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 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 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 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 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 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 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.