Humanity has come to believe that we live in an ever-hostile world. Where one has to continually live under the unavoidable threats of terrorism, climate-change and nuclear proliferation. It has become a paranoia that wanders in the back of our minds. This idea has quickly become the cultural and scientific norm such that researchers who had participated in the creation of the Manhattan Project, called the Chicago Atomic Scientists1 created the doomsday clock which places humanity at 23:58 where midnight is the end of civilisation. The belief that further nuclear proliferation only further pushes us to our destruction is an idea firmly ingrained in our society such that any objection of it met with immediate ridicule. The late president Ronald Reagan himself said:
‘I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.’2
Ronald Reagan has become one of the most celebrated US presidents in modern history. His attitude towards nuclear weapons and the USSR was simple and popular. He believed that nuclear weapons were a force of evil and therefore the stockpiling and creation of them was also evil. After all, his policy turned out to be an extraordinary success. Under his presidency, the GDP of the USA almost doubled and grew from $3.211 trillions to $5.658 trillions3, he also pushed for the fall of the Berlin wall4 and oversaw the collapse of the only other world superpower – the USSR.
With regards to nuclear weaponry, Ronald Reagan was wrong. The increase in the number of nuclear weapons does not make the world less safe, but safer. This notion may seem preposterous, as if it is a denial of common logic and reason. However, the reality is the opposite; it is the purest form of logic, and it is solely on the basis of logic that this notion will be argued. Moreover, not only are nuclear bombs the pacifist’s best weapon, but nuclear bombs have had an active role in the prevention of war and the de-escalation of crises. Without the invention of nuclear bombs, ironically, that aforementioned doomsday clock seems much more realistic, if civilisation would exist at all at this point in time.
In order to understand how nuclear weapons prevents wars, one must understand the conditions which allow wars to exist. There are two basic conditions which must be satisfied in order for a war to take place:
1. A reason to wage war
2. The belief that this potential war can be won
All wars that have ever occurred in human history have met these conditions. These two conditions seem obvious, but they are fundamental in the understanding of the argument. The first condition is that a country must have a reason to wage war. No war is fought without a given reason; this is obvious. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was fought under the pretence of the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and WWI was fought because of the Franz Ferdinand’s assassinations. All wars have a cause. Secondly, the warring party must believe that their country can win the war they are about to declare. The Taiwanese hate the socialist Chinese government but they cannot declare war because of their inability to win such a war.
On December 7th 1941, The Empire of Japan attacked the US naval and air base of Pearl Harbour. This attack is relevant to this discussion as many believe that the Japanese knew or would know that the attack was bound to fail, leading some to conspire that the attack was staged by then American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt5. Even the Japanese Marshal Admiral and commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet Isoroku Yamamoto repeatedly said he feared the USA, and thought that bringing her into the war would be a mistake; he famously called America the ‘sleeping giant.6’ Though, this is not the case, and thus, the second rule is not broken. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour failed due to poor execution and luck. Yau Chiam, who did his MA thesis on USN carriers, says ‘The Japanese plan was to sink the American carriers at Pearl Harbour and to gain a superior advantage over them for the next few years.7’ This idea that the Japanese objective was to deal a fatal sucker punch through the destruction of America’s carriers is echoed throughout the historical community8. The plan had failed for many reasons but the principle flaw was the of date. Despite the good weather, the primary targets which were the American aircraft carriers were out at sea. Marko Lo Porto, who currently works at Pearl Harbour says:
‘A major flaw with the choice of that date, however, was that some of the highest-value targets—the American aircraft carriers—were absent from the Pearl Harbour.’9
Japan did know, however, that if the attack were to fail, then American intervention would see the end to Japanese imperialism due to the economic and industrial prowess of the USA10. With this, it is clear that the initial belief in the success of the operation was present and that perhaps it would have been successful if certain conditions were different. Nevertheless, my defined second condition of war still holds true.
