Answer

Introduction

Preventive wars are undertaken to stop states from acquiring nuclear weapons before they become operational. However, contemporary conflicts in West Asia suggest a paradox wherein military strikes intended to halt proliferation may instead strengthen incentives for nuclear deterrence, as seen in debates by Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan.

Body

Preventive wars aimed at stopping nuclear proliferation may instead accelerate it

• Security threats increase nuclear pursuit: Military attacks heighten vulnerability, pushing states to seek nuclear deterrence.
  Eg: Conflict involving US-Israel and Iran may push Iran to accelerate its nuclear programme.
• Deterrence logic reinforced: Preventive strikes strengthen the belief that nuclear weapons prevent regime change.
  Eg: North Korea expanded its arsenal after developing long-range missiles.
• Weakness of non-nuclear security guarantees: States without nuclear deterrence remain vulnerable despite assurances.
  Eg: Ukraine surrendered nuclear weapons in 1994 but later faced Russian aggression.
• Strategic urgency for nuclearisation: External pressure encourages rapid nuclear development as a survival strategy.
• Domestic political consolidation: External threats strengthen nationalist sentiment and public support for nuclear weapons as symbols of sovereignty and security.

Preventive Wars to Stop Nuclear Proliferation

• Maintain regional stability: Preventive strikes seek to stop nuclear capability before it destabilises regional security.
  Eg: Israeli strikes on Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).
• Avoid nuclear escalation: Limiting proliferation reduces risks of accidental or deliberate nuclear conflict.
• Protect non-proliferation norms: Actions aim to uphold global regimes against nuclear spread.
  Eg: Enforcement linked to the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
• Prevent regional arms races: Stopping one programme may discourage others from pursuing nuclear weapons.
  Eg: Fears of proliferation across West Asia if Iran acquires nuclear capability.
• Maintain global strategic balance: Major powers justify preventive actions to sustain international stability.
  Eg: Opposition by the United States to nuclear development by Iran.

Conclusion

Preventive wars highlight the dilemma between non-proliferation goals and security incentives driving nuclear acquisition. Sustainable stability in West Asia requires renewed diplomacy, regional security frameworks and credible non-proliferation guarantees under mechanisms like the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons rather than coercive military strategies.

DOWNLOAD PDF