A View on Nukes

In Kenneth Waltz’s article “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” he makes some interesting observations about the effects nuclear weapons have had on how nations view war. He states “although the possibility of war remains, the possibility of war involving states with nuclear weapons has been drastically reduced” (p626). He also believes “waging war has increasingly become the privilege of the poor and weak states” (p626) because powerful states with nuclear weapons can no longer risk going to war with each other. Both are interesting points, but I think they made more sense when written back in 1988 than they do now. 

In 1988 the thought of the US and the Soviets launching nukes at each other seemed like a much more real threat than it is today. Back in the Cold War years it was common for families to build backyard bunkers out of fear of a nuclear attack. Today, the only folks building fallout shelters are those hoping to see themselves on the next episode of “Doomsday Preppers.” To illustrate further how today’s nuclear environment has changed, it’s useful to look at the recent crisis in the Ukraine. The US and Russia certainly didn’t see eye to eye on this issue and tensions were high at times. Few seriously believed there would be any type of military engagement between the two nations, but even if there was, neither side would even consider the deployment of nuclear weapons as an acceptable measure. The use of a nuclear weapon would go against international norms held onto by a vast majority of the world. That said, and in contradiction to Waltz’s point, in today’s world it may be possible for two nuclear nations to have a small scale military conflict which doesn’t result in the use of nukes.

Waltz also discusses how only small states without nuclear weapons will be able to wage war with each other. This holds some truth, but with so many non-state actors on today’s international stage, the look of war has changed since 1988. The US has been fighting non-state actors for 13 years in Afghanistan and other countries around the world. It seems likely that wars will continue to be fought by large, nuclear nations against tiny, non-state terrorist organizations. In these types of conflicts it’s impossible for the nuclear armed country to use such weapons. In many of the wars of the future, nuclear weapons may simply not be relevant. I believe Waltz hints at the fact that the need for conventional weaponry may be on the decline, but that may not be true given how the enemy of today needs to be fought.

Maybe some of the points I’ve made above play in well to the debate on whether or not the international environment is changing. Based on the couple paragraphs above, it does appear that a few changes with regards to weapons have occurred in the last 20 or so years. However, those mild changes are certainly not enough to say that the whole international environment is changing.