CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

BIHAR

INTERNATIONAL RELATION
Project On
IMPACT OF NUCLEAR WEAPON ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA AMAR ALAM

5TH SEM, B.A. LL.B
Associate Professor
ENR. NO. - CUSB1713125003
PSC-311
 AKNOWLEDGEMENT
God gives us life to decorate it with knowledge. Life without knowledge is like a river without
water.
It is my privilege to acknowledge with profound gratitude and indebtedness towards my respected
and learned Associate Professor for her inspiration, constructive criticism and valuable suggestions.
Her precious guidance and time matched unrelenting support kept me on track throughout the
completion of this project.

I am grateful to our Prof. of POLITICAL SCIENCE, Dr. ALOK KUMAR GUPTA for her timely guidance
and motivation which helped me in giving the final shape to this project. She was instrumental in
conceptualization of this study.
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 defenceless 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.
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 endeavour 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 China’s 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-levelling tactic.

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” (Betts1987, 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 behaviour 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 favourable
outcome.

However, other work has analysed whether or not the length of time countries possess nuclear
weapons influences their behaviour 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).
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), Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) were all governed by this hidden desire. The issue of nuclear
proliferation vs. Non-proliferation 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.