Nuclear weapons as deterrence or defence have limited usage against contemporary security threats to states. Explain the statement.

Open in App

Solution

Contemporary security threats speak about the non-traditional threats to the nation states. Such a notion of security goes beyond any military action and focuses on the other kinds of threats impacting human existence. It identifies new kinds of threats like terrorism, poverty, human rights violation, human epidemics and migration.

In this context, military action, the usage of force or the usage of nuclear weapons would be considered as the last resort to deal with the new security threats that are confronting the nations today.

a. Contemporary security threats call for active cooperation by the international community. They call for cooperation among the two nation states or at the regional level or may be at the global level.
b. It would involve the international organisations like the UN and its agencies to deal with the global challenges.
c. It would also involve the active support of NGOs like the Green Peace, Amnesty International and Red Cross.
d. Problems like global poverty, migration and environmental degradation, which sought to threaten human existence, cannot be dealt with nuclear weapons. They will need effective resolutions, binding treaties and conventions to get resolved.
e. However, military action can be used to counter terrorist activities, but using nuclear weapons to deal with it would be too extreme, as it would have devastating effects on humanity.
f. Likewise, force can also be used against the regime which is engaged in mass genocide, killing its own people or ignoring the plight of its own population; however, such an action must be endorsed by an international community, which may then impose sanctions against it. For example, the Syrian crisis invoked strong reaction from the international community. Another example can be of the genocide in Darfur where the Sudanese government continued to perpetrate war crimes and inhuman crimes against its own civilians. The UN Peace-keeping mission was deployed but it was obstructed by the government there.

Possessing nuclear weapons may serve as a deterrent in case of a traditional security threat, but using it for defensive purpose can also be a debatable issue. Humanity cannot afford a nuclear war as it would have catastrophic consequences on the world. Also, it would result in a zero sum gain with no winners or losers.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

After the two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, military analysts were quick to proclaim a “nuclear revolution”. These new weapons- enhanced many-fold by hydrogen bombs- caused such horrendous destruction that it was inconceivable they could actually be used as instruments of warfare. Their sole purpose, aside from serving as indicators of prestige, is deterrence- the prevention of war. Nuclear technology was making was obsolete. Should not this development constitute a fifth revolution in the use of armed force in international politics? The contemporary concern with nuclear proliferation indicates that, in both popular and officials minds, nuclear weapons constitute a continuity of threats to international peace and security, not a break from the past. Whereas the leaders of both Cold War blocs and their allies insisted that their possession of nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence was fully rational and a contribution to international peace and security, they perceived the expansion of nuclear capabilities to other states as a serious threat. The leaders of new states or "rogue" states could not be assumed to possess the rationality and moderation of leaders in Moscow, Paris, London or Washington. For some unexplained reason, the prudence learned by the nuclear great powers cannot be trusted to be learned by others. This view has prevailed despite evidence that, for example, the crisis between India and Pakistan in 2002 might well have resulted in war had their governments not feared that military necessity would demand the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem, to be sure, but it must be differentiated. It makes a considerable difference whether additional aspirants to the nuclear club are well-established states such as India or Japan or non-state-based terrorist groups. Yet the conventional wisdom underlying the view of proliferation as a profound and continuing threat is that such weapons have not at all altered the calculus of war and that therefore the greater the number of states possessing these weapons, the greater the probability they will be used. There are serious problems with this view, but there are more important reasons why nuclear weapons have not produced a revolution in the use of force. The record clearly indicates that for most crises, wars and armed interventions since 1945 nuclear weapons have been irrelevant. The possession of nuclear weapons undoubtedly moderate behaviour in a few crises, such as Berlin in 1961, Cuba in 1962 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but, for the hundreds of other instances where force was used, they did not come into play in any meaningful sense. War has not become obsolete, states still possess armed forces primarily for "national security" and many states have launched those armed forces against then neighbours and more distant societies. Nuclear weapons may complicate defence decision-making, but by themselves they have not brought forth a revolution as defined earlier.

The passage states that nuclear proliferation is a menace. This can be supported by the fact that:

Q. Which state renounced its nuclear weapons and joined the NPT as a NNWS in 1991?

Q17. Consider the following statements about UNSCR 1540:

1. In resolution 1540 (2004), the Security Council decided that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors.

2. The restriction is with respect to nuclear weapons only.

Which of the above statements are incorrect?

Q. The ability of a state to cater to the protection and defence of its citizens is known as ‘national security’.

Q. My role is to ensure the defence of the nation while coordinating with the three forces, defence production units and defence research organisations. My ministry controls the three wings of the armed forces ie. Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force. My ministry is in charge of ensuring security of the nation from external threats. Who am I?

Join BYJU'S Learning Program