Has there really been a 'nuclear revolution'?

Global Politics of Nuclear Weapons

Has there been a 'nuclear revolution’?

Nuclear weapons are often seen revolutionary based on the idea that they are the first weapon which can and should never be used, yet they exist. Also, nuclear weapons are the major drivers of cooperation around their non-proliferation and limitation instead of fuelling physical conflicts like other military tools, it is a so-called ‘taboo’ to ever use them (Tannenvald, 1999). Yet, nuclear weapons are not revolutionary and therefore, there has been no ‘nuclear revolution’ mainly because nuclear weapons as such brought the same changes like every military invention before and it has not changed the nature of international politics, it is just another new tool of reinforcing the status quo and position of the ‘Great Powers’, as it has always happened throughout history.

 

Why there has not been a nuclear revolution? There are multiple points that needs to be discussed in order to understand the weakness of those arguments which tell us about the existence of a nuclear revolution. First of all, every single new military invention has brought some change in warfare and politics from rocks to guns and bombs, it is just another weapon therefore, just another tool of war. It is often argued that this is the first tool which has no defence against (Brodie, year; Jervis, 1989). Yet, there was no defence against strategic bombing before either (Tannenwald, 1999). Similarly, atomic bombs are not more but the continuation of weapons, bombs, but on a larger scale. Therefore, I argue that nuclear weapons as military tools are not revolutionary in any way. We must not be blinded by its size and its scale of destruction ability, we need to focus on the facts – introduced above – which make it clear that nuclear weapons are just another invention of military capabilities. They have been followed by drones and other tools since, which again confirms that military development has not stopped by nuclear weapons, it is growing constantly, as it has always did ever since man have grabbed a piece of stone to protect its property.

Secondly, the Nazi cruelty was no different, it was never seen any worse form of mass destruction than that of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hitler’s brutality during the Second World War was although, limited to certain races in practice, in would not have been later on, if his theory can go any further. He has introduced the first global mass destruction to history, which makes its nation, Germany suffer ever since by the shame and costs. Therefore, after the fairly ‘playbook’-like First World War, nothing can be called any more humane in wars than nuclear weapons. Mass destruction is what it is, doing it by different means makes no difference in its result, and this is precisely why nuclear weapons again, should not be seen revolutionary.

Third, they definitely did not change the nature (but not denying that the character) of international politics. There is still a group of ‘Great Powers’ only with nuclear weapons now, which then we may now define as Nuclear Great Powers. It is only the mere continuation and reinforcement of the existing world-order of the ‘Great Powers’ and colonialism. If we look at history, colonisation started with physical, even military presence of the few European empires in Latin-Amerika, Asia and Africa – regions we today call Third World countries, but by this we also reinforce their status (Columba People, 2014). Is not it strange, that only those states have the title of ‘trustworthy to hold nuclear capabilities’ which have colonised the world over decades? Why is it that only those states who can possess them, decide on that the others are ‘untrustworthy’ for the same weapons? Even though, direct colonialism has died in the 20^th century after the waves of decolonisation, colonialism by other means very much does still exist. It is not only global trade that keeps the ‘colonies’ dependent on their ‘colonisers’, but it is also nuclear power, that reinforces the roles and positions within this global hierarchy (Barkawi and Laffey, 2006).

Analysing nuclear weapons as military tools, as tools of mass destruction and as means of global order, we can now understand, why nuclear weapons – even though we must admit on a much larger scale than its predecessors – are not any new in our history of global politics. Military has always been developing and growing to greater and greater levels of annihilation, as well as mass destruction has also been present beforehand. Nuclear weapons are just a new way of maintaining the status quo global hierarchy, which now cannot be done by colonising, but by other means. Nuclear weapons have since been followed by drones, which again, keeps ‘colonial’ societies threatened by the dominant Nuclear Great Powers via the constant presence of threat (Gregory, 2011).

In a conclusion, we have seen the weakness of arguing for a nuclear revolution from the different points of nuclear weapons as (1) military weapons where we have found that they are mere continuations of military inventions in a larger scale; as (2) brutality, tools which should never be used where we found that other ways of similar mass destruction have existed before; and as (3) so-called ‘game changers’ of global politics, where we have proved that this ‘nuclear revolution’ is not any more revolutionary and does not change the long-lasting status quo of the rule of Great Powers and colonialism. World order and its politics remained the same, only via different channels, that is nuclear non-proliferation treaties and conventions on their reduction. Yet the title which states can and cannot possess these weapons reinforce the positions of each state, those who can be trusted with global ruling and those who cannot be empowered by such tools, who must remain under the control of nuclear Great Powers. Therefore, there is a need for further evaluation in not the revolutionary or non-revolutionary existence of nuclear capabilities but instead, in their role in contemporary colonial orders, for which post-colonial theory may be a useful path to follow.

Bibliography

Brodie, B. (1946) ‘Implications for Military Strategy’ The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company pp. …

Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M. (2006) ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies’ Review of International Studies 32(2), pp.329-352

Gregory, D. (2011) ‘From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War’ Theory, Culture & Society 28(7–8) pp. 188–215 available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411423027 (accessed on 29/11/2019)

Jervis, R. (1989) ‘The Theory of the Nuclear Revolution’ The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon Ithaca: Cornell University Press pp.

Ropp, T. and Mandelbaum, M. (1982) ‘The Nuclear Revolution: International Politics before and after Hiroshima’ The American Historical Review 87(1) pp. … available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/i305072 (accessed on 20/10/2019)

Peoples, C. and Vaughan-Williams N. (2014) ‘Postcolonial Perspective’ Critical Security Studies: An Introduction pp. … ProQuest Ebook Central [online] https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/york-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1775297 (accessed on 23/10/2019)

Tannenwald, N. (1999) ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’ International Organization (The MIT Press) 53(3) pp. 433-468 JSTOR [online] available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 (accessed on 02/10/2019)