Proliferation: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: As states grow wealthier, they are assumed, in realist foreign policy theory, to desire to '''proliferation''' their military "hard power" through the quantita...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Given advanced technology can be a great equalizer, Samuel Huntington considers it another dimension of the "clash of civilizations:" "Weapons proliferation is where the Confucian-Islamic connection has been the most extensive and most concrete, with China playing the central role in the transfer of both conventional and nonconventional weapons to many Islamic states."<ref>Huntington, ''The Clash of Civilizations'', p. 188</ref> | Given advanced technology can be a great equalizer, Samuel Huntington considers it another dimension of the "clash of civilizations:" "Weapons proliferation is where the Confucian-Islamic connection has been the most extensive and most concrete, with China playing the central role in the transfer of both conventional and nonconventional weapons to many Islamic states."<ref>Huntington, ''The Clash of Civilizations'', p. 188</ref> | ||
==Weapons of mass destruction | ==Weapons of mass destruction== | ||
During the 2004 US Presidential election, both sides pointed to nuclear proliferation as the most important global threat. <ref name=Katz> | During the 2004 US Presidential election, both sides pointed to nuclear proliferation as the most important global threat. <ref name=Katz-Nuc> | ||
{{citation | {{citation | ||
| title =The State Of Weapons Proliferation In 2004 | | title =The State Of Weapons Proliferation In 2004 | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| date = December 29, 2005 | | date = December 29, 2005 | ||
| contribution = Part 1 - Nuclear | | contribution = Part 1 - Nuclear | ||
| journal = Space Daily}}<ref>. "The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - all possess nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan and Israel have them as well." North Korea is trying to get them, and it was a priority for Iraq. | | journal = Space Daily}}</ref>. "The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - all possess nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan and Israel have them as well." North Korea is trying to get them, and it was a priority for Iraq. | ||
==Conventional== | |||
[[Mine (land warfare)|antipersonnel land mines]] are a cheap method of increasing power, although without much concern for long-term effects. While advanced countries possibly could build land mines that will automatically render themselves safe after a defined period, the world community will not trust that, especially when it is so simple to make unsophisticated mines. Mine proliferation is addressed by the [[Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction]]. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 01:49, 3 August 2009
As states grow wealthier, they are assumed, in realist foreign policy theory, to desire to proliferation their military "hard power" through the quantitative and qualitative acquisition of weapons. [1] Already well-armed states may seek counterproliferation. Nowhere is this struggle more obvious than where weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are involved.
It had long been an assumption that "quantity is its own quality", and sheer productivity could adequately proliferate conventional weapons. A German officer in the Second World War is said to have commented "we ran out of tanks before you ran out of shells." With precision-guided munitions as well as WMD, however, quantity alone may be insufficient. Before air-delivered weapons became as accurate as they are today, planners asked how many sorties (i.e., flights of single aircraft) it would take to destroy a target; today, planners ask how many targets can be destroyed by a sortie.
Given advanced technology can be a great equalizer, Samuel Huntington considers it another dimension of the "clash of civilizations:" "Weapons proliferation is where the Confucian-Islamic connection has been the most extensive and most concrete, with China playing the central role in the transfer of both conventional and nonconventional weapons to many Islamic states."[2]
Weapons of mass destruction
During the 2004 US Presidential election, both sides pointed to nuclear proliferation as the most important global threat. [3]. "The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - all possess nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan and Israel have them as well." North Korea is trying to get them, and it was a priority for Iraq.
Conventional
antipersonnel land mines are a cheap method of increasing power, although without much concern for long-term effects. While advanced countries possibly could build land mines that will automatically render themselves safe after a defined period, the world community will not trust that, especially when it is so simple to make unsophisticated mines. Mine proliferation is addressed by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.
References
- ↑ Samuel P. Huntington (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. ,p. 186
- ↑ Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, p. 188
- ↑ Amy Katz (December 29, 2005), Part 1 - Nuclear, "The State Of Weapons Proliferation In 2004", Space Daily