Daniel Stout

Mr. Bogner

ENGL 200BE

17 November 2003

Change peoples of American public who oppose proliferation

Time to Move Beyond the Cold War Mindset; Viewing Proliferation’s Positive Effects on

Global Security

Recently the United States federal government has been announcing and going about

business on the international level in way that conditions attacks upon a country if that country is

developing nuclear weapons. Governmental officials spun this exact story when pitching the idea

on the global scale that war with Iraq would be justified. The government is spinning a story in

which it considers proliferation of nuclear weapons to be an immanent danger to world security.

The United States Federal Government should take a different stance, they should protect

countries newly proliferating with its already established nuclear umbrella and be involved in

cooperative technological transfers with countries developing nuclear weapons, upon the

countries request and with an adoption of a no first use policy, for a few reasons; first is that it

ensures peace and stability, second it helps a country transfer funds and attention to social issues

such as health care, education, economy and solving for hunger and thirdly the United States can

allow for safe and effective proliferation.

History has been full of defense, not deterrence. In order to protect one’s country, a

nation would expand its borders and fight in wars to gain more land. These battles caused a lot of

bloodshed throughout history like World War II and the French and Indian wars of American

history. Deterrence eliminates that need to go to war to create buffer zones, because if a country
 Stout 2

were to attack they would be entirely eliminated off the map in retaliation (Waltz, 6-7). Because

a nation wants to stick around and because a leader wants to stay in power, there is no reason that

a nation would attack another one if they had a nuclear weapons. A policy of deterrence would

make the world a much safer place because it would solve the root of why wars occur in the first

place, and that is miscalculation. Deterrence with nuclear weapons is based upon the logic of

mutually assured destruction. This means that if one country were to attack another country, then

the initiating country would be destroyed. With destruction being the result of an attack on a

nuclear nation no matter how crazy, no matter how insane, a leader of a nation will not attack

because leaders always have the main goal of staying in power regardless (Waltz, 11) . If a nation

were to engage in a nuclear war, there would be no nation, meaning that a leader needs to do

anything they possibly can to avoid a nuclear war.

Calculations are how national leaders decide whether to attack and the process of

calculations, and more importantly miscalculations are the cause of wars. Leaders have to ask

themselves if the potential damage done to their own nation would be outweighed by the benefits

of conquering the land. In this calculation one has to compare the technology of both sides, their

potential retaliatory response, and how much they would benefit.

A nuclear weapon provides a sort of destruction that makes miscalculation impossible. If

X country attacks Y country and Y country has a nuclear weapon, then X is ensured to be

destroyed, where as if there is a war with conventional weapons, X would have to evaluate

whose weapons are better, how many troops etc…but X might not have all the knowledge

needed to evaluate the situation properly. Having a nuclear weapon draws a fine line in the sand

and says “if yes” destruction is the result, and eliminates any and all benefits from going to war

in the first place, where as having only conventional weapons makes the line very large and
 Stout 3

flexible, not one that can be answered with a simple yes or no. If a country doesn’t have to

evaluate all the damages and comparisons it makes it simply, if there is a nuclear weapon in Y

country then X country will be destroyed, and as leaders want to stay in power, then X will

ultimately not go to war with Y for fear of destruction.

Historically, this is supported, since the development of nuclear weapons a country with a

nuclear weapon has never been attacked by another nation. Even at the height of the Cold War,

USSR and the US couldn’t tolerate a potential all out destruction, and that is why neither side

every fired a nuclear weapon, no matter how close it came. The deterrence of nuclear weapons

can be used by the world to develop a world of peace and global security.

The Second reason we should adopt a policy of assistance and help nations proliferating

is that nuclear weapons are an incredible tool to better conditions of everyone within that

country. When a country has a nuclear weapon then there is zero reason to keep a conventional

force, and even if a country does decide to keep a conventional military around, it doesn’t have

to compete with other nations to ensure attack doesn’t occur (Goldstein, 289). When reducing

conventional weapons, it also increases the dependence upon nuclear weapons for protection

from other nations. The more you rely on nuclear weapons, the more serious of an option nuclear

retaliation perceptually looks, it gives credibility to the potential use of nuclear weapons in a

second strike ensuring an attacking countries destruction, and preventing warfare that much more

effectively.

This is what Russia is currently doing, during the Soviet era the USSR tried to keep up

with the United States military in every aspect, this is why they ran out of money and supplies.

