INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

DEPARTMENT: B.BHS-IV

Submitted by: Affifa Faiz, Saeeda, Nadia, Fariha Batool, Sana Kainat

Submitted To: SIR RIZWAN SHARIF

Project Topic:
MPACT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Submission Date: 29 April, 2016

Impacts of Nuclear Weapons on International Relations

Introduction:
Nuclear weapons are explosive devices that are made from nuclear reactions. These reactions
release high amount of energy. Even a small nuclear device can devastate an entire city. The
impact of a nuclear bomb can be felt even after years because of the dangerous radiations and
gases from the bomb. The emergence of nuclear weapons has been a source of a big impact on
the international power structure. Nuclear weapons act as a determinant of power status.
Below explained are some impacts of nuclear weapons on International Relations:

Nuclear weapons have a great impact on International Power Structure.

Nuclear weapons acted as a dangerous dimension in the cold war in 1990s.
Nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy the whole world several times.
Non Nuclear states are defenseless in front of the states which have Nuclear Power.
Nuclear Weapons have changed the concept of war from simple war to a massive
destruction.
Now, in the nuclear age, the nuclear technology, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are
the most important factors of the national power.
Nuclear age gave the surplus of power to the nuclear nations but it made the actual
exercise of power in international relations very difficult.
In the nuclear age, the emergence of nuclear powers along with the presence of non
nuclear nations made it very difficult, for the balance of power to get operationalized in
international relations.
The development of highly destructive nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction is responsible for creating a balance of terror in international relations.
The difficulty in the use of nuclear weapons reduces the importance of war threat in the
exercise of diplomatic negotiations.
The existence of nuclear weapons in the international relations has given a new meaning
to the concept of peace.
The emergence of nuclear weapons and arms race made the negotiations for disarmament
and arms control highly complex, confusing and problematic.
Nuclear weapons together with other factors have made the nation state and its
sovereignty obsolete.

Our project further gives the detailed explanation of types of nuclear weapons, causes and
consequences of spreading of nuclear weapons, nuclear strategies, non proliferation treaty,
control on nuclear weapons, major nuclear incidents, nuclear weapons in twenty first century and
role of nuclear weapons in international relations in the post cold war era.

Sana Kainat

Types of Nuclear Weapons:

One of the first major types is Fission Bomb. Blast of Fission bomb involves the chain reaction
of breaking of radioactive atoms, initiated through collision of neutron. This chain reaction is
preceded until the whole substance used in reaction frame become degraded. This degradation of
radioactive substance follows the huge deal of energy emission in form of light and fire. Fusion
Bomb is second major type. It is reaction initiated when atoms brought close together to form
atom. Reaction net input is less then net output acquired. Thats why its do more destruction as
compared to the former one. Third type is thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen Bomb).It uses the
hydrogen atoms for it reaction. It x-ray initiated reaction capable of Mass scale destruction even
more severe the then fission and fusion bomb.

Causes and Consequences of Spreading of Nuclear Weapons:

Nuclear weapons have played central role international politics ever since they are being
introduced. Nuclear weapons state also enjoys good deal of bargaining poor in international
politics. Nuclear weapons secure and enhance the diplomacy and security of their possessor.
Researchers have also shown that nuclear weapons have reduced intensity of conflict for their
possessors. Nuclear state has the authoritarian position and stable status in term of sovereignty in
international politics. World War II ended as result of use of nuclear weapons against Japan in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by America. Bipolar era of international politics greatly revolves
around showing off of possession of Nuclear weapons and other arm both by USA and Soviet
Union. But when Soviet Union Broke down after the defeat in Afghanistan the concept of unipolar World emerged i.e. there is one super power now. After that, World started to believe that
focus from influence and possession of arm control and nuclear weapons would be diverted to
other dimensions of international issues. But Pakistan, India, china and more recently North
Korea nuclear test resurface the nuclear proliferation threat. 9/11 attack also came as turning
point for nuclear weapons exploitation threat. It was believed that if nuclear weapons meet the
hands of terrorist they will exploit them on massive scale. It was further argument that since its
accession is so easy work as argument was exemplified by A.Q khan possession of black market
proliferating ring, terrorist can possible accessed them too with no difficulty. Thus that was one
of threat. Secondly, threat from nuclear proliferation is that two bitter sided states could possibly
use them against each other as result of mere conflict, making it a problem for whole world.
Third threat nuclear weapon could possibly rob by rebellions from states whose government and
authority is not so strong. So over coming all these potential threat strategies of arm control were
introduced on platform of International politics with the collaboration of many effective states
around the word. Goals were to stop the nuclear proliferation, to reduce the investment of capital
to nuclear weapons building therefore reducing the economical and financial strain for states.
Further, the nuclear deterrence to nuclear deterrence reassurance was strategy was also
emphasized.

