Looking at this enlightening article about the real reason behind America using nuclear weapon, it's reignites a discussion of using a realist lens to view nuclear power: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html
America is the the hegemonic leader of the world. America has the greatest economy, with the best armed military. We have the nuclear power to destroy any conceivable enemy and military technology that is superior to any other nation. America is active is maintaining a nuclear balance in the world and keeps volatile enemies in check. If one is to look at the world through a realist lens, they might ask why America has not acted to leverage its position to exploit other nations and consolidate power. The answer requires an economic lens. The US is a nation desensitized to the costs of war. The expenditures of the government are not felt directly through taxes. Our government finances itself through federal reserve activity and creates hidden inflation that is not recognized immediately by the people. The war effort to build and supply war craft and ammunition is no longer a national effort, but is imported or assigned to a select few government contractors. The American people have never felt a war on their soil and they see foreign intervention through the eyes of the media, which can't effectively convey the tragedy, scope, or price of war. Americans have lost the drivers behind imperialism. We are well fed and happy citizens. Machiavelli proposes that an outside threat must be present to mobilize a nation towards war and Americans do not view many threats as credible. The use of nuclear weapons is seen as a pure cost for Americans because the benefit is not apparent. This article talks about the ineffectiveness of nuclear weapons for some specific military goals: http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is not a taboo, it's a rational economic choice. Americans look at a nuclear strike as a dangerous endeavor that could upset the status quo and start a chain reaction of nuclear war which is readily understood to harm everyone (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Looking at the graphs shown in class, we see that Americans are not significantly more opposed to the use of nuclear weapons than ordinary military action, we merely lack the incentives. My personal opinion is that if America were to experience a significant economic collapse, affecting the safety and comfort of every citizen, we would see an America much more willing to flex its muscles militarily, including nuclear.
The US certainly has the capability to annihilate any country that would threaten us. But part of the credibility that the United States possesses comes from the understanding of the taboo that using nuclear weapons contains. Although the US has the strongest military and economy in the world, we also do not want to present ourselves as the tyrannical world super power by seeming more willing to use our nuclear technologies. The United States' high credibility of being a world power comes from a balance of strong military power but also understanding international norms of being a cooperator rather than an enforcer in every situation. In response to the idea of the US experiencing a serious economic collapse, I believe that if any institution were to be preserved, the government would make every effort to protect the military first. Military spending is the largest part of the country's budget, and in such an unstable global environment with the increasing presence of terrorism, a strong military will continue to be a top priority for the United States, no matter a potential dire economic situation.
ReplyDeleteA strong military would no doubt persevere through an economic collapse. What my point was is that the incentives for aggressive military action as a means of reasserting America economically might be present. With a struggling populace, the cost of war would be less for the average citizen
ReplyDeleteI agree very much with what Sage has commented. A huge part of the threat of use with a nuclear weapon is the taboo that it is, alongside of course of the massive amount of damage that would be incurred. Although looking at this from an economic perspective may give some insight for one potential reason I don't believe that this particular reason is a very decisive one in explaining why non-use is what we experience in the international stage, but rather the political implications, domestic and international, that using a nuclear weapon would have. Although I very much did enjoy looking at it from this perspective and reading your post.
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree with the fundamental principle that when he general population is stressed more and more, (the status quo looks less and less favorable), engaging in behavior that could potentially radically upset the status quo looks less costly-- i disagree that this applies to the case of nuclear weapons. This is first because deployment major world powers nuclear arsenal ( on a retaliating or non retaliating target) would still incur too great a cost to life, even for a struggling populace under a organized central government (under anarchy these conditions may cease to apply). And secondly because if economic direness is the prospective cause of their use, it seems at odds with the end goal of bettering the civilian populace as the use of a nuclear weapon today - particularly by a major power (with a substantial arsenal) which would cause such immense global economic turmoil.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I agree that US is very desensitized to the costs of war. Which is why I believe that the US citizens, while canonically deprived, would be more likely to support the use of nuclear weapon in a crisis. However, knowing that other nations in the world are also armed with heavy nuclear weapon and also capable of causing severe harm, I believe that the US, would seek other more diplomatic solutions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Sage has commented in regards to not using weapons of mass destruction to discredit it's position as a world peace keeper. Certainly it has the military capablities to overwhelm any territory/region it sees fit but that would only further blur the image of peace the US aims to achieve. Thats why its very vital that they opt to first resort to diplomacy and if all else fails than present it's military superiority in achieving the outcome it sees fit.
ReplyDelete