► Show Spoiler
RealPolitic wrote:@Tainari88
If you don't have strong international institutions that are effective, then states are going to have to compete with each other for power. They have little choice. That means the little states get gobbled up. And the barracuda eats the fish. From the realist perspective, the only way to have security is either through a balance of power or through hegemony. If you don't have a balance of power with the most powerful adverserial state in the very least, then your security could be in jeopardy.
The small states best chance for security is to align themselves with the interests of the most powerful states and ensure they have the backing of powerful states. Otherwise, they are easy prey. But from the realist perspective, people are free to break alliances and the powerful state that backs you could turn around and suddenly abandon you. This is where, smaller, weaker states may seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent against even the most powerful states to ensure they don't get gobbled up.
The danger of the realist perspective is that it very well could encourage nuclear weapons proliferation as weaker states seek security guarantees against any state by acquiring those weapons. However, the powerful states do try to keep nuclear weapons only in their hands to ensure that they keep most of the power and are able to gobble up weaker states undeterred if they decide they want to. But I can't see how powerful states can completely stop weaker states from acquiring these weapons to guarantee their own security against stronger states.
The problem, is that the more states that are encouraged to get these weapons and the more states that do get these weapons, the more likely it is those weapons could be used and could bring destruction upon all of humanity. So, there is a solid argument for strong and effective international institutions in international relations. Effective international institutions ensure justice and that smaller states have security without having to acquire weapons of mass destruction to get some level of security. Effective international institutions I think will stop the spread of nuclear weapons because such institutions could offer security to both strong and weaker nations alike.
It could also lead to the abolishment of standing armies. Having standing armies is a challenge to other nations and invites competition and encourages other nations to get their own standing armies in response. Even if you have a standing army purely for defensive purposes only, it still seen as a challenge or provocation by other states and invites competition. So, the ideal for strong effective international institutions is to see a day where nations have no need to have a standing army to ensure their security. It's a very idealistic notion. But it's something to aim for even if you don't ever get that point ever.
Another case to consider is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro got attacked by a CIA backed army which he defeated. But then he feared the US would directly invade Cuba and would be successful. He knew his forces were weaker and the US could occupy Cuba if it wanted to. So, he turns to the Soviets to install nuclear weapons in Cuba. That lead to the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis that really, truly did bring the world close to destroying itself. The US did not know the Soviets had smaller tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba. John F. Kennedy had authorized US military forces to use nuclear weapons against the Soviets ONLY if the Soviets used them first.
But the Soviet commanders had complete control of their nukes in Cuba and could use them as they wished without getting approval from the Kremlin. Had the US invaded to remove the missiles in Cuba, the Soviet commanders would have little choice but to use nuclear weapons against US forces invading Cuba. Of course, that would give US military commanders the green light to use nuclear weapons in return given that Kennedy had already authorized them to do so if the Soviets used theirs first.
The point of bringing up the Cuban Missile Crisis is to illustrate WHY you need strong and effective international institutions. The only reason why you and me are here today having this conversation on this message forum is because we were extremely lucky in the past that a global nuclear war never broke out. It was ONLY pure luck. But we were so close.
@RealPolitic the entire premise of Might is Right that rules the world today is primitive and counterproductive.
It is the reality though, I do think it is the reality. But it is far from the best organizational and societal structure that the human world of ideas and thoughts and actions is capable of producing from its infinite creative powers. That is my thought on that. We can do way better than what we are stuck with currently.
The Unaligned Movement was a Movement that Fidel Castro chaired precisely over this issue of smaller nations having the threat of being invaded by stronger ones and not being able to prevent it. Caught in a sandwich.
It has failed mostly because of pressure brought to bear on it from the top powerful nations with nukes not wanting the smaller nations without nukes to be able to defend themselves from manipulations.
The solution is a solidarity movement that is very strong with clear guidelines and clear procedures and an ability to enforce consequences internationally on the stronger nations that has power to limit them due to a lot of small nations working as one....becomes a big nation in power....many small, all together in solidarity....counterbalances the few big ones...over time this can be done.
But? It requires multipolarity first. Which is starting to emerge in a nascent form.
Some history on the Unaligned Movement in the UN:
Many nations agreed that they hated imperialism and colonialism. And started to think of ways on how to combat it.
So there are 120 nations out of almost 200 that are unaligned.
The next step is to create enforcement of consequences for the big dog nations who want to impose their abusive crap on the rest of the world. A really hard consequence for invading little countries, topping democratically elected leaders and doing fake news and crap propaganda to cover your ass. Denying invaded territories political rights, voting rights or any voice that is scrutinized by the rest of the nations in open debates in the UN in NYC on the open floor.
There has to be economic, and diplomatic and legal consequences and FINES on nations that invade, subjugate and overthrow and manipulate using the power of their MIC to force their will on the nations who are not in agreement.
That is the next step. It has not been explored enough. But it will happen over time. The conditions for that have to happen. It means that no one superpower exists. But various exists and then the back and forth and back and forth....until there is an opening.
That is the answer. It might take a very long time. It will not be in my lifetime RealPolitic.
- By ingliz
- By blackvegetable