Induction of Nuclear Strategies:

In order to overcome the causes and consequences of nuclear proliferation steps were taken in
era of 1960s. The first major arms control agreement was the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT)
signed by President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1963. This Treaty
prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the oceans and outer space. In essence, it was
an environmental treaty that disarmed an outraged public opinion, but allowed nuclear testing to

continue underground. The Treaty contained a preamble promise to continue negotiations for an
end to all nuclear test explosions, which would limit the ability of the nuclear weapons states to
make qualitative improvements in their nuclear arsenals. A Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) would take more than three decades from the signing of the Partial Test Ban
Treaty to be opened for signatures. The next important arms control agreement was signed five
years after the Partial Test Ban Treaty. This was the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT). The NPT, a Treaty put forward by the US, UK and USSR, was signed in 1968
and entered into force in 1970. The Treaty was built on the promise that non-nuclear weapons
states would not acquire nuclear weapons. It is further explain under separate heading in coming
section of this document. The year following the indefinite extension of the NPT, a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was opened for signatures. As of 1999, it has been signed by
over 150 countries. To enter into force it must be ratified by all 44 states with a nuclear capacity.
By late 1999, it had been ratified by more than half of the 44 countries. Among the nuclear
weapons states, only the UK and France had ratified the Treaty. Nuclear weapons states that had
yet to ratify the Treaty were the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel. The key
to the continued effectiveness of the NPT may prove to be the willingness of the nuclear
weapons states to fulfill the promises they made in Article VI of that Treaty and those in the
Principles and Objectives document agreed to at the time of the indefinite extension of the NPT.
If the non-nuclear weapons states feel that these promises are not being kept, they may decide to
exercise their right to withdraw from the Treaty in the "supreme interests" of their country. This
would be a major setback to the nuclear arms control regime that has been created in the post
World War II period. Other key nuclear arms control treaties are the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM), the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT I and II agreements) and the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II agreements). The 1972 ABM Treaty
limited the anti-missile defenses that could be deployed by the United States and the Soviet
Union. Each country was allowed to emplace anti-ballistic missile defenses at only two sites, its
capital and one other site (later reduced to only one site). This Treaty, signed by President
Richard Nixon for the US, and General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev for the Soviet Union, was
considered important because it was designed to prevent a defensive arms race that would spur a
further offensive nuclear arms race. It was considered essential in order to allow the US and
USSR to move ahead on limiting the quantity of their nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
Following the end of the Cold War, the US has sought to change the terms of the ABM Treaty to
allow for the deployment of a National Missile Defense system, to counter perceived threats
from countries such as North Korea. The SALT I and II agreements put limitations for the first
time on the number of nuclear weapons delivery systems that the US and USSR each could have.
The first SALT accord was reached simultaneously with the ABM Treaty. The START
agreements for the first time began to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons that each
side could deploy. START I called for reductions to some 6,500 to 7,000 nuclear weapons on
each side, and START II brought this number down to 3,000 to 3,500 strategic nuclear weapons
on each side. It should be noted that the Russian Duma has still not ratified START II, and that
neither the US nor the USSR has moved below START I levels as of the end of 1999, ten years
after the end of the Cold War. A few other nuclear arms control treaties deserve mention.
The Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed in 1988 by Presidents Reagan and
Gorbachev, eliminated a whole class of nuclear weapons (those with a range between 500 and
5,000km). There are also a number of treaties prohibiting nuclear weapons in certain geographic
areas. These include the Antarctic Treaty(1959), the Outer Space Treaty (1967), the Latin

American Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (1968), the Seabed Arms Control Treaty (1972),
the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (1986) , the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Free Zone
Treaty (1995), and the African Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty(1996). In effect, the Southern
hemisphere is made up of nuclear weapons free zones. The countries of the Northern
hemisphere, however, have failed to place geographic limitations on the emplacement of nuclear
weapons on their territories.

