Nuclear politics and arms control

International Relations · Security, conflict and diplomacy. The idea in plain words, the rules to remember, the mistake to avoid and a worked example, written and checked by Mega Lecture.

Test this topic free All International Relations topics

The idea

Nuclear weapons changed strategy because their main use is to prevent war, not to fight it. Nuclear deterrence works when an attacker knows it will suffer unacceptable damage in return. For this, a state needs a secure second-strike capability: forces that survive a first strike and can still hit back.

When both sides have this, the result is mutual assured destruction (MAD). Neither can win, so neither has a reason to start.

Proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons. Horizontal proliferation means more states acquire them; vertical proliferation means existing arsenals grow. Arms control tries to limit and regulate weapons to keep stability. Disarmament goes further and aims to reduce or abolish them.

Rules to remember

Partial Test Ban Treaty, 1963: banned tests in the atmosphere, outer space and under water; underground tests allowed.
NPT: opened for signature 1968, in force 1970. Three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, peaceful use of nuclear energy.
NPT nuclear-weapon states (tested before 1 January 1967): USA, USSR (now Russia), UK, France, China. India, Pakistan and Israel never signed.
IAEA: applies safeguards on civil nuclear material.
SALT I, 1972: ABM Treaty and an Interim Agreement limiting strategic missile launchers. SALT II: signed 1979, never ratified by the US Senate.
START I: signed 1991; real cuts in strategic arsenals. New START: signed 2010.
CTBT, 1996: bans all nuclear explosions; it has not entered into force.

Common mistake

Students confuse SALT with START. SALT (1970s) put limits on the growth of strategic arms; START (from 1991) required actual reductions. Remember L for limitation and R for reduction.

Worked example

State X builds missile submarines that can stay hidden at sea for months. A student says this makes war more likely because X now has more weapons. Using deterrence theory, is the student right?

Hidden submarines are very hard to destroy in a surprise attack.
So X keeps the ability to strike back even after being hit first: a secure second-strike capability.
An opponent who cannot escape retaliation has no reason to strike first, so deterrence is stronger and the balance more stable.

Answer: No. In deterrence theory a secure second-strike force makes a first strike less likely, not more.

Ask about this

Type what you are stuck on. The helper finds the explanation, worked examples and the notes to read, free and instant.

Read the full notes

Keep going

← Balance of power, alliances and collective security War, terrorism, conflict resolution and diplomacy →Take a International Relations test