1. RUNNING HEAD: Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War
Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War
102773174
University of Colorado Boulder
27 October 2016

2. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 1
Many threats challenge the stability of the international system such as cyber warfare,
piracy, and humanitarian intervention. However, two threats in particular stand out as possessing
the capability to wreak havoc within the international system. The use of nuclear weapons and a
Great Power war between China and the United States (U.S.) would involve the greatest
destruction within international health, economics, and political stability. Nuclear weapons have
the ability to destroy entire cities with the push of a button, while the intense networks of allies
between China and the U.S. would ensure a gigantic number of casualties from war. It is
important to identify and examine these challenges in order to understand how to avoid threats to
the international system.
Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to the international system because of the
possibility of faulty decision-making and the devastating effects of a nuclear war. Nuclear war
would not only impact the country being attacked. There are three distinct areas in which the
international system would be harmed including medicine and disease, the economic system, and
evacuation and relocation. There would not be enough doctors to care for the people injured by
the attack leading to neglect for those facing other medical needs. A decrease in medical research
would occur due to the focus of medicine on injured patients. Eventually hospitals may run out
of medicine. Potential disease carriers could develop such as polio or other latent diseases, which
may reach beyond the confines of the United States, particularly in the case of evacuation and
relocation. Millions of people would be required to relocate, which may eventually cause social
conflicts as well as economic and social dislocation (Katz & Osdoby, 1982). Finally, the eruption
of an atomic bomb would affect the international economy by disrupting the production of goods
that could be traded internationally causing economic problems worldwide. The affected country
would be required to engage in monetary expansion in order to help those displaced by the

3. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 2
bomb, therefore, increasing inflation and disrupting the exchange rate. Therefore, further
disrupting international flows of investment and capital.
It is important to examine the likelihood of an attack in order to identify the potentiality
of a nuclear attack. While there have not been any accidents since the dropping of the bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many close calls during the Cold War illustrate the danger of an
accidental nuclear attack. The well-known close call during the Cold War was The Cuban
Missile Crisis when The United States and The Soviet Union almost failed to come an agreement
over Soviet Nuclear Missiles stationed in Cuba. Another example is when the USS Beale began
dropping depth charges on the nuclear-armed B-59 Soviet submarine. The Soviet’s mistook these
depth charges as an active attack and almost used a nuclear torpedo in retaliation. Yet another
example was the accidental computer simulation of a Soviet attack on the United States at
NORAD. The computers gave off an urgent alert that the Soviets had launched a barrage of
missiles at North America, and the U.S. air defense program ordered the “doomsday plane” to
take off. Luckily, it was realized that a technician had accidentally run a training program that
simulated a Soviet Attack. Finally, On September 26, 1983 an alarm sounded signaling that the
U.S. had fired five intercontinental missiles toward Russia, which ended up being a
miscalculation by the satellites misinterpreting sunlight glinting off of clouds. It was a false
alarm, but could have started nuclear war (Close Calls, 2015). During the close calls in the Cold
War, nuclear war was avoided only by the decision making of individuals. Even though this did
not result in Armageddon, this process of learning how to keep nuclear weapons under control by
trial and error is unstable and not worth the extreme negative effects a nuclear war would impose
on the international system.

4. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 3
Another component regarding the likelihood of nuclear war lies within the decision-making
system of the country. Since the 1950s, more states have gained nuclear weapons such as China,
India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The most current proliferators including Pakistan and North
Korea may lack stable decision-making processes to keep the world safe from nuclear weapons.
An example of unstable decision-making is Saddam Hussein’s decision to use his own wisdom
and not listen to advisors. He spurned professional military advice, and trusted his own intuition
more than objective intelligence reports (Sagan & Pauly). Furthermore, he discouraged advisors
from delivering intelligence that contradicted his political alertness. Hussein’s goal was not to
increase domestic security, but to actively engage in conventional aggression against Iran and
Israel.
Another example of faulty decision-making can be seen in Pakistan. Months after testing
its first nuclear weapon, they sent disguised soldiers into India occupied Kashmir, which led to a
series of nuclear threats between New Delhi and Islamabad (Sagan, 2012). All of which could
have been subject to the same human errors that occurred during the Cold War. Furthermore,
Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan established a network that sold centrifuge
technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. While the government denied knowledge of Khan’s
actions, he still poses a threat to the international system by providing nuclear technology to
other states with unstable decision making processes (Sagan, 2012).
Iran poses yet another threat to the security of nuclear weapons. Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will most likely be in charge of the Iranian nuclear arsenal
since they have been covertly purchasing nuclear technology and managing Iran’s nuclear
weapons activities. This is an example of unstable decision making because they are focused on
ideological indoctrination and have ties with the most radical clerics in Iran. Furthermore, they

5. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 4
run Iran’s relationship with terrorist groups in the Middle East (Sagan & Pauly). All of these
groups are willing to compromise the safety and international stability in order to pursue their
religious and political objectives. Finally, this will create disruptions throughout the international
system in the reactions of states to those armed with nuclear weapons.
The threat of nuclear weapons appears to come from state actors, however, there is a
difference in response to this threat based on which nuclear state is posing the threat. Nuclear
weapons are especially dangerous in the hands of state actors in unstable states. These unstable
states may make deadly mistakes regarding their nuclear weapons due to unstable or particularly
radicalized decision-making. In this case, states may pursue complete non-proliferation in order
to completely remove the threat of nuclear weapons through harsh sanctions such as those
imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War in order to promote behavior conducive with nuclear non-
proliferation. In the case of more stable nuclear states, treaties such as the Non-Proliferation
Treaty may be signed to display a credible commitment among nation states to eventually
eliminate nuclear weapons.
The second largest threat to the international system is a Great Power war between China
and the United States. This threat ranks as the second greatest because while it would greatly
disrupt the international system, its effects would not be as immediately devastating as a nuclear
attack. Each great power has allies that will be drawn into the conflict, which will have global
consequences. This includes the great number of deaths and casualties since each side is very
powerful and has multiple allies at their aid. An example of allied power may be China and
India. India would most likely side with US, while Russia would side with China. European
allies would see the U.S. as justified, but urge the conflict to stop in order to save the world’s
economy. In order to support the U.S., Europe may place an embargo of export to China of

6. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 5
goods, technologies, and services to stop its war effort. However, this would decrease the
benefits of trade for Europe. This could also create an opening for heightened violence from
Islamist extremist and anti-Israel groups as U.S. forces are occupied in the Western Pacific, and
thus causing further instability in the Middle East. Ultimately, this could disrupt the flow of oil to
China and the U.S. (Gompert, et al., 2016).
The likelihood of a Great Power war between China and the U.S. can be examined
through the current structure of the international system. The current international system is
comprised of one super power and one fast-rising power. In this case, the United States is the
super power and China is the fast-rising power. In these cases, war does not occur when both
sides are building their arms and developing militarily. In fact, these wars tend to occur when
there is unevenness between the strength of the competing powers, which can be seen in the
relationship between China and the U.S. China is growing much more rapidly than the U.S.
economically. In fact, China has a large gross domestic product (GDP) three to five times that of
the United States. As a result, conflict has already begun to arise between the two powers.
America states that China exploits their cheap labor, saves too much and invests too much, and
purposefully undervalues their currency. All the while, China believes the United States is
jealous and singling them out (Copper).
However, minor conflicts do not constitute a full out war. Flashpoints are places where
conflict serious enough to lead to war will occur between the two countries. The top four flash
points between the United States and China are Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the South China
Sea, and the Philippines. China states that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory that has not yet
been recovered. It is important to China in order to preserve their territory and as a strategic
interest due to increased Chinese nationalism. The United States views Taiwan as an emerging

7. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 6
democratic country that they created. Losing Taiwan would undermine their credibility in East
Asia. Additionally, it is part of a chain of islands that pits the nations of East Asia against China,
which is a strategic power for the United States and its allies. In the case of Korea, China sides
with North Korea while the United States has a defense pact with South Korea. North Korea has
killed American soldiers and shot down American planes. Furthermore, North Korea severely
abuses human rights, which is a contention for the United States to act aggressively against them.
However, this would result in war with China as they protect their interests in North Korea.
Further complicating the relationship between China and the U.S. is China’s claim to the South
China Sea as part of its territory, while the United States says that it is international water. The
United States Navy must be able to patrol the waters in order to maintain their influence in the
region, but China states that it belongs to them and also wants access to many undersea resources
(Copper). Finally, in the past week, the Philippines recognized China’s rising power by publicly
declaring a separation from the U.S. While the Philippines have not taken away American access
to their military bases, they have stated they will decrease military cooperation with Washington.
While the seriousness of these statements is still being debated, this case demonstrates the
political instability arising from conflict in the South China Sea (Perlez, 2016).
If war were to break out between the United States and China in any particular flash
point, China’s trade with East Asia would be severely diminished. This would have severe
economic consequences both for China and the countries that supply or buy their good because
the economies of China and its neighbors (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) are very interdependent.
For example, natural gas and crude oil consumed by China is largely imported. Since the threat
of a war between global powers comes from state actors the reactions of the international
community respond according to their allied interests. They are bound by agreements to take a

8. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 7
specific stance in order to promote the well being of their allied members. If a country is not tied
in an agreement such as this, they may pursue a response that will benefit them economically
such as intervening to come to a consensus before trade is so disrupted that it affects the
international community as a whole.
Overall, the effects of nuclear war and a Great Power war between China and the U.S.
would be destructive to the international system due to the deaths, economic instability, and
political unrest each threat would cause. Faulty decision-making and frequent accidents involved
with the possession of nuclear weapons coupled with the fact that some unstable states have
access to nuclear weapons is proof of the dangers associated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile,
increasing political conflict in the South China Sea with regards to the Philippines and conflict
within other flash points reveals the possibility of a Great Power War between China and the
U.S. In the end, the determination of action will be made in regards to whether the threat is
coming from a stable of unstable state actor.

9. Evaluating Nuclear and Great Power War 8
Works Cited
Close Calls With Nuclear Weapons. (2015, April). Retrieved October 26, 2016.
Copper, J. F. (n.d.). Defining the Great Powers and War. In Controversies in Globalization
(pp. 249-262).
Gompert, D., Cevallos, A., & Garafola, C. (2016). War With China: Thinking Through the
Unthinkable.
Katz, A., & Osdoby, S. (1982, April 21). The Social and Economic Effects of Nuclear War. Cato
Policy Analysis. Retrieved October 26, 2016.
Perlez, J. (2016, October 20). Rodrigo Duterte and Xi Jinping Agree to Reopen South China Sea
Talks. New York Times. Retrieved October 26, 2016.
Sagan, S. (2012, July 5). A Call For Global Nuclear Disarmament. Nature Magazine, 487.
Sagan, S., & Pauly, R. (n.d.). Nuclear Weapons. In Controversies in Globalization (pp. 161-175).