Summra Jabeen

Non Proliferation Treaty:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as the Non-Proliferation
Treaty or NPT) is the cornerstone of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. The NPT
embodies the international communitys efforts to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons,
and to cooperate in achieving a world free of these weapons. It also facilitates states pursuit of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Importance of Non Proliferation Treaty:

The NPT is an indispensable legal and political instrument to prevent the further proliferation of
nuclear weapons. In the absence of the NPT, it is likely that many other countries would have
developed nuclear weapons post-1970, sparking regional and global arms races. The NPT is the
only treaty that legally binds the five officially recognized nuclear weapon states (China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to pursuing nuclear disarmament.

Three pillars of Non Proliferation Treaty:

Disarmament, non-proliferation, peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Governance of Non Proliferation Nuclear Weapons Treaty:

Five different states govern the non proliferation nuclear weapons treaty these states include
USA, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdomand in three de facto nuclear possessor
statesIndia, Israel and Pakistan.

Governance of The United States on Nuclear Weapons:

In 1945 the USA became the first state to carry out a nuclear weapon test as well as the first (and
still the only) state to use such weapons and also emphasized the political control of its nuclear
assets in early 1950s nuclear weapons were stored separately from the delivery vehicles by the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), not by the military. The employment of nuclear weapons is
controlled by a system of permissive action links (PALs) that use an electronic code that can be
released to military personnel only on the presidents authority. The president is the final
authority on nuclear doctrine, development and operational status but relies heavily on a
collection of statutory policy advisers, notably the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, the NCAs devolution of command for authorizing the release
of nuclear weapons does not match the line of presidential succession set out in the US

Constitution. This presents a potential problem for democratic governance of nuclear weapons in
grave or extreme circumstances.

Russia: The Russian Federation is the legal successor state to the Soviet Union, the second
state to test a nuclear weapon, in 1949.Its challenges in nuclear governance reflect not only the
difficult and still inchoate course of its democratic transition, but also a strategic setting in which
nuclear weapons are seen as one of the last symbols of Russias status as a superpower. The
Russian president has the formal decision-making power over the nuclear weapon cycle,
including the development, production, storage, deployment and use of nuclear weapons.

China: China conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 1964, the last of the five NPT-defined
nuclear weapon states to do so. Its nuclear decision-making system has been described as one of
civilian control with Chinese characteristics, but one which is not democratically accountable.
Although the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) stays firmly in control of the gun, the military
possesses a critically important, although not necessarily determinant, role in nuclear weapon
affairs. As for the legislative branch, the constitution formally grants the National Peoples
Congress (NPC) wide constitutional powers that amount to parliamentary supremacy in decision
making. In reality, under the dominance of a single party, the NPC has never sought to exercise
such a role and merely rubber-stamps executive decisions on matters of high policy. There is no
publicly available evidence of legislation or parliamentary debate on the subject of nuclear
weapons.

Control on nuclear weapons:

Command and control: Command and control systems are the medium by which the use of
nuclear weapons can enter into military operations. Of necessity command and control systems
involve military knowledge and action, it may be stated with some confidence that no country at
present places the power of decision on nuclear use completely in military hands. Concern has
focused rather on the risk that military cultures and interests may lead to the accidental or
deliberate flouting of restraints on nuclear use and that civilian control may be weakened, as it
were, from the bottom up.65 Political leaders in different states have used a variety of measures
to reduce this risk, including separate storage of nuclear warheads from delivery system.

Executive control over nuclear weapons:

Executive control is a wider concept that covers decisions on nuclear policy and strategy,
procurement, deployment and resource use as well as determining the countrys position on
relevant international issues and instruments. This function is invested in the head of state or
government, who leads the executive of the country concerned. The importance of this individual
(president or prime minister) is sometimes physically represented by his or her possession of the
suitcase containing the nuclear release codesas in Russia and USA.
Parliamentary control
The theoretical powers of parliament can range from debate via legislative and budgetary powers
to some degree of co-decision. In some cases parliaments role is formally reduced by the
existence of presidential or executive decrees determining aspects of nuclear policy and
management (e.g, in France, Pakistan and the UK). The strongest combination of legislative,

budgetary and debating powers is possessed by the US Congress. The British and French
parliaments can hold debates (as is the case in India) and exercise a more generalized budgetary
control, while other parliaments (those of China, Israel and probably Pakistan) are not allowed to
address nuclear issues at all.

