| Nuclear weapons become one of the most significant and most recognizable inventions of the XX century. The influence nuclear weapons caused on world is tremendous. Interstate and international relations have also been challenged and changed by the nuclear weapons and possible devastative effect they can cause. Since1945, when2nuclear bombs were used at first (and to the present day the last) time by the US against Japan at the end of World War II, many countries were eager to possess such kind of a "wonder weapon". The fact of possession opened the door to "nuclear club" of superpowers, which were able to decide and control almost all of world affairs. Soviet Union was the second country to develop its own nuclear bomb. The first test was successfully conducted in1949. Great Britain tested its first bomb in1952. France-in1960. People’s Republic of China tested its own bomb in1964. To the present day nuclear club consists of the five countries, despite the fact that India, Pakistan and, possibly, Israel, and North Korea have developed their nuclear weapon systems and delivery systems.The situation now is that everybody in the world has already got used to the fact, that five countries in the world possess the nukes. International relations’ scholars (especially Realists) have written the piles of books about Balance of Power and the necessity of a country to be as powerful as possible to ensure its own security. The fact that, for example, Great Britain has nukes and, what is more important, that the nukes will protect the country from an external enemy’s invasion, is taken for granted by the majority of human population. It is widely agreed, that, in simple words, it is very good to obtain an "small red button".But in my essay I will dare to put in doubt the importance of nuclear weapons for Great Britain. My argument is that now the reason which makes the country to possess nuclear weapon does not entirely lie in the sphere of foreign policy, and one of the very important factors of maintaining nuclear status of the country is the domestic costs which would be imposed on government in case of nuclear renouncement.First of all I should clear up the lack of Realist reasons for Great Britain to possess the nuclear weapons. Main reasons for a country to obtain nukes are the next: the nuke is the most powerful weapon of present times, it can help to protect country from any foreign threat due to deterrence effect The main goal of a country for Realist scholars is to guarantee its security on the international arena. It was widely assumed that the best way to reach the goal is to maximize state power and especially its economic and military components. But we can see that Great Britain is not alone in the world and it maintains "very special relations" with its the main ally, the United States of America. The obvious military presence of US in Europe and the proximity of British and US politicians’views can guarantee that in case of danger the US will protect Great Britain. In other words, the international security of Great Britain does not fully depend on its own power and therefore nuclear potential is not critically important.The next important theoretical assumption is so called "nuclear taboo". Simply speaking, nuclear country will not use its last resort if even there is a real hard need in it. The nuclear taboo refers to a de facto prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons. The taboo is not the behavior (of non-use) itself, but rather the normative belief about the behavior. A taboo is a particularly forceful kind of normative prohibition. The example of the United States’nuclear policy (or nuclear non-use policy) after the Second World War) was taken by Nina Tannenwald:while there was no normative opprobrium against nuclear weapon in1945and the bomb was successfully used, the taboo emerged later and Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War remained non-nuclear.In other words, set of norms and shared beliefs will very possible deter any Western country from using a nuclear weapon. It is doubtless that Great Britain and the US both are Western countries with the same set of "Western values" like democracy, human rights etc. The Great Britain shares the same attitude towards nuclear weapon as the US, and it means that the country obtains the weapon which will be never used.The next moment which should be cleared up is the modern understanding of state power, In the past state power was understood as a quantity of the soldiers it can mobilize and the amount of gold in the treasury. But now the concept of state power changed. David Baldwin argues that the close connection of military capabilities of the state to its power is not right:the proposition that military force is more effective than other power resources is both ambiguous and debatable. In the absence of clearly empirical evidences the proposition that force is more effective than other power bases has little, if any, meaning. All generalizations about power should be set in a context specifying (as a minimum) who is trying to get whom to do what, In some situations, force works very well, but in others it is actually counterproductive. As an empirical proposition, the idea that force dominates other means of power could be formulated as a hypothesis to be tested, but it does not deserve the status of an assumption.Consequently, the main justification for nuclear weapon’s possession, the nuclear deterrence concept, can be treated as a myth. The presence of nuclear weapon in Britain or in the US did not prevent either9/11or7/7event. Neither it stopped Argentina from assault of Falkland Islands in1982.But if the country has no Realist reasons for having nuclear power, where lays the reason? In my opinion the reason lies in the sphere of domestic policy. We know that governments in democratic countries are sensitive to public audience costs. In simple words since the democracy assumes democratically elected government, the government should be cautious about its perspectives on coming elections Audience costs are the punishments, in the form of lower support, meted out by domestic populations against leaders that make foreign threats but then ultimately back down. Voters punish leaders who back down for two related reasons. First, backing down harms the reputation of the state and the leader on the world stage, and second, leaders who back down are seen as less competent than those who carry out their threats.Here I have to make a correlation between the public audience costs’problem and the topic of my research. I state that public audience costs exist not only in the situation of international conflict. They can influence also the decision making at the sphere of internal affairs. Next, nowadays there are no pure internal and pure external decisions. Any change inside the country can change situation outside of it.(For example, domestic decision to reduce oil output taken by Saudi Arabia will doubtlessly have an international effect). Next, it is obvious, that unpopular decisions should have negative effect on the government future. And it is also obvious that today the decision to reject nuclear weapon will be seen by domestic audience as a mistake. Polls on attitude towards nuclear weaponry show, that the majority of population still is "pro-nuclear". As shows survey by IPSOS MORI the amounts of "pro-nuclear" group and "anti-nuclear" group are more or less equal, with slight majority of pro-nuclear group. But it is interesting, that pro-nuclear population decreased drastically. There has been a substantial drop since the1950s in overall support for using nuclear weapons against a country at war with the UK, according to new research from MORI.In1955, three-quarters of the British public—76%—said they would approve using a nuclear bomb against an enemy country that itself attacks the UK with nuclear weapons. This latest survey, for Greenpeace, shows that approval has now fallen to55%—with one in three (32%) saying they would disapprove of such an action. As we can see, still there is a significant part of domestic public which takes pro-nuclear position. It shows, that possible denounce will provoke audience’s disappointment and will endanger the future of a government which will take the decision.In sum the research shows that Britain can lean upon the US defense in the question of its securityBritain will not use the nuclear weapon it possess even in case of hard need due to its elite’s evaluation of the country itself as a western-valued democracyThe nuclear deterrent strategy is not as plausible as it was suggested to. Though the concept is rooted very deeply in the minds of people in nuclear power countries.At least one of the reasons which make the country to possess nuclear weaponry is the audience cost the government will face in case of rejection.The future of British nuclear deterrent is now in discussion. The recent economic crisis, possible Scotland independence and activity of anti-nuclear movements in Britain and worldwide may change the public opinion on question of maintaining nuclear status. And one of next government can face the domestic costs’ possibility in case of maintaining of nuclear status of the country. At a time when the non-proliferation regime is under severe pressure, Britain has a historic chance to provide leadership and influence the future direction of international security. The government needs to seize this opportunity to promote more effective strategies to reduce nuclear threats and create the conditions for nuclear weapons to be systematically eliminated worldwide. |
PDF Full Text Request