This post is in continuation of the previous one :

American nuclear policy, world politics and group dynamics – a discussion

The way different countries behave in an international setting is interesting. The way they try to safe guard their interests, the way they may display selfishness, aggression, benevolence, suspicion, friendliness, positivity, negativity, right wing tendencies, left wing tendencies… all of this so strikingly similar to individual tendencies and behaviors in a group.

When I hear of international events involving multiple countries, I often imagine them as individuals interacting in a group.

Leaders

From time to time, certain countries emerge as strong individuals. They have worked on their progress for some time and are now very strong. Some others, particularly the ones described in the next section, start looking up to them for help. These strong nations then find themselves in the role of a leader of sorts. From here, the path is very treacherous. To not let ego build up, to not build up a self righteous image, to not become selfish and greedy, to not start feeling insecure about loosing this high pedestal is a unique challenge to such nations.

Some may start using propaganda and intimidation to hold their position of power. On one hand, they might keep drilling into other nations that they are working for everyone’s benefit, that they are the best and most responsible nation to lead others, and, on the other hand, they would use intimidation against those who show even the slightest dissent or displeasure with their leadership.

Such leaders don’t believe they are doing any harm. On the contrary, they come to believe they are doing good for everyone and they are the ones best suited for this job. With their own understanding of things, they do the best they can(keeping their selfish interests just a little ahead of others). They lack faith in the abilities of others. They will not give much thought to the way others think and feel, especially if it goes against their way of thinking.

Like just about everyone else, they have an explanation for what they do.

There are also those who will be able to take this as a role of responsibility, rise above personal interest and work for general good. Germany’s role, in the European financial crisis today, looks like such an example. 70 years ago, they were the biggest threat to Europe’s security, now they are one of the biggest players in bringing about balance and sanity in these hard financial times for Europe.

Sidekicks

You also find those nations(and people) who like power but think that they can’t get it on their own. They look for the next best solution they can imagine, a leader to align with. These ‘sidekicks’, once they see a leader emerging, will instantly align with it. They don’t like to think of themselves as slaves but in essence that is what they sort of eventually become.

Also notable is, they like only intimidating leaders. The all inclusive leaders, appointed by general consensus, confuse them. Inclusive leaders make everyone equal and merit is based on one’s value. Since the sidekicks have just about equal value to the rest(maybe even less) and are used to gaining importance by associating with the powerful, they feel less empowered and would rather have an intimidating leader come along and take on power.

Intimidating leaders and side kicks perfectly complement each other. The leader needs them to establish his authority, and they need the leader to feel powerful.

The sidekicks, if they increase in numbers, create a collective culture. If anyone raises a concern or a question, that nation is severely outnumbered and may be forced into submission or excluded from the group.

Those who flow with the tide

There is also a mass of those who have nothing particular to say on any issue. They seem to lack confidence and  have no drive to do well. They seem to not believe in the possibility of being better. Majority trend is what they monitor and follow. They have few ideals and a lot of fear. They will always be looking for the safety of being in the company of many.

They do little, and are usually poor countries where little is happening by way of progress or nation build up.

The confident, non aligned ones

There are those who will dare to not follow the general trend. They may not be very powerful but believe in themselves. They have a friendly and positive outlook. They will not take sides, not accept masters and promote fairness in dealings where decisions are taken by consensus.

They will usually have a few close friends, who are like themselves. They will also have a lot of admirers who admire their courage but dare not show support for fear of the more powerful and that of the general mass.

The rebellious

Some go a step further, they become rebellious. They challenge and work counter to the way things are going. They feel they are at the recieving end of injustice, they have little faith in talks and consensus and are quick to pick up fights.

They look like angry individuals who regard everyone with suspicion. They demand for things to be done according to their idea of right. At the smallest disagreement, they will decide quickly that they are being discriminated against and may leave.

It is difficult to deal with them and it takes a lot of time to convince them that they are among friends.

*****

These roles may look very black and white, and that is in fact right. I see a lot of overlap in the roles of the same nation in different situations(sometimes, even in the same situation). Also, countries seem to grow like individuals. Over longer periods, they seem to grow into different tendencies.

It is important to remember that, when one sees countries as individuals, it is a method of convenience and does not explain everything about countries. It is not the be all and end all of things. Nations are made up of thinking, acting individuals. At times, the acts of a few will radically change the way a country thinks or behaves.

Image: renjith krishnan

A recent news headline caught my eye – ‘India is finding it more and more difficult to import oil from Iran because of the increasing US sanctions against the country.’

For those who don’t already know, US has been very strongly condemning the nuclear policies of Iran. While Iran claims that its efforts are aimed at the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, America, and a lot of the rest of the world believes otherwise.

This brought to the fore a question I have had in my mind for quite some time – How does the US justify itself about having hoards of nuclear weapons but asking others not to have them?

Also, it intrigues me how the dynamics between nations and large groups closely resembles the behavior of individual people in groups. With this post, and the subsequent one, it is my intention to highlight this analogy.