Saeeda Wazir

Major Nuclear Incidents

Hiroshima:
At approximately 2:00 on the morning of August 6th, the Enola Gay, which was carrying an
atomic bomb (Little Boy), started on the long flight from Tinian. At about 7:00 o'clock, the
Japanese radar net detected aircraft heading toward Japan, and they broadcast the alert through
out the Hiroshima area. There was no sign of bombers. The people began their daily work since
they thought that the danger had passed. Hiroshima Middle size coastal city founded 1594 and
built on six islands. In 1945 the city had a population of 350,000 people, served as local military
command center but was mainly commercial and industry oriented around several small ship
yards. A mushroom cloud extends 20,000 feet into the sky and 10,000 feet in diameter over the
city after the first atomic attack in history.
Nagasaki:
Nagasaki had never been subjected to large scale bombing prior to the explosion of the atomic
bomb there. On August 1st, 1945, however, a number of high explosive bombs were dropped on
the city. A few of these bombs hit in the shipyards and dock areas in the southwest portion of the
city. Several of the bombs hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and six bombs landed at the
Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital, with three direct hits on buildings there. While the
damage from these few bombs were relatively small, it created considerable concern in Nagasaki
and a number of people, principally school children, were evacuated to rural areas for safety, thus
reducing the population in the city at the time of the atomic attack.
Windscale:
Cumberland (now Cumbria), UK, October 10, 1957. Windscale Unit 1s core caught fire and
melted, which led large amounts of radioactivity to be released to the surrounding area.
Before the accident, Unit 1 was activated to release built-up energy in the graphite of the core.
The fuel was cooler than the normal operating temperature and was warming more slowly than
expected. A second release led to a higher temperature than workers expected. Eventually the
temperature was more than 750 degrees Fahrenheit, so air was vented to cool it. The reactor
caught fire, igniting an estimated 11 tons of uranium. Workers first used carbon dioxide to try to
put out the fire, but that strategy failed. Next they used water, which eventually succeeded. It
took workers a total of three days to put out the fire. In the meantime, radiation escaped through
the chimney and contaminated much of the surrounding area and reached as far as mainland

Europe. More than 200 cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, which is considered to have
been the worst to occur in the West.
Three Mile Island accident:
The accident occurred Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania
(United States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and operator errors caused a gradual
loss of coolant, leading to a partial meltdown. Radioactive gases were released into the
atmosphere. It was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history,
although it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.
Chernobyl, Ukraine:
Chernobyl is considered the worlds worst nuclear disaster to date. It occurred on April 26, 1986,
when a sudden surge in power during a reactor systems test resulted in an explosion and fire that
destroyed Unit 4. Massive amounts of radiation escaped and spread across the western Soviet
Union and Europe. As a result of the disaster, approximately 220,000 people had to be relocated
from their homes. Unit 4 was to be shut down for routine maintenance. A test was conducted to
determine the plant equipments ability to provide sufficient electrical power to operate the
reactor core cooling system and emergency equipment during the transition period between a
loss of main station electrical power supply and the start-up of the emergency power supply.
Workers did not implement adequate safety precautions or alert operators to the electrical tests
risks. This lack of awareness led the operators to engage in actions that diverged from safety
procedures. Consequently, a sudden power surge resulted in explosions and nearly complete
destruction of the reactor. The fires that broke out in the building contributed to the extensive
radioactive releases
Fukushima Daiichi:
The earthquake and tsunami that struck eastern Japan on March 11, 2011, caused a serious
accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the northeastern coast of Japan.
The earthquake cut off external power to the reactors. Tsunami, which reached levels more than
twice as high as the plant was designed to withstand, disabled backup diesel generators, crippling
the reactor cooling systems. Battery power was quickly exhausted and overheating fuel in the
plant's operating reactor cores led to hydrogen explosions that severely damaged three of the
reactor buildings. Fuel in three of the reactor cores melted, and radiation releases from the
damaged reactors contaminated a wide area surrounding the plant and forced the evacuation of
nearly half a million residents.

Fareeha Batool
Nuclear weapons and International Conflict
It should be noted that nuclear weapons have changed the character of warfare. Taking into
account their destructive capacity, nuclear weapons are unique, causing significant changes in the
calculations of costs and benefits by nation-states.

