Dropping the sun - The only alternative leverage for global supremacy now
War is feared by many all over the world, yet this fear has not prevented states with full support from their citizens from engaging in war with one another. Research shows that in the past 3,400 years,humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, just eight per cent of recorded history.
Advertisement
This fact underscores the high value states place on war when it comes to inter-state relations. To many, like the statement made by Frederick the Great, the King of Prussia during the 18th century, “ “Diplomacy without an army is like playing music without an instrument.
We can count the long list of wars that states have devoted life, time, technology and money to pursue in recent times. This proves that, nations active in international politics are continuing to prepare for, actively involve in, or recovering from organised violence in the form of war.
Having in mind that war serves as a leverage to reach a more favourable outcome in conflict bargaining situation, states have devoted enormous resources into building sophisticated weapons of war.
(US) kick-starts the use of nuclear technology in its military arsenal by developing the atomic bomb during the Second World War. The same idea that weapons of mass destruction can give one a leverage to compel other states to behave in a certain way by threatening an attack if a state does not comply led others to follow suit. The fact that the size and type of military force make particular threat credible has led to more improvement in military arsenals, increasing their mass destructive potential.
What nations are failing to notice is the failure of this negative leverage in compelling other states to fall
in line in this modern age of globalisation. The latest testimony is the obstinacy being displayed by North Korea in the face of US threats of military action if it fails to comply with their wishes and that of the international community.
States are now achieving their objectives in relation to other states in a more peaceful and cost-effective way by means of leverage such as economic action , foreign aid, communication or international organisations. Military action, which sets armies marching and missiles flying, tends to be the last resort.
This notwithstanding, states devote vast resources to military ends compared to other means of influence. The US alone has about 20,000 diplomatic personnel but two million soldiers. It spends about 15 billion a year on foreign aid, but more than $400 billion annually on military forces. Same can be said about others regardless of the amount involved.
North Korea’s stance on its nuclear programme reflects the way certain states view the value of military build- ups. Its continued testing of both atomic and hydrogen bombs in defiance of international protocol and threats has the potential to change the norm of using such dangerous weapons. States often tend to use conventional military force for actual mission. They reserve weapons of mass destruction for making or deterring threats. At the moment, it seems we are getting close to a stage where those weapons could be deployed for military action.
Globalisation of advance scientific training has spread the expertise necessary for weapons development. The widespread use of nuclear technology for electricity generation have made available widely the materials needed for making a nuclear weapon. Even export controls designed to stop technology transfer for military purposes are ineffectual. Currently when it comes to nuclear monopoly, no nation can lay claim. In case of an outbreak of nuclear conflict, other countries, apart from the great powers, can be a force to reckon with.
If it is becoming clear that possessing the most destructive weapon can no longer guarantee a superpower status in a military sense, which weapon system would nations now redirect their attention to? The sun is the only thing that comes to mind. Should hegemonic states now look towards that direction given the fact that, the fire power of the sun and the energy it exudes surpasses any that scientists have ever discovered?
Even if the situation calls for searching for a more sophisticated weapon with more massive destructive potential, the question is, is it worth it? Dwight Eisenhower, a former President of the US gave an answer to that question on April 16, 1953.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket that is fired, signified in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists and the hope of its children. This is not the way of life at all in its true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
Writer’s E-mail : [email protected]
0241995510