• Home Page
  • Pluto And Saturn: The Cause Of War

Pluto And Saturn: The Cause Of War

Superior Essays
Show More
We can look back at the history of the two nation’s disputes. They have had issues based on the sought after territory for centuries, but up to this point, they have not gone to war. In all the years of the border disputes, only three times the two have actually taken military action. In 2007, 2011, and 2014 one of the two have used military force and caused military disputes. All three concluded as stalemate. While Pluto and Saturn both have motives and fit the criteria based on Vasquez’s research, it is unlikely the two go to war. They have had this disagreement for a long time and to this point still are yet to have a war. Throughout the entire disagreement, they have only used military force three times, and like stated above, …show more content…
Both found very similar results. (Mitchell, Vasquez, 2014, pg. 8) It was found that dyad and two state wars occurred mostly between states with an equal power base. This is more evidence that shows these two nations will not engage in war. These studies show that the dyad will not engage in war. However, they may engage in an armed conflict that will not escalate to war. Saturn would be unwise to draw itself in a war with Pluto it is guaranteed to lose. “States that are radically different in power should not engage in war because the clearly weaker side would not be so foolish as to initiate or allow itself to be drawn into a war it cannot win.” (Mitchell, Vasquez, 2014, pg. 7) Power parity causes peace not war, and contributes to our findings that Saturn and Pluto will not go to war when considering these state’s …show more content…
According to Schelling there are different types of deterrence, general, extended, etc., but the one we are most focused on is nuclear deterrence (Schelling). Nuclear deterrence focuses on how nuclear weapons raise the cost of war to unacceptably high measures, which falls right in line with Waltz’s neorealist ideals. This would entice countries to avoid the risk of the usage of nuclear weapons. Of course this only is a viable option to avoid war if the states had nuclear weapons and had demonstrated a willingness to use the weapons. Pluto and Saturn are not seeking to develop nuclear capabilities, which, according to nuclear deterrence and Waltz, this leaves the door open for interstate war (Waltz). However, nuclear deterrence is not always favored. Those who oppose nuclear deterrence believe that nuclear weapons can increase the chances of regional war or destruction, that newly proliferating states are less or simply differently rational than old proliferators, and that the risk for preventative war spikes when one state tries to become a nuclear

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Arguments Against Nuclear War
    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Arguments Against Nuclear War

    There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives.…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Nuclear Weapons During The Cold War Essay
    • 1053 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Nuclear Weapons During The Cold War Essay

    Mutually assured destruction prevented an outbreak of nuclear warfare during the Cold War. The stance against the employment of nuclear weapons arose from shifting norms in international society, as states were prompted to dedicate themselves to preventative war. Additionally, it was challenged whether the enormously devastating impact of nuclear weapons was ethically sound and whether it could be effectively used militarily. The notion that there was no winner to a nuclear war, however, predominately restricted states from resorting to nuclear warfare. The was no nuclear conflict in the Cold War because of mutually assured destruction.…

    • 1053 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Iran Should Get The Bomb Analysis
    • 1015 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Iran Should Get The Bomb Analysis

    Kenneth Waltz presents an interesting argument in his article titled, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability”. Waltz reexamines the prominent debate of either dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons or allowing it do so. He uses a neo-realist point of view to convince the audience that a nuclear Iran is essential in creating stability in the Middle East. Waltz firmly believes the danger of nuclear Iran to be “grossly exaggerated” and introduces the benefits of having another state in the Middle East with nuclear capabilities (p. 4). Through a variety of counterarguments, this critique will challenge aspects of Waltz’s claim of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons.…

    • 1015 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Nuclear Proliferation Research Paper
    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Nuclear Proliferation Research Paper

