fry

My misses ^^^ Secretary bought this question to my attention. She didn't think this was a good question but the fact it leaves so much room for expansion makes it almost far too challenging. Trying to get that into what I assume is a University essay (3000 words?) is rediculously hard. It needs a trilogy of works.

Firstly, what constitutes a state? Do Kosovo and Georgia have the same right as the UK and France seeing as they are not recognised by the UN security Council but have de-facto statehood because of a friend on said Council. What if the Basque Seperatists or Hezbolah or the Muslim Brotherhood, organisations that enjoy huge support within their own state, in some cases supplementing state services such as education etc. want the nuclear weapon? What of suprastate structures such as the EU and what of the UNs principal of mutual defence, where one could argue that an attack on 1 is an attack on all? Surely any state theoretically within the UN already has a nuclear defence because of this principal?

Furthermore, who/what defines what is 'right'. Even the UN Declaration on Human Rights is not universally subscribed to because of 3 states for various reasons, and one could argue that this is the most broad, basic and elementary attempt to introduce a universal law for the world. Iran constantly uses the argument that it has a right to pursue nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it does so long as for peaceful reasons. France also tested nuclear weapons against the wishes of the Superpowers during The Cold War. Yet, a simple look at the UN Security Council permanent members, and therefore those weilding the veto ,will quickly show that those with the veto have the nuclear weapon. Thus aspiring countries such Brazil, India, Israel, S. Africa et. al are left with the simple conclusion that to be considered a serious state/player in this anarchic world, you must have nuclear weapons.

Fundamentally, you have to arrive at the simple realist conclusion that those with power decide what is right. Therefore, the countries with a massively vested interest in keeping the balance of power how it is are likely to decide that it is 'right' not to have nuclear weapons as it threatens the world 'order' as we know it today. This is very much a stereotypical realist view admittedley, but it has merit.

I think, finally you'll be pleased to know, it is important to decide whether nuclear weapons are a weapon that is offensive or defensive. Surely every nation has the right to defend itself, even the most basic Just War Theory or Jihad allows for defensive action? Since then The Bush Doctrine has also broadened this to allow for pre-emptive strikes. Why is it so wrong (in the literal sense, not because right and wrong is decided by the powerful) for Iran to acquire the nuclear weapon if it feels it is about to be invaded? After all, who would invade a country with a weapon at it's disposal that could wipe you out. Much of Israeli defence policy is based on the fact that if Israel falls, nuclear weapons are to be deployed en-masse against all enemies of the state. Is that offensive of defensive?

It has been suggested that in order to ensure world peace we should give all states the nuclear weapon as all rational states would not start a war with another state that possessed the nuclear weapon. But firstly this assumes all states act rationally and in the interests of their peoples, which one could argue is not the case. Furthermore, it also excludes NGO's that tend to operate over a couple of territories without having a definative and recognised state boundary. Is it right to Nuke Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda acquires the nuclear bomb?

I think I'd like to conclude with Ciceros' comments on war. "Let he who hopes for peace prepare for war". Using this analogy it seems right to use the nuclear weapon against a populus who simply are seen not to share the views of a dominant state because they do not conform to said states views of the world. A powerful state may think all citizens should be free, democracy rules and that rights should be protected, but another state may think an individuals rights can be ignored for the good of the community. Isn't this indeed the principal behind Marshall Law in the West? Talk about some good old fashioned Romanic traditions of giving power to a dictator in time of need. Why not Nuke the countries that disagree and force peace?

Nuclear weapons have undoubtedley challenged the previous equilibrium in which a state could use superior conventional arms to make itself dominant. But one could argue whether nuclear weapons are more bluff than substance. For a threat to be reasonable it must be credible. To what extent can you realistically threaten to use a nucelar bomb and be taken seriously? For that reason nukes have never been taken seriously as an offensive weapon since the atomic version was used on Japan, when the novelty and innovative use of a new weapon was indefensible and arguably quickened the end of the war.

This leads me to argue (quickly and sometimes simplistically) that nuclear weapons must be defensive. Because every state must have the right to defend itself every state must have the rights to nuclear weapons. Now, if only I could decide what constitutes a state... lol.

This is me mostly just thinking, which is nice since I left University, but I hope it provides some useful thinking points

^^^ Yeah, I thought he'd be able to give you a better answer than I could! x