What poses the greatest threat to global security: nuclear weapons or small arms such as the AK47 - Essay Example

? What Poses the Greatest Threat to Global Security: Nuclear Weapons or Small Arms such as the AK47? College/University Data of Submission Introduction In addressing security problems, leaders have to focus on imminent issues with serious ramifications. A problem for states is evaluating which poses the greatest threat to global security, nuclear weapons or small arms. The answer would influence policymaking on national security. The problem involves a comparative assessment of nuclear weapons and small arms in terms of the threat these pose to global security. An interesting point in addressing the question is that various perspectives lead to different answers. The liberal perspective focuses primarily on individual security to achieve international security whereas the realist perspective considers state security as the means of achieving international security. The essay adopts the realist perspective because the greatest global security threat affects the state as a whole, with ripple effects on other states. Although nuclear weapons pose a danger to the world, actual use is unlikely. Concurrently, small arms have been used to destabilise states, to make these weapons the greatest threat to global security. Analysis Nuclear weapons hold immense destructive potential but possibility of actual use is low whereas small arms have a huge destructive potential that has already been actualised. Howlett (2011) explained that the destructive force of nuclear weapons comes from generating massive energy in the form of blast, heat and radiation that can spread for miles through the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect. Everyone and everything within the radius of the EMP dies or gets destroyed. Actual use of a nuclear weapon can destroy entire countries. However, actual use of nuclear weapons is nil. Nuclear weapons have not been used in any conflicts after the Second World War (Spear and Robertson-Snape, 2001; Howlett, 2011). Most of the nuclear weapons (97% or 27,000) are controlled by the U.S. and Russia, which are not likely to detonate these weapons. Nuclear weapons are not the greatest threat to global security. Several reasons justify the development of nuclear weapons but with a low likelihood of actual use. Gusterson (1999) explained that states develop and secure nuclear weapons to achieve peace by equalising power to maintain the status quo, threaten other states, or make a political statement to the international community. Nuclear peace was achieved between U.S. and Russia after developing their nuclear capabilities. India and Pakistan also achieved periods of peace by both building their nuclear capability. The U.S. used nuclear weapons to make China back down during the Korean War. Pakistan and Iraq refused to cease their nuclear programmes and even conducted tests to show power and national pride. (Gusterson, 1999; Spear and Robertson-Snape, 2001) Sighu (2008) further explained that detonating nuclear weapons is taboo because of expectations of the immense destruction this will cause, to make actual use unlikely. The likelihood of terrorist groups in using nuclear weapons is also low because of limited access due to the cost of purchasing and developing nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups are not predisposed towards nuclear weapons. There has been no documented use of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups. (Sighu, 2008) Use of small firearms is massive and widespread. The number of small firearms, not including light weapons, in circulation has increased from 550 million (Muggah and Berman, 2001) to 639 million, with 8 billion more being made every year (Hartung, 2008). Of the more current total, 378 million (60%) are owned by civilians, 241 million (38%) are part of the arsenal of traditional military forces, and the remaining 20 million (2%) are in the hands of non-government groups including terrorists (Hartung, 2008). Production and sale of small firearms in the future will provide more guns to civilians, military personnel, and militia groups (Muggah and Berman, 2001). More guns, especially in the hands of groups indiscriminately using weapons, would intensify violence during conflicts (Boutwell and Klare, 2000; Hartung, 2008). Small firearms are being used in conflicts. Boutwell and Klare (2000) contended that at least 100 disputes that involved small firearms have occurred in the 1990s, which left 5 million people dead, thousands injured, and many more displaced, to destabilise the affected countries. Genocide in Rwanda was made possible by the distribution of small firearms and grenades, which armed groups used to herd people before killing them with knives and machetes (Boutwell and Klare, 2000). Small firearms are the primary weapon of choice in conflicts. Small firearms are cheaper, accessible, transportable, easy to use, reliable, and highly destructive (Boutwell and Klare, 2000; Muggah and Berman, 2001). As such, international sales of small firearms are likely to continue in the future with the economic incentive of revenue for arms manufacturing countries and political incentive of forging alliances through gifts of firearms (Boutwell and Klare, 2000; Muggah and Berman, 2001; Hartung, 2008). Overall, the massive and widespread use of small firearms, the actual use of small firearms in conflicts, and the preference for small firearms in conflicts make small firearms the greatest global security threat. The effect of