by Tim Schlueter

Created on: November 24, 2009

A Nuclear Response

The Cold War was the cause of much fear and controversy. The issues related to the use of nuclear weapons spawned many debates among professionals. Two such professionals are Robert Jervis and John Mueller, who wrote The Utility of Nuclear Deterrence (Jervis, 1988) and The Obsolescence of War in the Modern Industrialized World (Mueller, 1988). Each author argues whether or not the existence of nuclear weapons became and still is a deterrent to war. Jervis and Mueller disagree with each other on this topic. However, I believe that one author's argument is more persuasive then the other and that without nuclear weapons our world would be far more violent than it is now.

John Mueller believes that nuclear weapons are "essentially irrelevant" when attempting to explain the lack of a major war is the post-WWII era. He states; "To assert that the ominous presence of nuclear weapons has prevented a war between the two power blocs, one must assume that there would have been a war had these weapons not existed" (188). There is no solid evidence that would allow us to say that there would have been war without nuclear weapons, and there never will be. Mueller goes on to give several reasons why war was impossible in the post war era, regardless of there being nuclear weapons. He suggests that the mere memory of World Wars I and II would have been enough of a deterrent. War had already ravaged Europe twice and killed some 50 million throughout the world. Mueller then states that the victors of WWII became the only the only powers capable of starting another world war. The United States emerged from WWII with a booming economy and the Soviet Union was finally satisfied with their territorial gains. Also, the rapid escalation of the first and second world wars suggests that a third would behave in much the same way. The major powers content as they were would not risk such a costly decision. Both countries were content and had no need for war. The very ideology of Soviet communism was a deterrent of war. Although they wished to spread their doctrine, the preferred method to do so encouraged "revolutionary procedures over major war" (189). Mueller concludes his arguments by summarizing his points into the concept of "stability." He believes that a major war, nuclear or not, was not in the best interests of the "essentially contented, risk-averse, escalation-anticipating powers that have dominated world affairs since 1945" (194). John Mueller strongly

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>