nuclear war was a matter of constant concern during the Cold War. While that era came to a close without nuclear weapons being used in combat, the international system that has emerged has brought with it increased concern over the future of proliferation and possible use of nuclear weapons. The conditions that promoted nuclear peace during the Cold War have largely disappeared and the characteristics of the post-Cold War world, as seen by realists, have increased the incentives of states to pursue nuclear capability. While realists disagree over the consequences of future proliferation to international security, an analysis of the Middle East highlights a number of reasons why the debate over nuclear weapons will continue to require close attention from the international community. REALISM AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS A predominant school of thought in looking at international conflict is that of realism. According to this view, states are rational, unitary actors working toward essentially the same ends. Like people, states are self-interested and seek to dominate others. Realists see the international system as one in which states exist as anarchic; meaning that there is no central authority with power above that of the states to which a state can appeal to for relief or protection. As a result, states exist in a system of self-help, which given the continual com- Kevin F. Jowers graduated from the University of Utah with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Spanish, and is currently attending The University of Texas School of Law. He served a Hinckley Internship during the Spring of 1999 at the Middle East Policy Council in Washington, D.C. petition among states requires each to provide for its own security and protect its interests as best it can (Russett and Starr 1996, 25). With no one else to count on for protection, nuclear weapons are often seen as a powerful instrument of security enhancement. Few states are willing to encroach upon a nuclear state and risk provoking the devastating consequences of a nuclear confrontation. The destructive power alone of nuclear warheads is reason for concern as even small-scale use could result in future security considerations or in widespread repercussions in terms of destruction. The possibility of nuclear weapons proliferating, particularly to states plagued by instability and ongoing disputes, greatly increases the risk that even a minor conflict could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. Also, as the number of warheads increases, so do the possibilities of their use, whether through premeditated planning, false alarms, accidents, or nuclear terrorism. A BRIEF HISTORY OF PROLIFERATION Since the introduction of nuclear weapons into the international system, the spread of nuclear capabilities has been limited to a small number of states. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, five states were known to possess a nuclear arsenal: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China (Nye 1997, 187). In addition, Israel has been reputed to possess nuclear weapons since the 1970s, although the Israelis have not publicly acknowledged such claims (Cohen 1998, 51-52). With the end of the Cold War the incentives and possibilities for further proliferation of nuclear weapons have increased. As recently as May 1998 two more states, India and Pakistan, confirmed their inclusion into the number of nuclear states by testing nuclear devices. 43 |
