Nuclear War or Nuclear Incident: The Conflict Between Man

Nuclear War or Nuclear Incident: The Conflict between Man.
There are varying views on why man or ultimately States end up in war or conflict. The provision of a common agreement to form a system of sovereign States that do not recognise a higher authority can be identified as the cause of conflict or war. For Hobbs, war is born from aggression by one State towards another State of equal status. For Rousseau, war is born from inequality with both situations reflecting the desire of one State to possess the property of another State by means of aggressive intervention.

Both authors identify that to be able to alleviate the development of such a situation there should be a common agreement; an institution reflective of positive law which once agreed to must be obeyed. The introduction of the Westphalian system in 1648 was introduced to end the thirty-year religious wars yet in reality it transferred the structure of conflict along designated physical and cultural instead of ideological boundaries. Westphalia allows for cross border disputes to be settled by only those affected and that differences between States are settled by force.(refer footnote 1) War is a form of self-preservation whether equality is present or not.

This assisted with the change of nature for man. Man went from recognising his area of interaction from being with nature to the society then to the State. The natural tendency of man towards self-preservation results in conflict. The formation of States brought property instead of ideology as the cause of conflict. Self-preservation was synonymous with non-intervention. Since all men were naturally equal, so also were nations. Their rights and obligations were also by nature the same. Perfection of sovereignty in a nation consisted in its exercise independently of the will of any other. From this arose the obligation not to intervene and the right not to allow it.(refer footnote 2)

It is of this author’s opinion that nuclear war is a fallacy; the correct term is a nuclear incident and cannot be considered in the same context. Only once have atomic weapons been used by a State in war. States will either use nuclear weapons as a first strike or as deterrence. It is inadmissible to refer to them as a last resort in strategic policy. As a first strike the immediate gratitude felt by beating their common man to the trigger would be quickly over taken by negativity for the moral and ethical issues associated with self-preservation.

An incident can also be referred to the loss of State control of a nuclear power reactor, nuclear research reactor, nuclear weapon, nuclear fuel or nuclear waste. With globalisation, atomic weapons and technology have cause more ecological and humanitarian problems for society when used during peacetime for military research and development purposes or inappropriate use in the civilian sector. Incidents can be referred to as testing of nuclear weapons, nuclear power reactor meltdown resulted from sabotage, accidental loss of control or inappropriate handling. The theft of nuclear materials, fuel or waste would also be considered as a potential incident.

For the latter two the impact of the incident is unable to be ascertained without knowledge of the intentions or situation surrounding the loss or inappropriate handling being adequately acknowledged. The requirement to acknowledge is aligned with both the conflict between man and the conflict between man and nature. The implications of the conflict between men have the ability to cloud judgement and would most likely result in either the threat or use of the nuclear material for materialistic or ideological gains.

With the embracing of international liberalism the conflict between men is not replicated by conflict between States. The conflict between ideology that has been facilitated by the spread or acquisition of liberalism or alternatively the cosmopolitism of democracy on an international level has provided a universal challenge for the States. The number of stakeholders involved with strategic nuclear assets has increased significantly. Neighbouring States, regional and international organisations as well as multinational corporations have each developed an interest. States incorporate support through international organisations and multinational corporations to gain the prestige status or environmental leverage associated with strategic nuclear assets.

Footnotes
1. David Held. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance.1995. Cambridge.p.78
2. R. J. Vincent, Human Rights in International Relations, 1986, Cambridge, p. 115