Thursday, October 24, 2013

Rory McClurg
GVPT200
October 24, 2013
                          Mutually Assured Destruction in Military Standoffs    
     Since the development and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, there has been much debate about what these weapons mean for the international community. Some think it makes the world less stable, whiles others argue the world is a more stable place because of them. This paper will argue the point of the stability brought on by the concept of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction has been established global norm through the precedent of the Cuban Missile Crisis and has carried on to near nuclear wars such as the standoff in Kashmir.
     The Cuban Missile crisis was one of the tensest peacetime events in recorded history, due to the potential ramifications of the situation; specifically, the potential of plunging the world into a nuclear war. When the Soviets gave Cuba nuclear missiles, their intention was to insure that we did not invade Cuba once again. When the US discovered the missiles on Cuba, they immediately set up a blockade around the country. This action in itself speaks volumes about the dynamics of a nuclear standoff. The dynamic of this particular standoff included threatening military maneuvers, but not actual violence between either side, because making a move would have meant certain doom for each party. This is true because, at this point both the Soviets and US had developed nuclear missiles capable of being launched from submarines. This means that there was no way of ensuring that after a preemptive nuclear strike that either side would not retaliate with a nuclear strike of their own, ensuring both the Soviet Union’s and United States’ demise.
     The Kargil region has been a hotbed for conflict between India and Pakistan, with many near full-fledged wars breaking out in this disputed territory. Despite the fact they have rocky relations at best, no actual wars have been fought between the two since the establishment of both nuclear weapons programs. There have been many “close calls” between the two but no actual conflicts between the two, because of second-strike capability post nuclear attack. In reality, the region may be tense, but has no chance of actually fighting, as supported by Pakistani military leaders. In Waltz’s article, during the fighting in Kargil, Pakistani military leaders are quoted as stating there is no chance of conflict between the two sides.

      The Cuban Missile Crisis and the standoff in the Kashmir region further solidify the narrative that the dominant factor that influences national decision-making during standoffs between two nuclear powers is mutually assured destruction.

5 comments:

  1. I agree with your point. If two states obtain nuclear weapons they will have a mutual standoff. However, you never know if an unsteady state will use the nuclear weapons and cause chaos. As more of a realist, I believe that it may not be likely but it is definitely possible for states to act out of term.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with your point the nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction stabilize the international community, but this is only true if both parties fear their demise. Like we discussed in lecture, radical groups like Al Qaeda may use nuclear weapons without fear of the second strike capability of the opposition. There are always exceptions :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not completely agree on mutually assured destruction. I believe that if a nuclear missile were launched there would be so much more damage than if there were no nuclear missiles, which is why I believe that nuclear weapons would not be good. I also agree with Jessie’s point about groups such as Al Qaeda and nuclear weapons and why it would be not be good to have nuclear weapons. Also, I believe that accidents with nuclear weapons, such as launching them by accident or dropping they are not worth the risk of having them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like all of your points, and quite frankly I agree that mutually assured destruction is only valid with states, not organizations such as Hezbollah and Al Qaida. The fact of the matter is, one of the primary concerns of the international community is preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands (i.e. Al Qaida, etc.) I just don't see a scenario where the international community allows WMD to be put into the hands of someone other than established states supporting the current world order.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with what Whitney said about the concept of mutually assured destruction and how it is very risky when not knowing how steady the state is and if they would actually use their weapons of mass destruction during a mutually assured destruction standoff. I personally think that the concept of mutually assured destruction is a very good deterrent against nuclear war etc, because no state would risk the same or greater level of destruction during a retaliation, although it is a very risky scenario it theoretically should keep states out of using their weapons of mass destruction against one another. Overall, Rory, i agree with your position on mutually assured destruction, and overall i like your paper and the fact that you brought in multiple real world examples to support your point.

    ReplyDelete