Betts argues that during the Cold war, inherent nuclear capabilities play a coercive role resulting
in influencing crisis situations. As Betts writes Any sort of nuclear threat in the midst of crisis,
which is by definition an unstable situation, ought to be considered serious business. However
indirect or tentative it may be, such a threat must be intended to raise by some degree the danger
that disastrous escalation might result, and any degree is worrisome at that level of stakes (Betts
1987, 9).
Other studies on the effect of nuclear weapons on international politics suggests that nuclear
weapons influence the success of states in international disputes as well as whether or not
conflicts escalate (Simon, 1999). Recent work by Gartzke and Jo (this issue) indigenizes a model
which shows that, in general, nuclear weapons states are not necessarily more likely to either
initiate disputes or face challenges. Finally, examining behavior in international crisis, rather
than militarized disputes, Beardsley and Asal (this issue) highlight how the asymmetric
possession of nuclear weapons in a dispute dyad increases the probability of a favorable
outcome.
However, other work has analyzed whether or not the length of time countries possess nuclear
weapons influences their behavior and the way other states respond. There is growing evidence
that prior experiences influence why actors think about the international security environment
(Khong 1992; Leng 2000; Reiter 1996). In some cases, through information diffusion, actors can
also learn from events they did not directly experience. For Example: Argentina and Brazil
developed a mutual understanding of risk and the link between bilateral tension and the failures
of economic integration in the late 1980s, contributing to bilateral tension reduction in the early
1990s (Knopf 2003).

Theorizing the Relationship between Nuclear Weapons Possession and Time

Many scholars argue that nuclear proliferation is likely to lead to more international conflict,
though some disagree. Waltz, for example, argues that nuclear weapons deter challengers and
take escalation off the table, making disputes less likely. According to Waltz, the risk of nuclear
escalation trumps any uncertainty generated by nuclear acquisition, making post-proliferation
conflicts less likely (Waltz 1995, 5-8). All observations after 1945 are censored and end in a
condition of no nuclear war. The acquisition of nuclear weapons increases the confidence of
adopters in their ability to impose costs in the case of a conflict and the expectations of likely
costs if war occurs by potential opponents.
Learning to Leverage
Acquiring nuclear weapons influences both the new nuclear state and their behaviors. Empirical
research by Sagan, Feaver, and Blair suggests that viewing the behavior of other states does not
create the tacit knowledge, there is no substitute for experience when it comes to handling a
nuclear arsenal, even if experience itself cannot totally prevent accidents (Blair 1993; Feaver
1992; Sagan 1993). Sagan contends that civil-military instability in many likely new proliferators
and pressures generated by the requirements to handle the responsibility of dealing with nuclear
weapons will skew decision-making towards more offensive strategies (Sagan 1995). Sagan and
others focus on inexperienced operators, and the bureaucratic desire to justify the costs spent
developing nuclear weapons, combined with organizational biases that may favor escalation to
avoid decapitation, the use it or lose it mindset, may cause new nuclear states to adopt riskier

launch postures, like launch on warning, or at least be perceived that way by other states (Blair
1993; Feaver 1992; Sagan 1995).

Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century

Nuclear weapons played a pivotal role in international security during the twentieth century.
There has been no large-scale strategic conflict since the Second World War. Nuclear weapons,
had a stabilizing effect on superpower relations by making any conflict unacceptably costly.
However, geopolitical change and the evolution of military technology suggest that the
composition of our nuclear forces and our strategy for their employment may be different in the
twenty-first century.
Even with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the world during the past decade, nuclear
war planning today is similar in many respects to what it was during the Cold War. The Single
Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) is focused on a massive counterattack strategy that aims to
eliminate the ability of an adversary to inflict further damage to American interests. It is thought
that nuclear weapons would be used only in extremis, when the nation is in the gravest danger.
THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Strategic Threats to U.S. National Security in the Twenty-First Century
Future national security threats to the United States might be divided into three major categories:
major power conflicts, especially those involving Russia and China, regional conflicts, including
potential nuclear states such as Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, and conflicts involving terrorist
groups and other non-state organizations. However, strategic conflicts can be sparked by terrorist
acts, as was the case in the First World War and other conflicts.
Russia: During the past 200 years European Russia has sustained a series of catastrophes
including the invasion of Napoleon, the Crimean War, the First World War, the Revolution, the
Second World War, and now the transition from a communist state to something else. In each
case the country recovered within a generation. Even after the Second World War, when the
country was essentially in ruins, it came back to launch Sputnik within twelve years. While one
cannot predict what will happen in a country so volatile as Russia, it is not unreasonable to
assume that it will endeavor to return to a conventional military power while continuing to rely
on a significant nuclear capability.
China: China has a small nuclear arsenal but one capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on
American territory and interests. However, it is worth noting that China has several nuclear
weapons systems in the advanced development stage including a new cruise missile, which
presumably can carry a nuclear warhead, and new land-launched and sea-launched ballistic
missiles. Road mobile nuclear capable missiles add a degree of survivability to Chinas limited
nuclear arsenal.
FOREIGN WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Long-range ballistic missile technology: It is apparent that countries like North Korea, Iran,
India, Pakistan, and other countries have or will soon have the capability to project force at
intercontinental distances. The developing international marketplace in these technologies may
make long-range missiles available to almost any country that has the money and the basic
technical capability to acquire and use them.
Space imaging: Commercial services already provide high-resolution images from space. The
technical capability to provide these images in real time to customers should be expected to
develop. Third World countries will have the capability to launch their own intelligence
satellites, thus bypassing the need for commercial services.
Advanced communications and computer technology: The spread of communications and
computer technology will serve as a force multiplier for a growing number of countries. The
ability to effectively employ a small number of electronic weapons against a technologically
and/or numerically superior enemy is a cost-effective force-leveling tactic.