nuclear weapons remains a theoretical threat but the impact of small firearms is an actual threat. Based on the damage done by the atomic bomb used in World War II, a nuclear weapon would have similar or even greater destructive effect. Yet, with a low likelihood of actual use, the effect may never be actualised. Nuclear weapons are not the greatest threat to global security. The effect of small firearms has already been actualised in the civil wars and inter-state conflicts that have occurred in the past decades and is likely to continue with future conflicts fuelled by the continuing arms trade. Muggah and Berman (2001) succinctly described the direct effects of the use of small firearms on states. Small arms kill 500,000 people and injure 1.5 million more each year. Conflicts using small firearms have made 50 million individuals into refugees. Twenty million children die, get injured or become orphaned in these conflicts. The massive loss of life caused by conflicts involving small firearms and the expected continuation or increase in lost life with continued proliferation of these weapons poses a serious threat to states. Use of small firearms also has an indirect or residual effect on states. Losses from conflicts amount to US$37 billion from lost income and disrupted socio-economic activities. Conflicts destabilise governance and hinder economic development. Countries that have experienced periods of conflict or continuing violence are underdeveloped with their citizens experiencing the worst levels of poverty. Humanitarian aid also cannot reach the people affected by conflict because material help is seized by armed groups and humanitarian workers are killed or threatened. Colombia has a high rate of political killings and it also has low economic growth rate. (Muggah and Berman, 2001) Liberia and Rwanda have been experiencing decades of conflict with militia groups using small firearms. These countries have experienced instability in governance and slow growth with high poverty rates. (Boutwell and Klare, 2000) Muggah and Berman (2001) further explained that the devastating impact of the use of small firearms in conflicts is magnified by the cycle of violence spread by these conflicts. Offensive action leads to retaliatory attacks. Conflicts become protracted and effects are magnified. Boutwell and Klare (2000) cited Liberia and Sierra Leone as examples. In 1989, an insurgent group, led by Charles Taylor, armed with small firearms attacked Liberia. The group disrupted economic activities by taking control of mineral and timber production to gain funds for the purchase of more firearms. With more weapons, the group destabilised the government by overthrowing the president. The insurgent group killed Ghana citizens residing in Liberia after Ghana provided aid to peacekeeping missions. Forces loyal to the president also killed civilians who were considered supporters of the insurgent group. Conflict between the group and opposing forces that supported the president lasted for 7 years until a peace agreement was signed. The violence did not end here. Taylor forged an alliance with another insurgent group, led by Foday Sankoh, in Sierra Leone that resulted to the provision of armed fighters and arms to Sierra Leone. Conflict in Sierra Leone lasted for 8 years until 1999 leaving 50,000 dead and 100,000 injured. With failed attempts to capture the weapons of armed groups, violent conflict remains a threat in these countries. Small firearms have claimed lives and destroyed many more, disrupted economic activities, stunted development, and destabilised states and entire regions. Small firearms continue to threaten the security of states. Small firearms are the greatest threat to global security. Conclusion The problem addressed in the paper is which poses the greatest threat to global security, nuclear weapons or small firearms. From the realist perspective, the contention is that small firearms pose the greatest threat to global security based on two arguments. First, nuclear weapons may have the greatest destructive potential but the possibility of actual use is low while small arms have a great destructive potential that states have already experienced and may continue to experience. Second, the effect of nuclear weapons remains a theoretical threat but the impact of small firearms is an actual threat to states. States should focus on controlling the proliferation of small firearms as a response to the greatest global security threat facing the world today. References Boutwell, J. and Klare, M. (2000). ‘A Scourge of Small Arms’, Scientific American, Vol. 282, No. 6, 48-53 Gusterson, H. (1999). ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Other in Western Imagination’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 111-143 Hartung, W., 2008. The international arms trade. In Williams, P. (Editor). Security Studies: An introduction, Oxon: Routledge. Chapter 23 Howlett, D., 2011. Nuclear proliferation. In Baylis, J. et al. (Editors). The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 5th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 23 Muggah, R. and Berman, E., 2001. Humanitarianism under threat: The humanitarian impacts of small arms and light weapons, Geneva, Switzerland: Small Arms Survey Sidhu, W., 2008. Nuclear proliferation. In Williams, P. (Editor). Security Studies: An introduction, Oxon: Routledge. Chapter 24 Spear, J. and Robertson-Snape, F., 2001. Arms and arms control. In White, B. et al. (Editors). Issues in World Politics, 2nd edition, London: MacMillan. Chapter 6 Read More