Third Blog Post: Finding Peace in a M.A.D. World

It is an idealistic goal to push for the complete and total disarmament of a classification of weapons with the power to put an end to all of humanity. Though only used twice in the history of their existence, nuclear devices are known as Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMDs for short, because of their destructive capabilities. As of today, nine countries have known stockpiles of nuclear weapons, with the total number of warheads reaching 16,000, enough to wipe out entire continents.  Recognizing the dangerous power that these missiles hold, numerous treaties and organizations have made it their mission to stop the proliferation of, and ultimately destroy, these terrifying weapons of war. However, while their ideals may be positive, the idea of creating a nuclear-free world is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous to maintaining international peace.

One of the main components of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War was second strike capability. This meant that, in the event of an all-out nuclear strike by the enemy, the U.S., or the Soviets, would still be capable of launching their own missiles in retaliation. This ability led to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) which dominated the latter half of the Twentieth Century. No matter how many nuclear missiles one nation possessed, after crossing a certain threshold, there is no way to better increase security against the threat of nuclear war. As terrifying as this sounds, it actually leads to a Nash equilibrium, whereby two nations, both possessing nuclear weapons, has any reason to engage in hostile action, for fear of destroying itself. 

Thomas Schelling, author of A World Without Nuclear Weapons argues that the destruction of nukes would not only fail to make the world safer, but might possibly lead to nuclear war. In the instance of war where a country is facing outright destruction, it is impossible to expect that nation to abide by whatever international law might ban it from launching nuclear weapons. If leaders become desperate enough, nuclear missiles will be used, as has been the case since their inception. In the case of a “non-nuclear” world, however, the speed at which nations can mobilize will disrupt the Nash equilibrium. Nations, in order to avoid nuclear war, have to be in constant fear of assured destruction.

Politicians and scholars like Henry Sokolowski, however, feel that the proliferation of nuclear weapons might lead to destabilization, and, in some cases, almost certain war. This flawed logic rests on the notion that countries like Iran are somehow less prone to rational action than other nations. In reality, a nuclear Iran, much like a nuclear India and Pakistan, would have no reason to start picking fights with its neighbors, for fear of utter destruction. While it may not be safe to embrace the idea of giving every nation a stockpile of nukes, Iran’s entrance into the “Nuclear Club” is unlikely to cause any great tremors in global politics. In fact, its newfound status may result in Iranian leaders becoming more cautious in the way they portray themselves to other nations. 

A Nuclear free world sounds desirable only until one considers the fact that nations are focused on security, and can be distrustful of other countries’ motives when they have the power to inflict utter destruction. When the stakes become this high, Realism is the only paradigm that can provide a sufficient solution. If every nuclear state fears being destroyed by another nuclear state, then nuclear war will never start. While fear is not a very delightful motivator, it is, in this case, a necessary one in that it can bring warring parties to the negotiating table, no matter how high tensions may run. A nuclear world is therefore a safer world, because no nation can effectively stop nuclear weapons, and thus, no nation will ever use them, lest they wish to encounter the calamity that is Mutually Assured Destruction. 

Third Post

In Benjamin Cohen’s article “The Bretton Woods System,” Cohen defines and explains the principles of the Bretton Wood system. Consequently, he demonstrates the implicit benefit that the United States obtains. After reading this article I was intrigued by the information Cohen provided regarding how the two international organizations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), work in favor of the United States.

            The Bretton Woods system is an international monetary regime that derived from the end of World War II until 1970’s being defined as “a monetary regime joining an essentially unchanged gold exchange standard, supplemented only by a centralized pool of gold and national currencies, with an entirely new exchange rate system of adjustable pegs” (Cohen 86). From this system two international monetary organizations were developed, the World Bank and IMF. Although these organizations were created to benefit all states, in Cohen’s article and in lecture’s presentation, it becomes apparent that this monetary regime has higher influence on the United State’s hegemony. For example, the primary function of the IMF was to “help states maintain peg to U.S. dollar through loans that would fight inflation or deflation in exchange rates” (Lecture 19). Noticeably, maintaining the peg to the United States’ dollar only benefits the United States, because the dollar is one of the most expensive currencies therefore, other states with lower currency value are subjugated to a higher exchange rate set at the value of the United States dollar. In essence, the state with the less valued currency will receive fewer US dollars due to the high exchange rate. Subsequently, the US dollar can be exchanged for a lot higher amount in a different state. Cohen notes in his article, “in effect, an implicit bargain was struck” (87). Nevertheless, the Bretton Wood system was a primary contribution to the supremacy of the United States.

