Nuclear Deterrence Theory

1953 Words 8 Pages
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, all three ended as stalemate. Neither side …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