In different countries all over the world, there are new and intensive efforts to strengthen (or achieve) new and better nuclear warfighting (or defensive) capabilities. This stands in striking opposition to at least the rhetoric of the first Obama administration, when the president (Potus) had declared that he was striving for a word free of nuclear weapons.
While this goal may be elusive (there is no technology so far that has been uninvented), the open and hidden efforts to achieve some access to a nuclear ‘button’ (the bigger the better) are now particularly intense. The U.S. is investing in modernization programs in the triple billion dollar range. New weapons and strategies are in the making in China and Russia. Iran and North Korea are trying to join the club, which may be followed by similar policies by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt and Turkey, as well as possibly Indonesia. India and Pakistan, Israel, the UK and France also are members of the club (though only five of all of them are also permanent members of the Security Council).
This week’s question is: Are we seeing here a ‘normal’ additional round of a competitive arms race, or does this indicate a new quality of insecurity on a broader scale? Do new weapons and warheads narrow the classical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons? Is the danger of accidental launch growing? Has the Doomsday Clock’s hand rightly moved closer to midnight?
– Klaus Segbers
We should search our answers in North Korea’s tests of A-bombs and United States’ reactions to it. Thanks to Trump’s foreign policy, North Korea could have extended the range of threat to U.S borders which means that now the number one target is not U.S allies such as Japan but the United States itself.
These events transmit negative signals to U.S allies and other countries that the unipolar order, which has formed by the United States, will not have proper function in near future and U.S.A can no longer provide this global public good (Security). Therefore, it would be a rational choice for each country to strengthen its capabilities for times of need.
It is a critical point to consider that the U.S.A started this (nuclear) arms race in order to regain its reputation. In the case of North Korea, all that observers saw was a power vacuum in global political games.
All things considered, It is a normal tendency that all countries see their optimal condition in joining the Nuclear Club. The topics like accidental launch probably seemed scary during the Cold War epoch but they do not have use in contemporary era. All parties are well aware of the outcomes of WMD and they are all concerned about the scope of the destructions. Consequently, the driving force behind the efforts of joining the Nuclear Club is improving deterrence and gaining psychological security.
I do not think that the doomsday clock's is closer to the world due to two main reasons. firstly, states has just remind how important of economic sector is after the collapse of Soviet Union which fail down in 1991. They tend to prioritize the economic. They clearly know that how all those weapons, both conventional and nuclear, destructive to their own countries. This era is a economic competition; it is about economic power not military power though they have to strengthen capacity of weapon. Here, it led to the second reason. Even though states focus on economic sector, conventional and nuclear weapon are still a significant factor in term of balancing of power. States have to balance their power to one another because it is the only mean that no other states can threat to them. According to the power theory, the powerful states would threat or enforce the weaker states. This is the nature of power. So does all those states. This is the reason that sates have to strengthen the weapons, though they might not use it. Nuclear weapon can be only just an objective for the states to threat to one another because it is too destructive to use. For instance, the Unites States and North Korea. Both states are obtaining nuclear, yet they attempt not to use in reality. On the contrary, we can see that North Korea tested its nuclear in order to show off its muscle to the United States. This is how they use weapons as a cornerstone to threat other states. To sum up, the condition that states strengthen their weapons is the way they attempt to balance their power.
I think this is the normal additional round of the arm race. In the world that's uncertain, anarchy and has no world government. It's a normal thing for state to do in order to protect their interest. The arm race between the superpower is not new, but the new thing is the actors. In the past there was an arm race between US and USSR while in these days we see some emerging power such as China or India is also developing its own military because they are far behind the United State. The balance of power between those actors in the world politic by arm racing actually ensure peace because when one has the same capacity as the other, it's hard for them to go to war with each other because they will face destruction. Regarding with nuclear weapon it's unlikely that those countries will use it although they are able to has it because the this kin dog weapon is not created to be use but instead it was created to deter each other like in the case of Cuban's Missile Crisis. The world is not in danger but things that there are many actors that are involve now which make thing become more complicated.
The issue of modernisation and technological advances in warfare and weapon technology raises some more interesting aspects worth debating here: the question of ethics and responsibility. When we look at current developments, e.g. gloves that can turn semi-automatic guns into fully automatic weapons which are available on the US market or general discussions on unmanned drones or the robotisation of weapons systems, it seems to me that human beings in charge of these weapons miss out on ethics. A lot. What justifies any random person in the United States, eligible to buy and possess a weapon (for self-defence apparently - problematic in the first place!) to turn it into an automatic one? What other purpose than butchering people can this possibly serve? Equally, if we consider the increasing number of unmanned drones or development of robots that can potentially be used to conduct warfare - we make these systems prone to be hijacked by people otherwise not authorised to use them and vulnerable to causing a great deal of harm to humankind. We not only give up the possibility of tracing who is responsible for ending human lives (e.g. who takes the decision? Who programmes the systems and what happens if errors occur? How are targets being selected?), we also lower the threshold of seeing 'targets' no longer as human beings. I suggest every human life is equally worth being preserved and argue strongly against new developments of war technology and weapons systems.
From my perspective, the current nuclear non-proliferation system is confronted with serious threats mainly posed by the United States. In the future, the danger of the spread of mass destruction weapons will rise. Firstly, United States broke the balance with China and Russia. Bush Administration withdrew from ABM. The deployment of THAAD deteriorated the security situation on the Korean peninsula. Because this anti-missile system is capable of monitoring the trajectory of missile in north China. These actions destabilize the security situation. In addition, the Nuclear Posture Review of Trump Administration planned to strengthen U.S. nuclear superiority over China and Russia. All in all, U.S. actions have undermined the foundation of global nuclear balance system. In the year of 2018, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met with president of United States Donald Trump. We can look through the official joint statement of Kim-Trump summit. The statement says: President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But that North Korea will abandon nuclear weapons is different from the denuclearization of Korean Peninsula.US is not willing to cancel its nuclear strike forces on the peninsula. North Korea conducted several unclear tests but now US agrees to provide North Korea with security guarantees. How about Iran? Iran followed the US but now president Trump renounces the multilateral agreement on Iranian nuclear issue. We will see that many countries would recover their nuclear plans due to US swing policy. With the advancement of new weapons, great power can easily launch a war with lower cost. For instance, US can use drones to kill innocent people in remote Afghanistan. On the contrary, small powers hardly have the ability to defend themselves. Meanwhile, terrorists and religious extremists may acquire these technologies and use them to attack targets. The global system will face ascending uncertainties.