            It strikes me as rather thought provoking that the purpose of the Bretton Woods System and organizations like the IMF and World Bank is to aid all states yet it evidently benefits only one, the United States. Furthermore, the United States acquired an advantage that allowed them to have the capability to control the financial speculations of the world. Cohen demonstrates three ways in which US hegemony was employed. First, a relatively open market was provided for imports of foreign good. Second, a generous flow of long-term loans and grants was created, such as the Marshall Plan. Lastly, a liberal lending policy was established for provision of shorter-term funds in time of crisis (86). These three principles exemplified the upper hand that the United States had on foreign states through these world monetary organizations. They were able to establish long-term loans, which inevitably put other states into debt with the World Bank, IMF, and ultimately the United States. The open market was also a benefit solely for the United States as well because since the exchange rate was more beneficial to the US dollar, more foreign goods could be purchased. Thus making foreign imports less expensive for US consumers. Finally the liberal lending policy for shorter-term funds in the times of crisis were another way for the World Bank, IMF, and the United States to gain profit. As it states in the article, the revenues from the world monetary organizations where received from the interest given on loans. Therefore the IMF and World Bank, under the Bretton Woods System, were reluctant to grant expensive loans for the sole purpose that the state would owe much more in return. And the United States benefitted from this principle because the currency value is higher so they would not owe nearly as much interest with respect to the amount taken. 

third blog post

The Bretton Woods System is a perfect example of the Hegemonic stability theory mentioned by Cohen is his essay.   This theory states that an international system can be strongest when one nation is leading it.  In the time following world war two, America embodied this theory by fixing other nations to the U.S. dollar. Through the action of the U.S. taking on this kind of monetary position at such a huge turning point in the world, they were making a statement that they were the strongest nation.  In discussion we came to the conclusion that the main reason that the U.S. agreed to fix all other currencies to the American dollar was simply because we were in a better position than most other countries economically at the time and we wanted to lend a helping hand.  I think that although the U.S. participated for the most part with the interest of helping the world recover from the disastrous effects of World War 2, they also wanted to make it known world wide that they were a predominant force.  I also believe that although eventually in the early 1970s the practice of this system stopped, it was a great example of the importance of hegemony when the world is looking for leadership.  Although in general all countries work mostly to support themselves, the Bretton Woods System shows that it is important for one country to step up and support many nations to lead everyone into a better era.

            The strong position that the U.S. took in the Bretton woods system wasn’t the only economic move they made around this time.  They also were responsible for the Marshall plan, which gave an enormous amount of money to help rebuild Europe.  Through this action it is clear that the U.S. was the fixer of this time period.   They emerged as not only a strong economic power, but as a stable and responsible nation.  Many countries can be wealthy, but it is a completely thing to use that wealth to support others especially in a very tough time.  The Bretton Woods system is much more than just an economic move, it showed all other nations that they could trust the U.S. to be stable and to step in when help is needed.

Third Blog Post

An important topic we have discussed is the concept of deterrence, and more specifically, mutually assured destruction (MAD). As we learned in lecture, MAD is the theory that a nuclear war will likely never happen as it would simply lead to far too much destruction for all parties involved. Therefore, no leader would ever strike first with a nuclear attack bearing in mind that they would certainly receive a nuclear strike in return that would do just as much damage as their first strike. I tend to agree with this theory, and therefore side with Kenneth Waltz in that Iran should be allowed a nuclear weapon.

            In a perfect world, nuclear weapons would not exist which is what I truly believe is the best possible situation for all states. However, this would never realistically happen as states already are in possession of them and will certainly never give them up. Thus I do not believe even a state whose motives have been questioned such as Iran should not be allowed a nuclear weapon. As a firm believer in MAD, I would actually hold that with various states already in possession of nuclear weapons, there would be more international stability if any state seeking to develop nuclear weapons were allowed to acquire them. All major states possessing nuclear weapons is to me almost the same concept as none of them possessing nuclear weapons, as each state would be too frightened of the consequences of a nuclear attack to ever even consider launching one. Thus if a nuclear weapon is what a state needs to feel secure from other states, I believe that state should be able to develop one.

             This is Waltz’s major argument towards why Iran should get the bomb they seek to develop. While I was originally inclined to disagree simply with the title of his essay Why Iran Should Get The Bomb, after reading and thinking about his arguments I actually side with him on this debate. Waltz states, “It is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself).  (Waltz) Waltz here is giving the MAD argument, simply that Iran, due to the nuclear presence of Israel, sees nuclear weapons as a necessary form of security. Waltz equates Iran using these weapons for offensive purposes to destroying itself, which is the obvious outcome if they ever were to use them.

In addition, Waltz argues that Iranian leaders are not in fact mad men. However even if they were, we pointed out in lecture that leaders traditionally considered “mad men” such as Stalin and Mao never resorted to using nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. If even the most irrational leaders historically have refrained from using nuclear weapons to attack other states, I find it highly unlikely that any will in the future.

            In conclusion, Iran, or any state determined to devote resources to assembling a nuclear weapon should not be stopped in doing so, as it makes no sense for some states to be allowed them while others are not. As Waltz stated, a nuclear weapon for Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East, due to the inevitable MAD that would take place between them and an already nuclear Israel. Realistically, nuclear weapons are merely just added security as no leaders no matter how rational are willing to be absolutely destroyed in retaliation for a nuclear attack.