    If one were to decide whether proliferation should occur simply from this information, the only rational choice would be to oppose the negative consequences. However, preventing proliferation undermines the powers of other nations. The prohibition of procurement or development of nuclear weapons for some countries, and the acceptance of stockpiling of nuclear arsenal for other countries cannot be justified. Furthermore, democratic nations such as the United States guarantee equality and liberty to their citizens, but hypocritically prevent other nations from developing nuclear arsenal that they themselves enjoy. In addition to reaping economic advantages and increased influence in international politics, these countries, through the development of nuclear weapons, will also gain a sense of security that they will be able to retaliate if attacked.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Pros And Cons Of Nukes
    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Pros And Cons Of Nukes

    But of course, some people argue that a world with nuclear weapons would lead to World War 3. And if the last war was any indication, the US would need a tremendous one up against the enemy in order to prevail again. A big thing in the last World War though, was the unruly civilian deaths. But according to Stratfor Global Intelligence, low yield nuclear weapons exist and if the conflict comes to a stage of requiring nukes, these low yield weapons will solely hit the target and minimize civilian death. It would not be as fatal as Hiroshima.…

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Arguments Against Preemptive Strikes
    • 2568 Words
    • 11 Pages

    Arguments Against Preemptive Strikes

    Sanctions according to the former US president Woodrow Wilson is a "peaceful, silent, [and] deadly remedy" and currently there are sanctions placed on North Korea. Critics can say that this deters North Korea from building weapons of mass destruction thus illustrating how it is not necessary to ever use preemptive strikes. The problem with this is first, sanctions placed on states that sponsor terrorism are ineffective . This is because sanctions are not used to change the mind of a foreign government, rather they are used to please the domestic outcry for action . Secondly, for terrorist groups, there are often extremist and to them, it is often a total war or a divine conflict where they are on a mission to change the world for the better…

    • 2568 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Arguments Against Nuclear Deterrence
    • 2839 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Arguments Against Nuclear Deterrence

    Why are nuclear weapons tolerated given their overwhelming destructive power? This has been justified by the theory of nuclear deterrence. This theory hypothesizes that if a nation armed with nuclear weapons threatens nuclear retaliation, other countries will refrain from initiating a military attack. It began its life after Hiroshima as the threat to destroy cities. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence preserved the peace between the two great powers by making the resort to a nuclear war irrational.…

    • 2839 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    What Is The Theme Of The Seventh Decade By Martin Schell
    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages

    What Is The Theme Of The Seventh Decade By Martin Schell

    He creates a scenario stating that if the USA and Russia were disarming that would lead to the disarmament of China’s Nuclear weapons, that would influence India to do the same, and that would lead to Pakistan disarming. Then there would be a whole international push to abolish nuclear weapons, and this would happen because there would be no cause to rebel against the double standard anymore (Schell, p.215). I find this argument to be somewhat naïve of him, because I find it hard to believe even if the major powers do disarm there would be even more influence for a smaller developing country that has been oppressed by these great powers to obtain nuclear weapons to make themselves a powerful global force. His counter argument to that point is that the previous possessors of nuclear weapons have the know how to create them and could do so quickly, and this effect would deter the “cheater nations” to build them (Schell, p.218). Yet by the time the time the rest of the world reacts to the cheater nation could be possibly too late.…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Nuclear Proliferation Pros And Cons
    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Nuclear Proliferation Pros And Cons

    While deterrent strategies have proven successful, especially during the Cold War, the recent emergence of international terrorist organizations reveals a major flaw of the deterrence theory. It cannot be assumed that terrorists will worry about the negative consequences they will suffer if they bomb another country with nuclear weapons; on the contrary, it is not unsafe to assume that they will readily bomb other countries to instigate terror in people. Therefore, it is irrefutable that extreme measures need to be taken to prevent terrorist organizations laying hands on these weapons. The proliferation of nuclear technology or weapons to countries with high terrorist activity is thus highly risky. If proliferation to Iran is successful, “the likelihood that…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Arsenal
    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Arsenal

    Well there are lots of pros and cons to both sides of this argument. Some say one day nuclear weapons will be our demise, and others say nuclear weapons are the only reason we are still safe from nuclear war today. People that feel we should keep our nuclear arsenal make the arguments of nuclear weapons give the U.S a fear factor, or edge over other nations ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 5 ).…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2023 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  CA Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings