Nuclear Weapons

3 Pages 664 Words

Argument:
• States coexist in anarchy and the self-help principal action in an anarchic order is gained by security
• Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Defense equates to an ideal security since this combination presents both a strong guard in the presence of an attack while conversely equally strong prevention in terms of the effective punishment for the aggressor (anticipation of threat must be genuine).
• “Why fight if you can’t win much and might lose everything?”-exemplifies the authors mind frame in terms of the existence of nuclear weapons in war mentality.
• The concept of certainty becomes definable when using nuclear weapons in war. In conventional war an aggressor would pose war knowing that although uncertain about the outcome, destruction will be limited. With the introduction of nuclear warheads however the state and surrounding areas would be annihilated-with certainty!
• The knowledge of their being a severe outcome with the use of nuclear weapons, states would focus on avoidance when approaching the thought of war.
• Fear of nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands are unfounded due to the nature of a nuclear attack
• Use with “blackmail” would be a “cheap and decisive offensive force against conventional enemies”
Theoretical Perspective and Why:
Waltz is arguing from a realist theoretical perspective mainly because of his views on conflict. His essay is based around the use of nuclear weapons as a means to participate with other states in conflict. Where a Liberal Plurist would seek to explore cooperation and communication Waltz’s realist account sees the use of “blackmail” with nuclear weapon as an “offensive force”. Defining terminology for a realist emphasizes, “States, Power and Anarchy”. Waltz asserts that, “States coexist in a condition of anarchy…states must help themselves by providing for their own security”. His argument furthermore reflects the c...