Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Koleksiyonu

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/1939

Browse

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

Ban the Bomb by ... Banning the Bomb? a Turkish Response
(Taylor & Francis, 2017) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
The golden age of deterrence has reached its end. Nuclear weapons, once a star player on the international stage, no longer enjoy a place in the limelight. To be sure, some policymakers still ascribe to nuclear weapons the same prestige that, during the Cold War, they gained because of their unmatched destructive power and the leverage they provided nuclear weapon states in the international arena. But the Cold War environment, in which nuclear weapons in the hands of two superpowers played a vital role in maintaining strategic stability, does not exist anymore. Nor is it likely to be replicated in the future – despite certain parallels between US–Soviet relations during the Cold War and present-day US–Russia relations. Meanwhile, it is painfully obvious that nuclear deterrence is useless against apocalyptic terrorist organizations motivated by religious extremism. If such a group acquired and used a nuclear weapon, there would be no “return address” toward which retaliation could be directed. And apocalyptic terrorists probably do not fear destruction in the first place. Now that the golden age of deterrence has reached its end, banning nuclear weapons has become achievable – as long as the values that policymakers ascribe to them can be undermined. Now is the time to strip away the handsome mask that hid nuclear weapons’ ugly face throughout the Cold War. It is time for the world to treat nuclear weapons just like chemical and biological weapons – those other weapons of mass destruction – as mere slaughtering weapons, undeserving of prestige. It is time to ban nuclear weapons – just as biological and chemical weapons were banned through the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Disarmament While the Chance Remains
(2017) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
Here’s the question I can’t help but ask as I read through this roundtable, including some readers’ responses to it: What’s so wrong with discussing a nuclear weapon ban treaty? This seemingly simple question can be understood in at least two ways. First, it’s a reaction to certain critics of the ban treaty initiative who believe that the initiative has little chance of forcing disarmament and therefore is a futile waste of time. Well, when you get right down to it, does anyone use his or her time in the most effective way possible, at all times, throughout life? Probably not! So how come engaging in intellectual discussion about a nuclear weapon ban treaty is an especially egregious waste of time?
Good News From Vienna Is a Relief To Ankara
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2015) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa; Sazak, Selim C.
After months of harrowing negotiations, the nuclear talks in Vienna have finally succeeded, marking the most significant accord between Iran and major world powers since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. Absent from the festivities, however, was one country that worked hard to bring this day forth—Turkey.
How Plutonium Undermines the Hibakusha
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2015) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
Akira Kawasaki wrote in Round One that the noble disarmament efforts of the Hibakusha—survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—"have often been ignored" outside Japan. Indeed, the Hibakusha's message has "sometimes been misinterpreted so badly" that it has "been portrayed as an incentive for nations to develop nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence."
Nuclear Weapons: Not Taboo Enough
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2015) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
I wish I could argue that the world had properly absorbed the lessons of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Unfortunately, I must argue the opposite. Why? First and foremost, large numbers of people around the world believe that dropping the atomic bombs—regardless of how catastrophic the consequences were for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—saved lives, perhaps millions of them, by bringing World War II to a prompt conclusion. But history doesn't substantiate this point of view. Japan had already lost much ground in the Asia-Pacific region. Europe's fascist regimes had fallen; the war had ended in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East; and Japan was left to fight its enemies alone. Under such circumstances the Japanese Empire couldn't have prolonged the war much longer in any case.
Reality: Humanity Can’t Indefinitely Avoid Using Nuclear Weapons
(2017) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
A Bulletin reader named Ryan Alt argues in the comments to this roundtable that “it is very difficult to imagine [a nuclear weapon] ban [treaty] as anything more than wishful thinking.” Another reader, Keith B. Rosenberg, writes that one should “[n]ever make a treaty that will not be adhered to”—essentially, that the ban treaty is too idealistic to be feasible. I’ll argue the opposite—that realistically appraising nuclear weapons and their dangers demands the negotiation of a ban treaty. What is overly idealistic is to believe that humanity, if it possesses nuclear weapons indefinitely, will indefinitely manage to avoid nuclear war.
To Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Strip Away Their Handsome Mask
(2016) Kibaroğlu, Mustafa
The golden age of deterrence has reached its end. Nuclear weapons, once a star player on the international stage, no longer enjoy a place in the limelight.To be sure, some policy makers still ascribe to nuclear weapons the same prestige that, during the Cold War, they gained because of their unmatched destructive power and the leverage they provided nuclear weapon states in the international arena. But the Cold War environment, in which nuclear weapons in the hands of two superpowers played a vital role in maintaining strategic stability, doesn’t exist anymore. Nor is it likely to be replicated in the future—despite certain parallels between US-Soviet relations during the Cold War and present-day US-Russia relations. Meanwhile, it is painfully obvious that nuclear deterrence is useless against apocalyptic terrorist organizations motivated by religious extremism. If such a group acquired and used a nuclear weapon, there would be no “return address” toward which retaliation could be directed. And apocalyptic terrorists probably don’t fear destruction in the first place.

Browse

Browsing Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Koleksiyonu by Journal "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"