Today Russia lets its nuclear subs and many other old military supplies lie and rot, they have

become increasingly more dependent upon their nuclear weapons, ensuring their sovereignty.
 Stout 4

China is another example, China has under 100 ICBMs and nuclear warheads in which are at

their disposal. China also has many “dummie” warheads that mislead satellites and intelligence

gathering identities. While China did try to keep up with the conventional military capabilities

for a majority of the last 30 years, Chinas stance during the last economic boom changed. China

started to decrease its military spending, and shifted its funding to education, health care,

population issues and many other social issues that are plaguing China today. Nuclear weapons

have a huge part to do with that. With their nuclear weapons it ensures that China doesn’t get

attacked no matter how high the tensions have been, the many tensions over Taiwan with the

United States proves this.

This frees up a large surplus of money that the government traditionally uses to advance

and upkeep their conventional forces. This money will be able to be spent to help solve social

issues. With nuclear weapons all that has to be paid for is the up keep, nothing more. This is

simply because you can only totally destroy something once. With these resources freed up it

allows a nation to focus on things like hunger, health care, and education which currently

countries are uncapabable of focusing on because of all the money being spent on conventional

military build ups.

If you don’t think this is possible, think again. Michael Roy in “The Future Foretold”

says that only 10 days of world military spending would provide the entire world with clean

water, and a mere 18 days would provide the entire world with food and eliminate malnutrition.

Governments will be able to implement better health care policies to provide people with not

only cheaper vaccines but vaccines that are more readily available. Extra monies can also be

used for drought relief, aid, and natural disaster relief. All of these things help everyone, it

allows a country to improve its mortality rates, improve GDP and ensure a better quality of life.
 Stout 5

With diseases threatening to wipe out our entire species anything we can do to stem epidemics

through improved health care ensures that humans will live on this earth longer. (Leslie, 77-80)

Terrorism, accidents, and mislaunch threats (Utgoff 87-90) which many contend is a

major reason why nuclear proliferation shouldn’t occur, need to look back at the United States,

Russia, and NATO and its many years of experience and technological development. As the

world becomes more and more increasingly worried about the effects of global warming and

countries like Iran and North Korea develop nuclear power plants, “proliferation crises” will

become ever more increasing. We as the United States are in a unique role in which the threats

that many speak of can be solved back by a little cooperation. The United States can very easily

share technology with proliferating countries. The reason that a terrorist, an nuclear accident or a

mislaunch would occur is because the facility that a newly proliferating country is using is not

protected effectively enough. This problem can be solved with a little good old American know

how. With technological transfers countries will ensure they have the equipment to manage,

watch and make sure the nuclear weapons are safe and protected which is something that every

country will desire since their very existence is dependent upon ensuring that a nuclear weapon

with their return address will be used and nuclear war begin.

An argument that people bring up is that there might be a strike against a country while

they are developing nuclear weapons (Utgoff, 87-90). This argument draws some credibility, but

is overwhelmed for a couple reasons; first, if the United States has got the developing country

under its nuclear umbrella then there is nothing to worry about, as historically proven by 50 plus

years that the United States has protected Japan with its nuclear umbrella and the United States

protection of its fellow NATO members during the cold war. All that means is that while the

country is proliferating, the United States will essentially loan out its nuclear weapons to the
 Stout 6

country so that no one will attack. The United States would be using its nuclear weapons to

ensure no one attacks the newly proliferating nuclear country, because if they did, it would be

ensured destruction. Not only this but if the US were to encourage a developing nation to have a

no first use policy, which is what India has, then the surrounding nations don’t have to worry

about a first strike occurring against their country once the proliferating country has its fully

operational nuclear arsenal. This would be why a preemptive strike would occur.

When we as the American public go and vote for our leaders, when we as the public are

being asked for approval of a war, we must ask our selves at what cost, we mustn’t always look

and think locally. The United States can help countries that are proliferating nuclear weapons,

and we should as the American public, take control and ask for the government to help others

proliferating, it will increase the quality of life throughout the world, and ensure stability around

the world among countries and with United States help, proliferation can be effective and safe.
 Stout 7

Works Cited

Brito, Dagobert and Intrilligator, Michael. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (1996)

Goldstein, Avery. Deterrence and Security in the 21st Century. Stanford University Press 2000:

289

Leslie, John. The End of the World. 1996: 77-80.

Roy, Michael. “The Future Foretold” 1997. 14 Aug. 2003.

<http://www.thefamily.org/endtime/future/chapter.php3?child=3>

Utgoff, Victor A. “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions.” Survival 44 (2002):

87-90.

Waltz, Kenneth Neal. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better” Adelphi papers

171 (1981): 6-7, 11-12.