I write this short critique in response to an article entitled “The Long Road to Zero”. This article focuses on how the United States and the global community can reduce the need and desire for nuclear weapons and how the global community could meet energy needs in an environmentally sound fashion. It is a very well written piece, which raises a number of valid and worthy points - and with which I agree. However, I do believe that it fails in two key respects. After highlighting them, I will provide my own perspective on the issue of nuclear proliferation.
When I say that I think this article “failed”, by no means am I rejecting the largely valid reasoning behind it. Indeed, I use the term to more or less highlight the areas of the article which I found to be rather weak or erroneous. For example, I readily agree with the series of principles that Dr. Ferguson raises when discussing the need “to develop principles of responsible behavior”[1] for those possessing nuclear materials. However, I believe that he has erred in failing to account for the human factor. That is to say, I believe he raises perfectly valid points when it comes to the state factor, but I feel that he doesn’t adequately account for the foundation of the state - its people.
When I say that Dr. Ferguson errs in considering the foundation of the state (the people that constitute the nation), I mean that he doesn’t account for the various aspects of the society comprising that nation. He fails to account for the factors within that society that could have particular effects on the subject matter at hand (nuclear disarmament) and for the numerous non-state actors (only briefly mentioned) that hold sway in the international system. This is certainly a strong article, but I believe he needs to account for the above-mentioned weaknesses.
In reading his article, I must also mention another weakness that I discerned. This second issue I raise revolves around the following statement: “Were the United States to provide energy assistance to countries across the world, it would bolster U.S. economic competitiveness and help in the global fight against climate change.”[2] My issue with this statement comes from the fact that he doesn’t provide specific economic details as to how the economic competitiveness will improve or how the energy assistance could be implemented to create this increased competitiveness. I agree with the statement in general, but I feel he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to how it could be implemented and exactly how economic competitiveness would be improved.
Other than those rather minor critiques, I agree with Dr. Ferguson on all the major points of his piece. The principles and the policies that he highlights as being important to addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation are more than excellent. They provide an effective examination of the difficulties in foreign policy regarding nuclear proliferation and suggest rather practical solutions. The fact that he follows his rather sound principles with rather well thought out examples is also another plus in his favor. It adds to the authority that the author possesses on the subject matter.
Now that I have explained my critiques and overall opinion of Dr. Charles Ferguson’s piece, I am compelled to give my own opinion on the question of nuclear proliferation. I would like to begin by stating that I feel like nuclear proliferation in and of itself is not a fundamental problem. The biggest problem facing the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear material is the potential for the spread of and further development of nuclear weaponry. At this point, most people would be in agreement with me, but they might disagree with my reason for finding the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a significant problem.
I find the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a problem not because of the simple spread of highly dangerous weapons, but because it is accomplished in such a fashion as to create a security dilemma. That is to say, I don’t find the spread of nuclear armaments to be a problem in and of itself; instead I find it to be a problem because it unevenly distributes said weapons throughout the global system. In my opinion, this is the most significant issue involving nuclear arms. As a result I suggest two potential solutions.
The first solution I would suggest is to find a way to completely remove nuclear arms from the global, regional, and national levels. Find a way to make them disappear. This could be accomplished any number of ways and I will leave the particular details to policy makers. However, this is also the most difficult solution since it requires some level of trust development amongst the nations of the world (a very difficult thing to accomplish on most any subject matter). Since this is the case, I believe solution two is the better option.
Solution two envisions a completely different approach to handling the nuclear weapon proliferation issue. Indeed, with this solution I propose the equal distribution of nuclear arms in the international system with the accompanying establishment of some oversight agency. That is to say, I suggest you equally distribute nuclear arms and technology throughout the international system to all nations willing to accept global oversight of said arms. In this way, the equal standing of all nations in relation to nuclear weaponry negates the security dilemma. As a result, the global system should be infinitely safer. Can you say MAD on a much larger scale?
[1] Ferguson, Charles "The Long Road to Zero:Overcoming the Obstacles to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94 Web. 7 Feb 2010
[2] Ferguson PG: 93
Ferguson, Charles. "The Long Road to Zero: Overcoming the Obstacles
to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94. Web. 7 Feb 2010.
