Nuclear Deterrence Analysis

1034 Words 5 Pages
While there is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on mutually assured destruction (MAD) weapon as the result of international community to work on world peace and humanity justice, there is also a counter-argument on the necessary of MAD weapon such as nuclear weapon, which believes owning a nuclear weapon not only could protect one state itself, it also can promote peace, as no state could risk the possibility of destruction from the nuclear weapon. The justification of owning a nuclear weapon usually coined as the ‘nuclear deterrence strategy’ by the super powers. This assignment focuses on the nuclear deterrence strategy of United States (US), particularly its driven factors and development. In the later part, this assignment would also analyse the effectiveness of the strategy.

1.1 US’s Strategy of Nuclear Deterrence
The concept of nuclear deterrence strategy is not a classical concept, it is rather new, approximately the idea came about after the World War II (WWII). According to Johnson (1998), nuclear deterrence is a strategy of states that used to deter actions of armed forces of other states by having nuclear arsenals. It is notable the term ‘deter’, which is to prevent something unwanted action to be
…show more content…
This principle argues that all states have the right to self-defence by using nuclear weapons against other states’ attack (Harvey, 2012). From the perspective of US, it needs to stock up nuclear weapons to protect its own national interest, priority to the security ( Thus, it is impossible for the US to remove its nuclear weapons- owning a nuclear weapon has became the necessary as the super powers, in which United Kingdom (UK), Russia, France and China are possessing (The New Deterrent Working Group, 2009, pp. 1-10) (The Heritage Foundation, 2017). This situation is similar during the Colonial era of 17th to 19th century, where super powers were those who own a

Related Documents