Nadia Kiran

Role of Nuclear Weapons in International Relation in the Post-Cold War Era

The role of nuclear weapons has been, and still is, to deter threats. However, the manifestation of
deterrence is different in the post-Cold War environment. The dominance of the US in global
affairs and the perception of it as a threat mean that increasingly states and non-state actors are
seeking nuclear weapons as a means to guarantee their cultural and political survival and for
many states, nuclear weapons provide the only credible deterrent to the USs superior
conventional forces
US Global Dominance
Nuclear weapons are seen by many as the ultimate deterrent (Mearsheimer and Waltz quoted in
Howlet, 2001: 428; Davis and Gray in Baylis, Wirtz, Cohen and Gray (eds.), 2002: 57). Their
strength lies in the immense, indiscriminate destruction that they wreak, and the vulnerability of
the whole globe to attack. The immoral nature of such destruction means that for most states they
are not a viable offensive weapon (Gray, 1999: 13). However, their deterrent or coercive
capabilities are enormous; the possibility of nuclear retaliation is so devastating that nuclear
states are very unlikely to be provoked. As such they act as an equalizer for the weak; instantly
making them too dangerous for the strong to attack (Thakur, 2000: 34).
In the post-Cold War era, American cultural, economic and military dominance is seen as
threatening by certain state and non-state actors. Nuclear weapons are seen by many as the
obvious deterrent against US intrusion into state affairs (Gray, 1999: 157; Davis and Gray in
Baylis et al, 2002: 269).
The breakdown of the Cold War system has left states increasingly self-reliant for their security.
The US has been left in the dominant position in the world (Dunne, 2003), resulting in a

markedly different security environment. In the post-Cold War era, the US no longer needs to be
as concerned about its international image as it had in the past.
The Use of Nuclear Weapons for Fearful and Threatened States
In its new position of hegemony the US has adjusted to a different type of adversary (Davis and
Gray in Baylis et al, 2002: 262).A US government document from 1995 makes clear the
administrations belief that rogue states form a new type of threat to be countered (SAG
Document, 1995 a statement issued by the North Korean government (shortly after the invasion
of Iraq) said the war teaches the lesson that, there should be a strong physical deterrent force to
protect the sovereignty of the country (CNN, 25/04/03).
Realist philosophers have long argued that states fear other powerful actors regardless of their
intentions. This helps to explain why there is also increased demand for nuclear weapons in
states not directly threatened by the US. Since the revolution in military affairs, the USAs
conventional strength has become so far in advance of any possible opponent that it can only be
challenged by nuclear means (Manning in Schmidt, 2001: 59). In the bombing of Kosovo in
1999 the US demonstrated this strength and its willingness to act without UN Security Council
approval. Both small states faced with the prospect of US intervention, and larger states whose
interests are not necessarily aligned with the USA, have use for nuclear weapons in the post-cold
war environment.
Increased Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The spread of nuclear knowledge is also thought to be more pervasive since the end of the Cold
War. Again the break-up of the USSR is important, as Soviet nuclear scientists now belong to
many different states. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine are known to have nuclear knowledge
which could be utilized to build weapons. Many governments, especially the US and Russia, are
concerned about this in the former USSR. In an international system where both terrorist groups
and rogue states are increasingly seeking a means to respond to US global dominance, the
increased proliferation of nuclear material and knowledge is a trend which suggests that nuclear
weapons will have an ever increasing role in the post-cold war environment.
Despite calls for disarmament in the post-Cold War era, it seems that nuclear weapons will retain
their importance in international relations for the foreseeable future. At the same time there are
now many more small states with no powerful allies who are seeking new means to protect
themselves. Nuclear weapons are still very important for many states as a means to ensure their
security against the overwhelming military might of the USA.
The global dominance of the US in both cultural and military terms means that nuclear weapons
could be, and are, strategically beneficial to many. In the post-Cold War era they remain
important in international relations.

