The lose-lose situation – nuclear weapons

POV: Nuclear Armament Is a Lose/Lose Even unused, nuclear weapons damage the lives of millions BU Today, 10.09.2013 By Neal Leavitt Amartya Sen is a Nobel Prize–winning economist and philosopher who is best known for his writings on famine and human development. His approach to the broader questions of foreign policy—including his commitment to nuclear disarmament—have not received as much attention, but they should.

In his essay “India and the Bomb,” Sen notes that military spending does not occur in a vacuum. A nation cannot increase spending on its armed forces and expect no response. Instead, one nation’s decision to increase its military spending will affect its neighbors. “Why,” these other heads of state might wonder, “is my neighbor developing or purchasing incredibly lethal arms? What is my neighbor planning to do with these new capabilities?” And if these persons are sufficiently alarmed, they might direct more resources to their own armed forces. The development or purchase of weapons in one country can have a cascading effect.

The key insight of Sen’s foreign policy lies here. In Sen’s words, one must take “into account the responses from others that would be generated by one’s pursuit of military strength.” Escalating actions almost inevitably lead to escalating “counteractions,” he says. This is not just an abstract and theoretical claim. Sen describes how the conflict between India and Pakistan morphed into a potential nuclear catastrophe through each nation’s commitment to a nuclear weapons program. Sen also discusses the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when the Soviet Union and the United States came very close to ending human life.

There is nothing theoretical about these events. But the problem is not limited to the destructive potential of arms races in general—or nuclear weapons proliferation in particular. Sen also notes that a government must divert a large amount of society’s resources away from other vitally important social goals to construct “the bomb.”……

How much money has the United States spent on its nuclear weapons program since its inception? Or Russia? Or the other nuclear powers of the world? Or the states that might be seeking, but do not yet possess, nuclear weapons? And what opportunities have been lost because of these commitments? The answer to these questions is clearly: way too much. A program of nuclear disarmament—coupled with the redirection of this spending to global development goals, such as mandatory, universal primary schooling—clearly has a lot going for it. A less militaristic foreign policy can accomplish much. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/pov-nuclear-armament-is-a-lose-lose/

October 10, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general

2 Comments »

It is true at the very outset that nuclear weapons are actually put states in to lose/lose situation mainly because of destructive characteristic. But the other vital highlighted point is very important that one states policies or spending on defence sector also tuned the other neighboring state to follow the same suit. This we can’t call as a spillover effect like the instability of Afghanistan has a wider impact on south Asian instability. In the India Pakistan case, things are very concretely obvious since day one. Their relationship revolves around the tit for tat strategy. But the offensiveness of India remains very dominating. If we take India’s military modernization, big defence budget, nuclear cooperation, Cold Start Doctrine and other related things are viewed primarily for Indian sake. But all these things created insecurities in other neighboring states also. The nuclear & missile developments are mainly done after India provided the stimulus. The arms race and proliferation of weapons are the result of India’s hostile expansionist ambitions which make the security of the whole region vulnerable and at risk.

Comment by yusraa2013 | October 10, 2013 | Reply
the author has very well described the lose/lose situation among states regarding nuclear weapons. It is also a fact that nuclear weaons have been introduces for the sake of providing deterrence capability to the states but in case of South asia, the two major rivals have been involoved in short term crisis. India on one hand is increasing its defnse budget on annual basis, making massive developments by testing missiles. signing deals, borrowing nuclear submarines from other countries, thus putting Pakistan’s national interest at stake and making it to follow the suit. Obviously, Pakistan will follow the suit when it would get threatened by the massive developments of its neighbour.

Comment by Adina | October 10, 2013 | Reply