Daniel O'Connor
As China increases its nuclear capacity and Russia continues to maintain ambiguity in relation to the possible employment of their nuclear arsenal, it becomes difficult to view nuclear weapons as tools of diplomacy rather than those of war. Nuclear weapons can rightly be viewed as the hardest element of hard power for any nation, but holding this view to the exclusion of all others is shortsighted. For sure, nuclear threats can hold populations, infrastructure, and even entire governments at risk – a fact long recognized by nuclear theorists. Those same nuclear theorists, from Brodie to Kahn, have tended to think in primarily realist terms. This view is not necessarily false, but it is incomplete. The world today is intertwined by worldwide information and economic networks. This makes nuclear weapons far from simply a bilateral issue. They are rather a complex network of relationships, competing goals, and sought outcomes.
But while the preceding makes a strong case for the superiority of hard power, this view completely ignores the important role of soft power and the various benefits it bestows on a nation seeking to convince others to emulate their example. This article seeks to make the argument that while nuclear weapons are a frightening specter and certainly an instrument of hard power, the way they are used by the United States currently forms the foundation of a strong source of soft power that works in concert with other American soft power sources. This soft power is a powerful tool that aids in the attainment of US strategic goals; most notably, deterring adversaries from aggression. This article further takes aim at the current theoretical paradigm for deterrence and culminates by proposing a more complete method for considering deterrence.
No comments:
Post a Comment