Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War

Abstract

A widely held and largely unchallenged view among many scholars and policymakers is that nuclear proliferation is the gravest threat facing the United States today, that it is more dangerous than ever, and that few meaningful lessons can be drawn from the nuclear history of a supposed simpler and more predictable period, the Cold War. This view, labeled “nuclear alarmism,” is based on four myths about the history of the nuclear age. First, today's nuclear threats are new and more dangerous than those of the past. Second, unlike today, nuclear weapons stabilized international politics during the Cold War, when in fact the record was mixed. The third myth conflates the history of the nuclear arms race with the geopolitical and ideological competition between the Soviet Union and the United States, creating an oversimplified and misguided portrayal of the Cold War. The final myth is that the Cold War bipolar military rivalry was the only force driving nuclear proliferation. A better understanding of this history, and, in particular, of how and why the international community escaped calamity during a far more dangerous time against ruthless and powerful adversaries, can produce more effective U.S. policies than those proposed by the nuclear alarmists.

Cold war ideology: The Rocky 4 movie

“…Nuclear arms race, stemming from ideological and geopolitical competition between the two states is one aspect of the technological clash used to unveil the conflict between capitalist USA and socialist USSR (Gavin, ‐2010, p. 7). Nuclear rivalry commenced following World War II on which Soviet Union needed scientific and technical staff to build the nation and plenty of human and physical capital were used for the establishment of the nuclear power program.…”

“…According to each of them, nuclear proliferation was the most serious threat to US security. This was also the case for John McCain, a Republican Presidential candidate, 4 years later, “No problem we face poses a greater threat to us and the world than nuclear proliferation.” Furthermore, Obama did not alter his views on nuclear proliferation and he said it is “the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront” (Gavin, ‐2010, p. 7).…”

The Nuclear (and the) Holocaust: Israel, Iran, and the Shadows of Auschwitz

“…On the one hand, Realists have admitted the fragility of the balance of power in the face not only of fanaticism in general, but of Hitler's fanaticism in particular: Kenneth Waltz, the father of structural realism, "laments" Churchill's inability to gain power earlier "for he understood" the danger Hitler embodied; leading game theorists Emersion Niou and Peter Oredshook "sympathize" with the view that "Hitler's personality" was more "critical to the outbreak of World War II" than "some breakdown in traditional balance-of-power forces;" 39 John Mueller exclaims that Hitler was single-handedly responsible for World War II, since "after World War I" he was "the only person left in Europe who was willing to risk another total war." 40 Yet on the other hand, Waltz also believes that a nuclear weapon would have deterred even Hitler, or at the very least, his generals; 41 game theory holds that conservative calculations will prevail, and that "the prospect" that Iran would "take actions…that could invite its own destruction" is therefore "highly unlikely;" 42 and Mueller has recently labeled Israeli comparisons between the Ayatollahs and the Nazis "extravagant," calling for a "calmer assessment" of Iran. 43 Whether or not these realist positions are empirically accurate, the chances that they will register with Israeli leadership are slim.…”

Engaging Adversaries: Myths and Realities in American Foreign Policy

“…Moreover, he had pursued an aggressive foreign policy before the atomic test. 59 The values argument is logical to a certain extent. States often demonise the 'other' and prefer not to have any relations, diplomatic or otherwise, with them-'otherness' in this context deriving from deviant, 'rogue' behaviour.…”