To facilitate better understanding, I think I should first give a brief historical account of the development of nuclear technology and the politics related to it. This post is entirely dedicated to this explanation. I will take up the analogy with group dynamics in the follow up post.

The history

During the Second World War, America started its research on nuclear weapons(they started in 1939). They were the first to create an atom(fission) bomb in 1945. They soon put it to use against Japan which, as claimed by the US Gov, put an early end to the War. Till date, they happen to be the only country that has used a nuclear weapon.

America is also the country that has carried out the maximum number of nuclear tests in the world. At 1054 tests, they comfortably outrun the runner ups, the Russians at 715 tests. Post the World War, and in the wake of the Cold War, they enthusiastically carried on with their nuclear program and military development. Currently, American military, even for a non-nuclear, conventional war, is by far the most dominating force the world has ever seen.

Towards the early nineties, after the USSR broke up and the Cold War was over, the arms race also ended. Having more nuclear weapons(which were already in the thousands and, as claimed by some, enough to end all human life many times over) seemed pointless. So they shut down the production of new nuclear weapons and focused on maintaining their existing stockpile. They have reduced the number of weapons(which numbered over 31,000 at it’s peak in 1961) to about just over 5000 in number today. The collective of its delivery systems – land based missiles(both within America and those on friendly foriegn soil), long range bombers, aircraft carriers, and submarine based forces, bring the entire Earth within their range.

The beginning of nuclear non proliferation and test bans

The US initially didn’t share their technology with other nations. The aim was to stall the production of a Russian bomb. But Russians took up the work in earnest post the World War and, owing considerably to some good espionage, they were ready with their first bomb in 1949. Once the Russians developed nuclear capability, the US changed its policy and started promoting the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They knew Russia didn’t have enough resources towards nuclear development and pressurizing them to use their Uranium for peaceful purposes was to America’s advantage.

Meanwhile, the British, the French and the Chinese also carried out nuclear tests and developed nuclear weapons of their own.

As technology has improved, and since America had a lot of data from tests already done, it has become possible for them to do much of the testing without actually detonating a nuclear device. This has enabled them to maintain their arsenal without conducting tests.

Even as the cold war and nuclear arms race was carrying on, the US supported the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) that was aimed at ‘preventing the spread of nuclear technology and weapons’. According to this treaty, America, Russia, UK, France and China are designated nuclear powers and are allowed to possess nuclear weapons but other nations are not. This is leading to, as India claims, a group of nuclear haves and nuclear have nots.

Also notable is CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), that came later in the nineties and that disallows all participants from carrying any form of nuclear tests.

When India and Pakistan conducted their nuclear tests in 1999, America imposed sanctions against the 2 countries. The sanctions against India were lifted quickly but not against Pakistan. The military takeover in Pakistan, the US claimed, made their possession of nuclear technology dangerous. Later, after the 9-11 attacks on the US, these sanctions were lifted because America needed Pakistani help in attacking the Taliban.

Towards their friend Israel, which is widely known to pursue nuclear technology and own nuclear weapons, America has taken a policy of silence, while being very vocally against similar policies of Iran and North Korea.

Most countries(except India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel) have signed the NPT. Same goes for CTBT, that has been signed by most countries(except India, Pakistan and North Korea).

Recent developments in the US policy

The Bush administration seriously considered implementing policies to create better, more maintainable nuclear weapons and for further nuclear testing, despite having signed an international agreement against it. In 2005, America also revised the ‘Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations’, hinting that they could use a nuclear device preemptively against an adversary with WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces, should it found the same necessary. This is against the no-first-use policy that I feel should be the bare minimum that a nuclear power promises the rest of the world.

The Obama administration has cancelled a lot of such policies as far as general information goes. The current US policy promises that America will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear, NPT compliant states.

The 2012 American defense budget includes plans to maintain and modernize existing nuclear weapons.

Do these treaties assure disarmament?

The NPT just asks the nuclear powers to discuss disarmament in good faith. There is no binding obligation, no final date of disarmament for these countries. There seems to be a general consensus among the non nuclear signatories that these powers are responsible and will not use their power irresponsibly.

One argument that is sited in favor of the continued possession of nuclear weapons by responsible nuclear powers is that, even if there was complete disarmament, the nuclear weapon technology would not go away. It would still be possible for some one to build a nuclear bomb. Right now, the strategic importance of a nuclear bomb is less because there are certain responsible states that all have it. This creates a balance. If there were to be complete disarmament, the strategic advantage of having even one fission bomb, by any country, would be huge. There would be a huge incentive, especially for weaker countries with little conventional forces, to try and get a nuclear weapon.

*****

This is where the state of things stands today. The nuclear powers are promoting proliferation and ban on tests. Most of the world seems to accept this. There are some defiant countries that have rejected the idea of a few nuclear countries maintaining monopoly over nuclear weapons technology and their possession.

In the next article, I will try to draw an analogy between the attitudes of countries in an international setting and the behaviors of people in smaller groups and societies.

Image: Wikipedia