391 Daniel Rajmil The middle east; deterrence and nuclear deterrence succeed in dissuading an adversary from initiating a military action, the costs benefits calculations should be perceived for all intervening states on the same way. From a deterrence theory point of view, it’s true that the appearance and use of nuclear weapons during the World War II could be seen as having given more sense to the deterrence theory itself. As in that sense, nuclear capabilities have maximized the deterrence threat to a new strategically further dimension. However, as it will be further debated, new realities and historical evolution can contradict this tendency and argue that deterrence did not really work, but accelerated a general arms race in the world. Traditionally, deterrence and its stability concept have depended on the military balance of power that different international actors have had. Since the appearance of nuclear weapons, a change in the validity and scope of deterrence theory has occurred. In the case of conventional weapons, some equality of forces in order to deter an adversary was needed. In a nuclear era, the only possible balance is the ability to achieve an unacceptable damage in case of confrontation to the other actor. In this sense, nuclear weapons are the mean that confer superiority and threat, even without necessity to have some nuclear equilibrium.30 To finish, since the end of the Cold War, the world has believed that nuclear weapons have assured stability. Moreover, a parallel trend until recently sustained by most of the countries, has been based on the developing of missile defense capabilities in order to prevent the risks of MAD situations. This as political scientist, Heinz Gärtner develops in his work, leads to a deterrence related paradox which comes with “the connection between offensive and defensive weapons … the strategic missile defense can be a driving force for new offensive weapons. Whether strategic missile defense actually work will always remain uncertain, so it cannot replace deterrence”.31 As a whole, the current Middle East situation along with the appearance of some non-state actors at the international level, have shown that nuclear deterrence can if not contested, at least be challenged. This can also be found within the undergoing scholar debate around the theory validity which is constantly trying to fit it into new political realities. Before introducing the next section, in an attempt to present a complete, neutral and objective paper; it should be mentioned that this piece explores the Middle East case but always being conscious that it’s just a case of a much complex global challenge. In that sense, MAD situations are present in many countries, for example in China, who has not abandoned the idea that holding their adversaries’ cities at risk is necessary 30 FISHER, David. Morality and the Bomb, Croom Helm, 1985, p. 8. 31 GÄRTNER, Heinz, “Deterrence, disarmament and arms control”, OIIP working paper, no. 68, May 2013, p. 11. http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee
Revista del IEEE 6
To see the actual publication please follow the link above