Affifa Faiz

Conclusion:

The emergence of Nuclear weapons and the monopoly of some states over these became
responsible for the emergence of nuclear hegemony and a threat of nuclear blackmail in
international relations. The nuclear powers gained the ability to use threat of nuclear weapons
for securing their national interests in international relations.
They got the ability to use the threat of nuclear war for securing their desired objectives in
relations with non nuclear states. Further, these impelled them to maintain their nuclear power
superiority and to prevent non nuclear states from securing nuclear weapons and nuclear
technology. They kept on developing and expanding their nuclear power and at the same time
always tried to prevent non nuclear states from securing it in the name of world peace.
Moscow Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) were all governed by this hidden desire. The issue of nuclear
proliferation vs Nonproliferation emerged as major issue in international relations and even
today it continues to a hot issue.
The emergence of nuclear weapons materially affected the nature and content of international
relations. The nuclear weapons are responsible for making the international system almost totally
different from the classical international system.
Nuclear weapons can now be legitimately described as the major factor of international relations.
During 1945-90 the nuclear weapons influenced the politics of cold war. These kept the securing
of disarmament and arms control highly complex and problematic and unsuccessful exercise.
These became responsible for creating a balance of terror in international relations.
Even today nuclear weapons constitute a major determinant of relations between nuclear powers
and non-nuclear nations. The USA has been maintaining its status as a sole surviving super
power with a high level of nuclear capability, but at the same time it is forcing other states to sign
treaties like the NPT and CTBT. In-fact all the P-5 states (Five recognized N- powers) want the
non-nuclear powers to accept non-proliferation require. The politics of nuclear weapons forms an
important dimension of contemporary international relations.

Sana Kainat

References:
Allen, Louis (1969). "The Nuclear Raids". In Hart, Basil Liddell. History of the Second World
War. Volume 6. London: Purnell. pp. 25662576.
Dr Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bushs Military-Industrial
Complex (The New Press, New York, 2002)
Darryl Howlet, Nuclear Proliferation in Baylis and Smith (eds) The Globalisation of World
Politics (OUP, 2001)

Dunne T, Society and Hierarchy in International Relations, International Relations, Sept 2003,
vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 303-320
Dunn, L. A., & Squassoni, S. A. (Eds.). (1993). The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Henry,R. E. (2007). TMI-2: A Textbook in Severe Accident Management, ANS/ENS
International Meeting, www.nanodata.com/.../ThreeMileIsland-severeaccident-management2007.pdf
IAEA (2011), Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log Updates of 2 June 2011.
IAEA (2008), INES The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale UsersManual 2008
Edition,International
Atomic
Energy
Agency
Vienna,
http://wwwpub.
iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf.
M.R. Davis and C.S. Gray, Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic
StudiesJ.Baylis, J.Wirtz, E.Cohen, and C.S. Gray (eds) (OUP, 2002)
Rauchhaus, R. W., Kroenig, M., & Gartzke, E. (2011). Causes and consequences of nuclear
proliferation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Sagan, S. D., & Waltz, K. N. (1995). The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Types of Nuclear Weapons. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.ctbto.org/nucleartesting/types-of-nuclear-weapons/
World

Nuclear Association,

Fukushima Accident

2011,

http://www.worldnuclear.

org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html
World Nuclear Association, Three Mile Island Accident, http://www.worldnuclear.
org/info/inf36.html, (March 2001, minor update Jan 2010). http://www.
threemileisland.org/science/what_went_wrong/index.htm
World Nuclear Association
org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

(1986),

Chernobyl

Accident

http://www.world-nuclear.

William Walker, Nuclear Order and Disorder International Affairs 76/4 (2000) pp. 703-24