THBT All nations have the right to possession nuclear weapons

THBT All nations have the right to possession nuclear weapons

By Muhammad Afrizal

Pro

The nation-state is the fundamental building  block of international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having right to defend themselves. And this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serve to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. (Jervis, 2001)

                With nuclear deterrence, all states become equal in term of ability to do harm to one another. If great power attempt to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively. For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never occurred, as Russian would have thought twice when considering the potential loss                 of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. (Mearsheimer, 1993)

                When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged of their capability, as the deterrent effect works because it is visible widely known. Knowledge of state’s nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear program from developed countries with more advanced              nuclear program.  (Sagan, 1993)

Point Against

                There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defense, but  also for that of intimidating their neighbors. Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavored for year on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. (Jervis, 2001)

                Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in state that possess nuclear weapons. It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, or various international coalition to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide or otherwise abusing the human right of their citizen. An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebel in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. (Slantchev, 2005)

                Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interest of states. Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrence is seen in the international community as a sigh of belligerence and war like character. Such an image doesn’t suit the vast majority              of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. (Sartori, 2005)

Works Cited

Jervis, R. (2001). "Weapons without purpose ? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs. In R. Jervis, Foreign Affairs. Chicago: Cambridge Press.

Mearsheimer, J. (1993). The case for Ukranian Nuclear Deterrent . In J. Mearsheimer, The case for Ukranian Nuclear Deterrent . United Kingdom: Cambridge Press.

Sagan, S. D. (1993). The limits of Safety : Organization, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. In S. D. Sagan, The limits of Safety : Organization, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sartori, A. (2005). Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Slantchev, B. (2005). Military Coercion in Interest Crises. American Political Science Journal , 99.