Nuclear Weapons Taboos: India Puzzle, South Africa Case

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TABOOS
Name:
Institution:
Course Title:
Instructor:
Date:
Nuclear Weapons Taboos
Nuclear weapons are the new technology of warfare; they are powerful enough, destructive enough, and can inflict a catastrophic damage that may annihilate a geographical area completely from the map. Possessing such a technology can bring international recognition and respect, provide security, and deter any possible enemies away surely provide any state with prestige security and can deter any the needed security, prevent hostile action by another state, and bring international recognition. But while seeking this technology to enhance international standing or to ensure oneself security, the thought of others developing such a weapon diminishes the prestige and jeopardizes not just the state but the international security.[Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 57.]
First in anarchical system where there is no universal sovereign or worldwide government that can resolve disputes and enforce the law, states must rely on self-help to protect their sovereignty and national security, in the process they acquire more and more power in order to escape the impact of the power of others or at least follow the logic of security and balance against it, this created what neo- realist call a security dilemma in which actions by any state intended to strengthen its security, through increasing its military assets or making powerful alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures leading to inevitable armed race and increased tensions that may lead to unwanted war. This cycle of security dilemma is not limited to conventional and nuclear weapons only but also include chemical weapons. In fact, S. Sagan notes:" Every time one state develops nuclear weapons to balance against its main rival, it also creates a nuclear threat to another state in the region, which then has to initiate its own nuclear weapons program to maintain its national security".[Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 57.] [Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 57.]
The nuclear race began following the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. After the attack the Russian leader following the logic of the neo-realist immediately demanded a quick match with U.S weapon capabilities. The attack and the Russian decision to balance the Americans triggered a chain reaction bringing countries like England, France, China, and Japan to the race hoping to imitate those who have introduced the technology first.[Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 58.]
Second during the cold war, states in the international system realized that nuclear power has a great intimidating force, and can be utilized in numerous ways to achieve deferent goals domestically and internationally. So they began the process of acquiring and proliferating the technology to achieve some of these goals, increase their national security, counter or deter any nuclear threat, keep stronger adversaries at bay, prestige and international recognition from other states in or out the nuclear club or simply as an internal political tool to further advance a political interests within the state itself. But while the process of proliferating was within states’ rights, the enhanced technology as seen in 1945 was destined to cause imminent destruction for the belligerents, and was viewed as a threat to international security. Thus the race took a deferent approach, creating dilemma proliferating to secure and protect or to risk destruction and inhalation. all together the accelerating transformation provided the lead nuclear countries with more rationality dealing with growing numbers of proliferators. The magnitude of the detonation of the enhanced weapons; will destroy entire cities potentially killing millions of people as well as destroying our eco-system. The long term of the impact will affect the lives of all future generation. It is because of such reasons that many countries that have tried to set up nuclear projects end up abandoning because the various dilemmas and puzzles surrounding the project.[Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 56.] [Scott D. Sagan, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb, (Winter, 1996-1997), p 55.]
The India Puzzle
The Indian experience is a perfect example of how domestic politics can affect national projects. According to a historical account on the Indian case, the government officials in New Delhi did not come to an agreement on the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This decision was to be made after the 1964 Chinese nuclear test as India tried to come up with an appropriate response. The state of the Indian nuclear energy was advanced at that time but there quite a number of things that suggest that the country was not ready to start a weapons program. To begin with there is no evidence to show that the India had begun a crash weapons program. The other reason is that there was no effort by Indian leaders to acquire the necessary unclear guarantee from nuclear powers like the Soviet Union and the US. Officials in New Delhi failed to come up with consistent policy to guarantee security by questioning bilateral an...