I previously mentioned that Taiwan could not attack the People’s Republic of China because they know that they could not win such a war. The opposite is also true, China could not attack Taiwan because it would be unwinnable. At first, this seems like a logical contradiction. If Taiwan would lose a war against China it necessarily means that China must be able to win against Taiwan. The reason why China could not crush Taiwan is because of the two countries have differing definitions on the word ‘win.’ The Chinese military is far superior to that of Taiwan’s. If their only goal was the destruction of Taiwan than that could be easily achieved with the power of their nuclear arsenal. However, there would be heavy economic and diplomatic ramifications which would make the war an overall loss. Sanctions would be immediately imposed on China magnitudes stronger than the ones strangling the Russian economy11 due to their intervention in Ukraine and absorption of Crimea in 2014. In this scenario, parity has been achieved as the military imbalance between the two countries has been nullified.
Two nations are in a state in which war between the two becomes impossible because it would result in a loss on either side. The importance of parity is a concept that has occupied the minds of politicians during the prelude to war. Achieving military is the dream that nations seek to preserve peace with their neighbours when the first condition for war is satisfied. Sir Winston Churchill understood this concept and expressed his anger with the British government when the UK lost air parity with Hitler’s Germany. His concerns were expressed in his book, ‘The Second World War:’
‘A disaster of the first magnitude had fallen upon us. Hitler had already obtained parity with Great Britain … Moreover, we will never catch up; or at any rate the government did not catch up.’12
Parity between nations is probably the most important concept for the argument. People like to assume that the following a policy of disarmament will lead to peace. Certainly, the British, French and American governments thought so during the 1920’s and 30’s13. Counter-intuitively, this is because of their desire to achieve parity with the militarily crippled Germany bound to 100,000 men by the Treaty of Versailles. However, upon Hitler’s chancellery and his vows to rearm and break the treaty, German military predominance was almost inevitable14.
The mass arming of a nation comes when a country has a reason to go war – the meeting of the first condition of war. When there is a reason to go to war the desire to achieve military predominance is the natural consequence. It becomes to prime objection of the other nation to achieve parity at any cost, whether it be military, diplomatic or economic parity. If the second condition is met, then war is then the natural consequence. From this we can conclude two solutions to end all wars in the future – one of which is unfeasible. The unfeasible solution is the riddance of any reason to go to war. Diplomatic tensions and crises between powerful countries would not be possible in this peaceful utopia. This solution is impossible to achieve in the near or even far future. It is only possible once the future enters the realm of pure speculation. The second solution is having complete parity with nations whom have the reason the declare war.
The current status quo is that parity for the prevention of war is purely in the empirical domain. In fact, Power Transition Theory asserts the exact opposite. A.F.K Organski, professor of political science at the University of Michigan argues that:
‘An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations.’15
Organski uses empirical evidence to show that upon examining relationships and disputes between nations, they found that countries who were more or less equal in power were more roughly twice as likely to declare war16. However, these disputes were all taken before 1914. An important distinction to make is that the almost immediate change in warfare before and after 1914. War before 1914 was a chivalrous undertaking. James IV announced his invasion of the England one months prior to his attack and the two parties agreed the location of the battle16. The very definition of war changed after The Great War. We cannot simply look at pre-modern wars with eh same lens and perspective as we do modern wars. Organski’s empirical evidence is only sufficient in the argument of the unimportance of parity in wars before WWI. This not derail this argument as we know that nuclear bombs were invented in the 1940’s.
Without the proper understanding how wars culminate, it becomes impossible to fully comprehend the argument of this essay. In essence, the most vital part to achieving permanent peace in the fulfilment of complete parity against potential aggressors. With this, the second condition for the creation of war becomes unattainable. The reality is nothing but a shame, that society cannot exist without necessitating mass militarisation. But a necessity it will remain. As a global society, it is impossible for us to come to an agreement to the complete destruction of all heavy armaments only because we are capable of producing them. An analogy would be the war on drugs. A complete ban on drugs which were deemed harmful to one’s body did not stop the consumption of them, rather, it only magnified its danger. The so wishful solution in which there would be no reason to declare and consequently no reason to have armaments is simply intangible.