In class we recently learned about
the Realist concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which is theorized
to prevent wars as a result of the ability of many nations to completely
destroy any enemy they face. I argue that this theory explains two major
aspects of modern culture surrounding war. First that MAD is the reason for the
“Long Peace” that has been our reality since the end of World War II and
secondly that it explains why so many conflicts since this point involving
large powers have been against much smaller powers.
First, we can mark the beginning of the long peace
with the first use of nuclear weapons by a nation at war, specifically when the
United States bombed Japan at the end of the war in the Pacific. Since this
point, there have been no major wars between great powers in the world and I
argue that the first time a nuclear explosion was viewed on a global scale
convinced the world that a war involving these weapons was now impossible,
especially considering the power and magnitude of these weapons has only
increased over time. Essentially, after viewing the destruction caused by just
two of these bombs, war between two nations with these capabilities became unjustifiable
when both nations look at a cost benefit chart similar to the one we learned in
class, as there is really no cause that can justify the total destruction of
your nation.
As a result of
the lack of war between great powers and the increasing regularity of nuclear
weapons in many nations arsenals, states needed new ways to assert their power
and influence in the world. The means for such assertion came through wars
between large and powerful nations against smaller less powerful ones. Prime
examples of this type of war are the proxy wars that the US fought in Korea and
Vietnam that changed not only the concept of just war but also the tactics of
war itself. In correlation with the United States not being able to fight the
Soviet Union because of fear of a nuclear winter, the proxy wars they fought
were based on the containment policy of the government at the time. I argue
that before the invention of the nuclear bomb, the US would not have been
nearly as inclined to go to war in either place, but rather would have much
more likely gone to war with Russia directly.
I buy in to the Realist theory of mutually assured
destruction and it’s explanation of why the Long Peace has lasted as long as it
has. Simply put, statistics show a definite decrease in the amount of war in
the world from the time of the first use of the bomb. Since then, not only have
wars continued to decrease, the number of nuclear weapons and their power has increased
as well. Though other theories have merit, the accuracy of this theory across
many different states forces the International Relations community to consider
MADs reality when making any foreign policy decisions, most importantly those
involving war.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI liked your response and think you make valid arguments, but I disagree with you on the point that MAD is the main catalyst that caused the Long Peace. In my opinion, the Long Peace is not totally attributed to the democratic peace theory. Instead, it is tied into the idea that very few democracies existed before WW2. So, all the democracies we are looking at as a point of reference, or at least a very large chunk of the Long Peace where war stagnated, is due to the fact that from 1947 to 1991, we were in the Cold War era, and all of the newly emerged democracies were, at the time of the Cold War, allowed to group together under peaceful conditions because they had the mutual enemy of communism in the Soviet Union.
That being said, I agree with you that MAD definitely has a lot of weight and power in extenuating this Long Peace. This is what holds true today, now that the Cold War era is behind us.
I see the point in your argument about MAD not being the end all be all reason for the lack of a major power war from WWII to the present. However, I argue that despite the other major factors in the foreign affairs landscape, nuclear weapons are still the strongest factor. Most specifically, I would like to argue your point about the Cold War. I agree that the "western" countries allied against the Soviet Union had no cause to go to war against each other. However, each of these nations and certainly the alliance as a whole had plenty of reason to go to war with the Soviets. At this time, the only two powers with a reputable nuclear capability were the United States and the Soviet Union, each of which were the most important actors in the Cold War and essentially the two nations who decided whether or not war would happen. As a result, I feel that the only thing that kept these two factions from declaring war was the nuclear bomb that each side possessed but did not feel they could ever use.
DeleteI agree that global leaders need to consider MAD when making decisions about war. War is now fundamentally different than it has ever bee in history. A rational observer looking back at history would state that another great power war will happen because great power wars have continually happened in the past. However, a great power war today could easily mean MAD. Any rational state leaders would not risk a great power war with nuclear bombs. Rarely has there been an invention that makes history of warfare is an unreliable indicator of what is to come. While I am not sure that MAD has caused the long peace, it is vital that leaders consider MAD when making policy decisions.
ReplyDeleteJake, I agree completely with your point. I think that on the world stage, there are countless factors that a nation must take into consideration when making decisions. I also hope that war is brought to the as infrequently as possible. Instead, I hope that other means of conflict resolution will prevail before it comes to that. With that being said however, war is often a consideration. My argument in regards to this is simply that when it comes to war and the lack of war between great powers since the invention of the nuclear bomb, the real possibility of MAD must be the first thing that is considered and because there has never been war between two nations possessing the bomb, I believe that it has been the first concern of our foreign policy leaders to this point.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic, certainly, and if you are interested in reading further about it I would reccommend a book titled The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. In it, Pinker argues that the way to explain the decline of violence (long peace) is to identify the changes in our cultural and social environment that have caused these changes. I agree with Pinker here. Trends such as feminization, the increasing respect for the interests and values of women, and cosmopolitanism, the rise of forces such as literacy, mobility, and mass media, I would argue contribute more to our current long peace than MAD. In addition to that and most importantly, there has been an intensifying application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs. This is what Pinker refers to as the The Escalator of Reason. This is what has forced people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence, to ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others', and to reframe violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are many factors that have lead to the Long Peace that we have had since the end of the Second World War. In response to all of the examples you have given, however, I would like to bring MAD and the nuclear bomb back in to the picture. For me, the new factors that you mentioned that are now clearly a part of our foreign policy and global decision making only exist because of the rationality that comes with the possession of the bomb. As we discussed in class, possession of the nuclear bomb has the ability to make actors, that were previously considered to be irrational, rational. As a direct result from this, our policy makers and foreign affairs officials have been able to make decisions with a heightened sense of rationality. This rationality comes from the real possibility of MAD and allows them to make better decisions for our nation and the world. I do not mean to sound pessimistic and say that without the nuclear bomb all policy makers would be irrational. But I do argue the fact that the increased rationality that you mention is in fact a result of the possession of the nuclear bomb by many of the major players in world affairs.
DeleteWhile I usually do not agree with realist theories as much as the other schools of thought, MAD is definitely one that I buy. The pure power of a nuclear weapon makes the craziest leader rational. However I do think that it only applies as long as a state has control over them. If a terrorist cell got ahold of one, which is highly unlikely, then the situation changes. The destructive and awesome power of nuclear weapons poses an almost constant threat, which then in turn keeps us relatively safe.
ReplyDeleteFrank, you bring up an excellent point that I did not have time to bring up in my argument but is very relevant to the situation on a whole. To this point, only major powers on the world scale have acquired nuclear arms. As a result, we do not know what the political situation would be if a terrorist cell acquired a nuclear weapon. The issue with this event however is that, despite how unlikely it is, a terrorist group would not feel the risk of MAD and therefore not be forced to act rationally. This is a result of how spread out these groups are, which prevents an effective counterstrike against them. As a result, these groups could act irrationally and launch a nuclear strike with out fear of the repercussions that I argued prevent a nation from launching the same weapon.
ReplyDelete