Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapon, which may cause national security threats against the United States, is a matter of much concern. The research addresses the following research question:
What are the national security reasons for the U.S. involvement and political strategy in discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China?
The research question is important to address because recent Chinese modernization of nuclear weapons may lead to act of aggression on the United States. With potential destructive nature of nuclear weapons, it is critical for the U.S. To formulate appropriate foreign policy in discouraging the implosion of nuclear war with China since U.S.-China relations have been cordial in the recent years. More importantly, the research question is important to address because of the growing competitions between the U.S. And China with relation to the nuclear weapon acquisitions because China is trying assuming position of nuclear parity with the United States.
What is the preliminary answer to the research question?
The study argues that the U.S. foreign nuclear policy position to China with reference to discouraging the implosion of a nuclear war with China may partially work since fundamental goal of China nuclear policy is achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Moreover, China aim on recent nuclear weapons modernization is to serve as deterrence in case the United States may decide to attack China in the future. Although, China remains firms to its policy of no first-use (NFU) of nuclear weapon, however, China approach to the ballistic missile defenses and Chinese view towards the strategic arm control demonstrate a significant gap between Beijing's word and its acts. Beijing NFU policy could be undermined if it is strategically advantageous for China to make use of nuclear weapon against potential adversaries. Although, economic interdependence between the U.S. And China may encourage both states to purse non-nuclear war conflict and discourage both states from the implosion of a nuclear war, however, Beijing nuclear armament continues to change and China intent is to achieve a state of nuclear parity with the United States.
With reference to the organizational framework, Section 1 provides the literatures review that discusses realism and idealism model. Section 2 reveals the case study. Section 3 provides the summary of the central findings of the study.
Restatement of the Problem Statement
A) the debate on the recent Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapon, which may cause national security threats against the United States, is a matter of much concern. The research addresses the following research question:
B) Organization of Literature Review
Part 1 reviews realism and Part 2 examines Idealism. Part 3 summarizes the findings.
PART 1: REALISM
The practice of realism in international relations starts as far back as several centuries. However, there is still a commonality between ancient state practice and modern thinking in international relations since it has been revealed that modern diplomacy is often based on the realist theory. Realists' thinkers include:
Hans J. Morgenthau of USA in 1950s
Thomas Hobbes during torn civil war in England.
Thucydides of Ancient Greece.
Machiavelli of (Medieval Italy.
Mao Tse Tung of Communist China.1
Sun Tzu of Ancient China.
All these realists have all concluded that realism guides the overall conduct of international relations. Realists base their ideas on power politics, which found its landscape in international politics, and they base their premises on the following important assumptions:
States are important actors in international politics.
Anarchic is the feature of international system
All states in international political system pursue power in order to survive.
Morality has no room in international politics. 2
Realists consider states to be the principal actor's international relations, and the states principally exist to pursuit their national interests and their national securities. 3.Typically, states demonstrate unethical behaviors and emphasize on power and self-interests when pursuing their national interests. 4. Realists argue that human beings are inherently self-interests and egoists, and there is absence of morality in international politics, 5 making the realists to believe that there is no place for morality in international politics.6. Cozette adds argument of realists by pointing out that,
"man being primarily driven by the lust for power, and man being the primary actor who, within a state, takes decisions, it logically follows that 'the essence of international politics is identical with its domestic counterpart. Both domestic and international politics are a struggle for power, modi-ed only by the different conditions under which this struggle takes place in the domestic and international spheres." 7.(P 431).
The theory of realism reveals that absence of international government makes human beings to be egoists and the factor leads to the conflict-based paradigms among states. Typically, realists believe power, security, and egoism become the main issues in international relations, there is a little place for morality, and if there is any moral practice at all, it is only used as an instrument to justify the state conduct. 8.However, there are realists who still believe that there is ethical practice in international relations. Carr challenges pure realism on the ground that there is a still an idealist dimension in international politics.9. Mearsheimer illustrates the argument of Carr by pointing out that states main preoccupation are their national securities and are only committed to amass weapons in order to deter the aggressors.10. Carr argues that states are preoccupied with power calculation and amassing the military ammunition to achieve supreme importance in international relations. However, Carr still maintains that there is still idealist dimension international politics.11.
For several decades, realism has been a dominated concept in international relations. From classical realism point-of-view, the behavior of states is the same, states often defend themselves in the absent of hierarchical international order leading states to defend their national interests.12. States exist to defend their interests and evidence of history reveals that statesmen pursue powers with the aim to pursue their interest. In the view of world politics, realism is driven by the competitive self-interests. 13.
In international relations, realism is placed in priority over ideology and it is often synonymous with power politics. 14.Costalli also contributes to the argument by pointing out that the classical realism is very useful in explaining the states foreign policy in term of pursing of economic and military power.15. States tries to perceive the behavior of other states with relative to power conflicts 16 and statesmen view power, as necessities, which should be, 17 maintain at all time. Classical realists further argue that the central concept of international politics is power, 18 and the level of power that a state possesses usually affects the state's strategy and it is the outcome of various military and economic conflicts. 20.
Despite the argument of classical realists with relation to the states behavior, the twentieth century classical realists attacked neo-classical realists on the ground that states ought to avoid power conflicts and respect the international law, and there is a need to build international order in order to prevent world conflict.21. The twentieth century realists believe that the cause of the First World War and Second World War was due to the pursue of power among nations, and the thinking of twentieth century realists gave birth to the idealism.22.
PART 2: IDEALISM
Idealism originated as far back as 14 century when Dante, an Italian poet envisaged unified world state. Idealist follows Dante doctrine by challenging realism in the sense that power politics pursued by the states led to the outbreak of the First World War. The theory of idealism emerged after the World War 1 and during 1920s and 1930s; idealists preached cooperation among states and believed that world should be in form of association where the international order should prevail in order to prevent another world conflict. 23. Idealists argue that the solution to the inter-state conflict is to respect international law, which should be backed by the international organizations. Idealists further believe that states could avoid conflicts if they choose to pursue common interests that could unite humanity.24. Unlike realism that argues that morality has no place in international relations, idealists focus on morality and believe that war emerge because of the imperfection of political arrangements and this could be improved by avoiding egoism in human nature.25. Idealists challenges realists on the ground that nation-states could move beyond power politics and significant cooperation and peace among states is the key assumption of idealists. While realists believed that states were the only important actors in international relations, however, idealists argued that the interdependence should be the dominant features of international politics and creation of republican government such as international organizations was critical to check the power of nation states.26.
To enhance cooperation within international political system, idealists focus on legal aspect of international relations leading to the formation of international organizations and promotion of human rights. Prominent proponent of idealism was Woodrow Wilson, a former president of the United States.27. Wilson had been influenced by the destruction of the American Civil war in 1856. Wilson was born in Virginia and graduated from Princeton University…