American Nuclear Efforts: Prolonging the Cold War

Political Analysis Volume 19 Volume XIX (2018) 2018 American Nuclear Efforts: Prolonging the Cold War Bryan McCracken Seton Hall University, Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation McCracken, Bryan (2018) "American Nuclear Efforts: Prolonging the Cold War," Political Analysis: Vol. 19 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa/vol19/iss1/5 Article 5 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XIX · 2018 American Nuclear Efforts: Prolonging the Cold War Bryan McCracken Bryan is a senior studying political science at Seton Hall University. A United States Foreign Policy Course inspired his paper, sparking his interest in the field of nuclear weapons, and the effect of their proliferation on the world. Post undergraduate, he plans on attending law school, and is currently in the admissions process. INTRODUCTION I n the relatively short history of nuclear weapons, the word at first glance elicits various associations such as fear, destruction and death. Since their origin in the 1940’s, nuclear weapons negotiations have relentlessly dominated international relations to create a safer and more stable world. The fact of the matter is that the world is in a completely different nuclear generation than it was when nuclear weapons were created. The threat is no longer contained between dominant world powers with seemingly endless military, economic and technological ability. These weapons have proliferated into a new existence, an existence that appears to be far less certain, far more dangerous and far more difficult to deter. In the coming of this age, America has not been idle. Years of diplomatic negotiations, generations of treaties and billions upon billions of dollars have been invested into nuclear non-proliferation efforts, and weapons research has continued throughout. This paper will evaluate whether these efforts are worth it, and most importantly, effective in keeping America and inevitably the world safe. The primary question this research will analyze, is the following: Do American efforts of strengthening their nuclear capabilities and pursuing non-proliferation truly lead to a safer country and world? This is an extremely important topic; we are living in the nuclear age so this is nothing less than a reality. There are rising hostilities in the world, especially between new, more radical nuclear threats. Assessing whether or not U.S. security efforts are effective is critical. To answer this question, this research will primarily draw from two similar, but very different views in literature regarding nuclear weapons. In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, the two authors Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz present their different views on the discussion regarding nuclear proliferation. This book summarizes and combines independent work on the matter by both authors and complies it into a complete work. Although the later chapters of the book contain dialogue in the form of a debate, this research will focus on the first two chapters, which simply present each authors separate view of the matter. The work in this book is similar in the sense that there is mutual agreement regarding the ever present issue of the reality and presence of nuclear weapons. However, the views on how to address and think about this issue is where the fundamental differences arise. The counter perspectives will enable a contestable discussion regarding the issue at hand. This research will apply the ideas from the literature to the nuclear history of America. The question whether American deterrence efforts and investments in nuclear technology are effective or not will be addressed from both sides. In addition to the primary arguments from Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, this paper will continue to introduce literature that aligns with and or falls in the middle of the views of the two primary articles. The idea of this approach is to add to the soundness of the arguments, as well as expand on their ideas and even further strengthen the different positions. After the literature review is complete, it will be time to assess and relate the findings to American history surrounding nuclear weapons. The main idea here is that, in relating 48 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XIX · 2018 America’s efforts regarding nuclear weapons to the literature, a firm consensus can be drawn, that is not speculative since it is relying on two opposite sides of research. LITERATURE REVIEW To begin the literature review, it is important to first acquire an understanding of the two sides of the matter. As stated before, this research will be structured around the different views in the enduring debate between Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz. Kenneth Waltz is a renowned name in the field of political science. His work, and at times, controversial views are loved and widely used in the field of international relations education. Waltz was born in 1924, and served in both World War II and the Korean War (Mohn, 1). The impact these two wars had on his life gave him better insight and awareness to the importance of international policy. After the two wars in which he served, Waltz became critical of American military intervention. This opinion persisted, as Waltz became an “early critic of the American efforts in Vietnam, and he was equally critical of President George W. Bush's actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom” (Mohn, 1). His 1981 dissertation, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better outlines his fundamental views on Military intervention and deterrence, which the book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate heavily draws from. Kenneth Waltz begins his argument by essentially stating that despite the United States non-proliferation efforts, the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable (Enduring Debate, 3). Waltz bases his outlook of policy through the international relations theory of realism. He claims that in the international realm, the best way states can help themselves is by providing for their own security (Enduring Debate, 5). A state can prevent another state from attacking and preserve their own security through one of two ways. The first is what Waltz calls the defensive ideal. The idea behind this is that states must obtain a defense that is so strong, that no other state will attempt an attack. The other he calls deterrence theory, which he points out, is commonly confused. Deterrence is to prevent someone from doing something by frightening them. He elaborates by saying, “deterrence is achieved not through the ability to defend but through the ability to punish” (Enduring Debate, 5). In the attempt to apply the theory of deterrence and defense to the topic of nuclear weapons, he points out his primary distinctive point. Waltz states, “If nuclear weapons make the offense more effective and the blackmailer’s threat more compelling, then nuclear weapons are b (...truncated)