Waltz and Kahl debate based on current events
Kyle Lionetti
In 2012, Kenneth Waltz and Colin Kahl both produced separate articles on whether or not they believed that Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons, or if the United States, the EU, and Israel should continue to try and prevent them from doing so. Whether you agreed with Waltz (Iran should be allowed to get the bomb) or Kahl (Iran should not be able to get the bomb) from this reading, recent events in the world should change public opinion and shift everyone onto the side of Waltz.
In the past week, Russia has invaded their neighboring country of Ukraine and sent in a large invasion force to try and take the capital as well as many other important cities. As Vladimir Putin and Russia continue to send more troops into Ukraine, more sanctions have been placed on Russia to try and prevent them from succeeding in their military endeavors. Furthermore, the same countries that have placed sanctions on Russia have come to the aid of Ukraine. However, this aid does not mean that they will fight alongside the Ukrainian people, or that they will offer support from elsewhere, it means that they will send over weaponry and other goods to support the military already stationed in the country. Now as Ukraine faces destruction, people have to wonder, should Ukraine have given up its nuclear arsenal, and does this prove that Iraq should be able to keep theirs?
In 1991, when the Soviet Union disbanded, many countries were formed, one of them being Ukraine. Three years later, Ukraine accepted economic assistance from the United States to give up their nuclear arsenal and dismantle the weapons they possessed, while also handing over warheads to Russia. Now, nearly 30 years later, Russia has invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have the nuclear capability to fight back if it came to it. Although many people believe that nuclear weapons will not be used due to MAD (mutually assured destruction), could nuclear weapons have prevented this attack from happening? One of the main arguments from the Waltz reading was that nuclear weapons could be used to improve defenses. This can be seen in the article when he states, “Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself)” (Waltz 3). Here Waltz is stating that he believes that Iran would just use these nuclear weapons for their own national security, and not for the harm of others. Likewise, if Ukraine were to have kept their nuclear weapons, they would pose a much stronger threat to Russia than they do without them.
While it is impossible to tell what would have happened now, perhaps these nuclear weapons could have saved Ukraine from the destruction and death that is occurring in their country today. Based on these horrific world events, it is only fair to say that Waltz was probably the person who was right in this argument. Nuclear weapons are important in assuring the safety of a country, and while other countries claim that they are looking out for the world's interests, we can see from the example of Russia and Ukraine that a country can be betrayed after doing something they thought was noble. Therefore, both the United States and Israel should not have a say in what happens in Iran, especially with their nuclear program, because the use of these weapons on other countries would only lead to their own destruction, and if Iran possesses nuclear weapons they can act as a deterrent.
I think that the discourse over nuclear weapons is difficult because it should be seen differently as other discussions over international relations, but it is often approached the same way. I do agree that the United States should not have had say in whether Ukraine had nuclear weapons because if they did then Russia would have been less likely to invade. The issue I see with the discussion of nuclear weapons, especially when the United States and Russia are involved is that I think if one of those two countries ever used a nuclear weapon on the other it would have a high chance of leading to the destruction of the entire planet. There has been plenty of research done about how the fallout of nuclear war would be an uninhabitable planet. Based on this, I think that if world leaders have any rationality they will never use nuclear weapons no matter what the circumstances are. Saying that, I do understand that Putin may not be acting with any rationality, but I still think there should never even be a discussion of using a nuclear weapon based on how many are out there.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument that if the US had not convinced Ukraine to get rid of their nuclear weapons the situation between Russia and Ukraine would be different right now is warranted. Although we cannot say for certain, I think Russia may have considered the possibility of Ukraine launching a nuclear strike on Russian soil if Russia invaded Ukraine. However, I don't really think that this situation between Russia and Ukraine really applies to Iran. For one, allowing Iran to have nukes would change the power structure in the Middle East. Similar to the possibility of Iraq having WMDs, this would change how much the US can get away with in the Middle East. For example, the US probably wouldn't have been able to kill General Soliemani in 2020 if Iran had a nuke. Furthermore, Ukraine is a representative democracy, while Iran is run by an autonomous theocrat. I think it would be extremely dangerous to allow a country, led by a dictator to have access to nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete