Asking the Tufts Community

By Zoe Raptis, Jake Pryor, and Hannah Cox

Nuclear proliferation is a hotly contested topic in international affairs with incredibly high stakes.  Hemispheres staff asked the Tufts community their perspective on nuclear proliferation using the following prompt: What do you think is the most convincing argument in favor of or against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by new countries?

Ilan, a fourth-year History and Classics major:

I think the most convincing argument against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by new countries is the risk of escalation and potential instability. While nuclear weapons have had a stabilizing effect on global politics in the Cold War through mutually assured destruction, MAD is a very dangerous stability. Every new country with a nuclear weapon creates a new possibility for someone to use it. Old points of conflict become much deadlier, and new contentions form. Nuclear weapons need to be managed by good actors, and every new nuclear weapon increases  the chance that someone controlling one has bad intentions and could use it unprovoked. I think the most convincing argument against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by new countries is the risk of escalation and potential instability.” 

Shane, a third-year Biology major on the pre-med track:

I don’t blame new countries for trying to create their own nuclear arsenal. In modern world politics it has become the new standard in the strength of a country and the power they hold in conversations, and for good reason. Conflicts between neighboring states such as India and Pakistan have become threats to the existence of everyone on Earth thanks to nuclear weapons, while at the same time being a reason that the situation has  not resulted in all out war. The instant any state uses a nuclear weapon, no matter the situation, it opens the possibility of total annihilation and a ripple effect of death to hit the world. It’s hard to be optimistic about the future with the constant threat of nuclear weapons whipping away everything I have, but there’s nothing we can do but continue living with a sense of ignorance to the feebleness that holds our global society together.  

Steven, a second-year International Relations major:

I think the most persuasive argument against new countries acquiring nuclear weapons is the absence of cordial great-power relations under the current status quo. Commenting on abolishing nuclear weapons, Harald Müller stressed on the ‘need to create and maintain cordial great-power relations’ as the precondition for moving toward a future of abolition in any promising way. Without any institutions, principles or norms of nuclear arms in place, the unpredictability of nuclear sudden attack can be problematic and still raises tensions. As all of the nuclear-armed states have to maintain political unity to effectively confront the potential rule-breaker in the international stage for a nuclear-free world, the current relationship between great-power were far from this scenario. Thus any acquisition of nuclear weapons by new countries can be interpreted as a threat or an opportunity for their rivals to bolster their positions around the world, worsening international relations. 

Andrew, a first-year International Relations and Computer Science major:

From a general perspective, I believe the most convincing argument against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by new countries is the creation of even more tension and strain between  countries in the international system. In recent years a large amount of friction between countries has fostered  as a result of countries developing nuclear weapons. This in turn deters countries from cooperating with each other, which creates less economic dependency and less international cooperation which then further isolates states from one another and can lead to overall catastrophic effects.  

Alexandra, a PhD candidate at Fletcher:

Nuclear weapons are fundamentally a tool of state dominance and power and do not reflect a pathway to a safer more peaceful world. While it is often argued that they provide a modicum of global stability, the continued expansion of nuclear weapon possession would serve as an inherently destabilizing force in international politics and increases the likelihood of their use. Even if not deployed, the development and testing of nuclear weapons has devastating environmental and humanitarian effects including, but hardly limited to, widespread radioactive pollution and the diversion of vast amounts of public funding from provision of vital social goods to meet basic human needs. In other words, the development of  nuclear capabilities in the name of state security has an inverse relationship to the provision of human security and societal well-being.

Oxana Shevel, professor of Comparative Politics at Tufts and director of the International Relations program:

I think—especially in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine—that one argument in favor of acquiring  nuclear weapons is that it could be an effective deterrent against foreign invasion/attack. Ukraine used to have—but then voluntarily gave up—nuclear weapons, only to be invaded two decades later. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons perhaps it could have deterred Russia’s invasion. While we don’t know for a fact whether it would have played out this way in the Russia-Ukraine case, this may be the lesson many states will draw and in the future more may seek to acquire nuclear weapons as an insurance against conventional attack. 

Michael Beckley, professor of Political Science at Tufts:

Countries seek nuclear weapons to deter others from nuclear strikes, to deter conventional invasions of  their homeland, and for national prestige. In addition, some countries seek them to carry a nuclear blackmail, that is using nuclear threats in order to shield their own offensive operations. Putin‘s Russia is currently doing that, using veiled nuclear threats to scare NATO and  deterrent from helping Ukraine, while Russia invades the country.

Kelly Greenhill, professor of International Relations and security studies at Tufts:

Paradoxically, what may be wise for individual states is deeply problematic for the community of states in the international system. Why is this the case? The possession of nuclear weapons is eminently rational for individual states, as they are potent and effective deterrents against foreign aggression. In the aggregate, however, the more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely is it that they will be used, whether intentionally or accidentally; the higher the probability of other potentially catastrophic accidents involving these weapons; and, arguably, the higher the number of low-intensity conflicts and proxy wars, due to the stability-instability paradox, which posits that when two states each possess nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them radically declines, but the probability of minor or indirect conflicts between them correspondingly increases.

Zoe Raptis, Jake Pryor, and Hannah Cox are undergraduates studying Political Science at Tufts University. Zoe and Jake are sophomores while Hannah is a senior.

Image: Nuclear weapons test in Nevada in 1957 (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Flickr)

This piece is a reproduction from its original issue in Hemispheres vol. 47, no. 1.