In the past several weeks, the
class has reviews foreign policy theorists and lecture notes having to do with
International Political Economy and Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD. However,
both fields of international relations have been discussed separately. It is my
belief that the two are intrinsically connected. I argue that the Nuclear deterrence
and prescribed peace from MAD has been replaced by the economic interdependence
that has been established post 1945.
Just as Nuclear weapons appeared in the military arsenals in the
hegemonic powers of the world, the world’s most powerful economies through
direct action in the Brettonwood agreements or unintentionally the globalized
interconnected economy of today is more of a deterrent than MAD in securing peace.
No longer are Nuclear weapons needed, as more and more countries slowly get
them, with the subsidization of the cold war. do these weapons of mass
destruction even matter when a currency trader or analyst with a laptop has the
power to decimate a countries economy in seconds? True power in the 21st
century is economic, the number of nuclear warheads a country has is insignificant
when the usage of such a weapon at any time and in any scenario would create so
much risk and volatility in global markets that they would certainty take a
massive hit themselves and burdening every other country on earth. As well, the
first thing to be analyzed in a nuclear attack, aside from the number of lives
lost, is the economic devastation, the manpower, equipment, infrastructure that
was destroyed.
A failing
economy anywhere drags the entire global economy with it, in modern
international relations with limited military engagements and all out war out
of the question, either because of this MAD, or economic interdependence, Nuclear
weapons are never on the table as a viable option. The power of economics is
seen everyday, after Russian involvement in Ukraine was seen earlier in the
year, threats of military engagement certainty not nuclear engagement was every
used, even in rhetoric, to put pressure on Russia to back down. Instead, economic
sanctioning is primarily used. Even with Iran, serious trade limitations and
other economic sanction to deter further escalation have hit the country to
deter them from obtaining nuclear capability. Most Nations with Nuclear
capabilities have the economic resources to support it.
Just as the United Nations, and
NATO were formed to ensure global piece after world war II, in this new
hopefully more secure, globalized world, The Brettonwood agreements in
establishing the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and later the
World Trade Organization, all ensure relatively reliable and smooth economic interactions
throughout the world. By working to mitigate economic destabilization, these organizations
provide a better foundation for peace in the world, that a Nuclear Arsenal no
longer provides.
Your argument about the interconnectedness of MAD and globalization is fascinating. Too often we don't think of how war affects the economy and how the economy affects wars. I think it is important to note that most people would rather suffer an economic loss than a military loss. A military loss exclusively results in real loss of life. Although an economic loss can result in indirect loss of life (certain social programs, sanitation, poverty and other forces), people are much more willing to accept an economic loss than a military loss. Although they are connected, some people prefer one loss over the other.
ReplyDeleteThe connection between MAD and the economy is very interesting. I agree with what you said about how failing economy anywhere can affect the global economy. Also, a country having nuclear weapons is more of a sense of security for them and the option to use them is often unlikely. Like you said, economic sanctions put more pressure on certain countries, like Russia, to back out of conflicts. I also think that economic sanctions should be used more to deter nations from obtaining nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete