Nuclear Weapons and Authority

The attempted control of nuclear arms demonstrates some interesting features of modern authority and capacity to enforce authority.

The P5 + 1 maintains a “nuclear monopoly” and are even open to using coercive force to maintain it. (Gusterson) For example, many American were in favor of going to war to stop the Iraqi government from achieving nuclear capabilities. Gusterson suggests this was a factor in the US decision to enter the Gulf War.

The ownership of nuclear weapons in of itself illustrates the persistence of coercive force. Waltz offered a counterargument to the mainstream resistance towards developing countries gaining nuclear weapons. Waltz argued that nuclear proliferation could actually lead to more peace in the developing world due to nuclear proliferation. The concept of peace through nuclear deterrence sought by developing nations like Pakistan is a clear example of states using the threat of coercive force to achieve their relative goals even goals of peace.

Despite the increasing threats associated with having a short warning and decision time for launching a nuclear attack. Proliferation, continues as the US begins to target areas in China leading China to shorten its own warning and decision time for launching a nuclear attack. (Blair) Through the lens set up by Gusterson, Blair’s assessment of current trends regarding nuclear proliferation in spite of increased threats seems to demonstrate that state actors will rely on the threat of coercive force to secure themselves and achieve relative peace as opposed to relying on rational bargaining.

In fact, the more powerful member-states seem to try and use such institutions meant for rational bargaining to deter less powerful states (or the “other” as Gusterson refers to them) from increasing their own nuclear capabilities. One could argue that by doing this, powerful nations are able to maintain the degree of threat they can pose on the world in regard to their potential for coercive action. States that pose a greater threat will be able to influence weaker states with great ease. This sort of colonial aim was strongly suggested by Gusterson to be a motivation for the preservation of the “nuclear monopoly” as it exists today.

            Additionally, coercion seems to be developing into a major tool for non-state actors as well although at this point states still seem to hold greater influence in the international environment.  It does seem likely however that this will change as boarders slowly become more porous both through the development of technology and the emergence of Non state actors like MNC’s, NGO, and other IOs facilitating the process of globalization.  

            There is yet another development worth noting that was pointed out in the article on PSC’s. Some entities such as MNC’s and even State actors as we have seen are trying to utilize non-coercive techniques like rational bargaining in order to find lest costly ways to enforce their authority. However, whether or not this will result in a total change of methods for enforcing authority depends on the nature of the environment and how successful such methods can be.