A Requiem For A Dream

Looking For A Safe Position on Nuclear Proliferation? Me Neither

There is no such thing as a tenable position on nuclear proliferation. One cannot defend either the pro or con position in the debate on nuclear proliferation.

Clearly, nuclear proliferation is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Any given country can either develop a nuclear program or not develop it. Similarly, all other countries have the same choice open to them. But for the sake of argument, assume that there are only two countries.

Clearly there are four choices between countries A and B. First, both A and B develops a nuclear program. Second, A develops a nuclear program while B does not. Third, B develops a nuclear program while A doesn't. Fourth, neither A or B has a nuclear program. There is only one rational choice in those four choices, and that is the last one with both countries being nuclear-free. In that situation, neither country is under the threat of the other, and each country can count on the fact that the other cannot strike. Clearly this is the best scenario because it ensures peace and avoids a large-scale nuclear war with heavy costs.

Yet to each country, there is no incentive to enter a contract with the other to outlaw proliferation. Instead, there is an incentive to cheat because if one country can develop a nuclear program without being detected, then it has strategic advantage over the other. Of course the other country thinks in the same way because it is rational as well. So in the end, the contract is voided, and both sides are now fully nuclear. The situation is no better than before with each country having the capability to wage nuclear war that very well can destroy both countries.

So what you end up getting is that as each individual acts rationally, the end result is one of irrationality. Instead of having peace, each individual, by acting rationally, has produced a potentially explosive situation where no one wins. Thus, the Prisoner's Dilemma.

So logically, it's inevitable, that if each country is given freedom to conduct its own policy, eventually every country will be fully nuclear-capable. But the real-life situation in contemporary international politics goes against this with only certain countries possessing nuclear-capabilities while other countries are forbidden to pursue nuclear-programs. This presents an uneasy status quo because it is every country's natural inclination to develop nuclear program from a strategic point of view.

Furthermore, this situation is hard to defend from a logical point of view. There is no real justification for why certain countries are allowed to have nuclear capabilites while others are not. The argument that certain super-powers will govern themselves and others to ensure world peace is a fallacious one because there is no real guarantee that these super-powers will not abuse their power. One might say that the UN functions as an oversight, but that function becomes a moot point if one realizes that members of the UN with real power--the Security Council--are the same countries that have nuclear capabilities. There is no guarantee that these countries will use their nuclear capabilities to overpower the rest of the world.

Therein lies the heart of the paradox: how can one enforce non-proliferation when the tool of that enforcement is the very thing that they are trying to ban? It is utterly incompatible and inconsistent that certain countries are allowed to have nuclear capabilities while others are not? Either every country has it or no country has it. Those two are the only logical conclusions.

But then we come back to our original state in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the only thing that is preventing the progression of full nuclear-proliferation by every country is the fact that certain countries are allowed to hold other countries in check through potential military threats. So as you can see, there really isn't a tenable position when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Banning proliferation completely will not solve the problem because one will always need an enforcer to execute the ban, yet in order to effectively enforce this ban, nuclear weapons are required. Letting every country develop nuclear proliferation is also untenable because it will create an extremely unstable, volatile mix that, once ignited, will quickly lead to the destruction of the human race.

Is it time to save up and build that nuclear shelter? Probably not, unless of course some countries decide to go psycho and push the button. That is the day when we'll stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

Posted by humanflyz at September 19, 2005 12:26 AM | TrackBack