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.