Oppenheimer and the False Negative Peace
Oppenheimer and the False Negative Peace
Vítor Vieira Branquinho
“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”
Bhagavad Gita (1998)
Introduction
The seven times Academy Awards winner, Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, makes one year since the launching in Brazil on July 20th, and discusses the history of the creation of the atomic bomb, as well as the life of its creator, Robert Oppenheimer. In the movie, one sees some interesting topics as the theoric-physics aspects of the weapon, the north-american politics by the time and the collaboration in the Manhattan Project for its development. Although, one highlights the dialog between Oppenheimer and the professor Albert Einstein in the end of the movie, which is about the followings of such a powerful weapon as that one.
In this dialog, Oppenheimer is concerned about an undermost mathematical probability that the nuclear fission expands unlimitedly and consumes the whole atmosphere, leading the world to its destruction and Einstein was to reassure if the calculations were correct. At the end of the movie, after the bomb was already used, they both meet again and the creator said that the chain reaction that would destroy the Earth had started. This happened because of the outcomes that the weapon brought, not only in the warlike context, but also in the social aspect. Its power had changed how the world conceived wars and politics and how it would be used from then on. Either way, Oppenheimer thought the world would end because of his creation, no matter how it played a part in it (Oppenheimer, 2023).
Even so, some scholars, such as Kenneth Waltz (Sagan, Waltz, 1995) and John A. Vasquez (2012), argue that, after World War II, the advent of the atomic bomb created a context that would not allow the happening of wars between great powers. This is known as “negative peace”: the lack of wars and violence (Lawler, 2008). Then, this analysis aims at showing, in the theoretical scope, that, despite scholars’ opinions, the apparent peace is fictitious, given the current conflicts, and the physicist’s prediction could be actually true. For that, it will use Glenn Snyder’s concept of “paradox of stability-instability” (1965), in which the development of the atomic bomb established a world without wars, but also opened the doors to the existence of minor conflicts throughout the globe.
The nuclear stability
The stability showed itself effective just after the ending of World War II: between two nuclear powers, there were any direct conflicts on a major scale. The Cold War was this trial period in which two rival States, afraid of retaliation, would not strike each other (Mearsheimer, 2001). The balance of power, from this moment, happens because of the invention. Mearsheimer (ibid) claims that if States did not have a reason to fear the other, they could fear a lot more an armed conflict between them. That way, one says this weapon put an end to all wars.
Waltz’s structural realism (1979), in spite of disagreeing with some of Mearsheimer’s assumptions, also defends a balance of power coming from the bomb. Even though the destruction caused by it is chaotic - and Oppenheimer will be a fierce critic of its warlike use -, Waltz puts it as a guide to peace. According to him, States’ capacity of frightening their enemies with the commitment of not acting beyond this intimidation converges to a balance of power in the international system.
That is how the Cold War worked. There was a constant arms race pointing to the State that would show the most efficient weapons and, from it, no nuclear conflict happened (National Geographic, 2022). This demonstrates that the more focused the States are in showing off power to their adversaries, the less willing they are to actually use them. Then, the pillars that sustain this stability - the exhibition of power and fear -, though may seem weak, ensure that no true conflict happens.
Finally, it culminates to nowadays, when nine countries detain atomic missiles (CNN Brasil, 2024) throughout the globe: Russia, United States, India, China, France, United Kingdom, Paquistan, North Korea and Israel. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNP, 1968) restricted even more the development of more, but this does not change the aimed goal: peace. Neither Mearsheimer, nor Waltz, defended that all countries should have this technology, but that, in a system where power capacities are distributed, a strong conflict of this level should not be feared - even if one fears the rival (Mearsheimer, 2001; Waltz, 1979). One may notice that the atomic bomb stopped being a warlike weapon, but became a political tool (Bell, 2019) to achieve States’ interests. Once there are no large scale international conflicts, due to the fact that they would result in the end of countries, the opportunity for States with unequal capacities to bribe the others emerged.
The localized instability
In this context, in which a non-aggression behavior between atomic countries was established, they act like a child that, owning the toy, sets the game rules and, if the other wants to play with it, they must follow what was said. Mark S. Bell (2019) claims, in his nuclear opportunism, the bargain power that States with this warlike capacity have and how they utilize it to acquire their goals. To him, States can use it to reach six political behaviors, depending on the desired end: aggression, expansion, independence, bolstering, steadfastness and compromise. Apart from the purpose, the end is the same: prevalence of the most powerful.
There is, then, an imbalance in international relations. Given that no nuclear State will strike the other afraid of retaliation, they themselves can run after their political objectives. Hence, nuclear weapons energize, instead of undermining, political ambitions (Bell, 2019). This means that, now that it has this capacity, a State might follow his desire without impeding, something it would not do if it did not have such a weapon. For instance, the War on Ukraine is one in which this can be seen. Since Russia does not have a rival that blocks its advance and it has the power to bargain itself through the Ukrainian territory, it becomes useless to fight its victory: from a realist perspective, there is no way Russia is not conquering Ukraine (Loureiro, 2022).
Moreover, beyond the use itself of the bomb, Geller (1990) argues that violence between countries is still going to happen. If a country does not want to use nuclear force or there is a strong interest of a non-nuclear State in a given conflict, military forces still will be used. Anyway, violence continues. The War on Ukraine is also an example here: Russia does not want to destroy nuclearly Ukraine’s territory because it wants to empower itself from it and Ukraine - that does not have atomic bombs - wants to maintain its territory, despite the ways for it (BBC News, 2022).
Another conflict that highlights itself is the Israel-Palestine one. Without nuclear weaponry, both fight for its interests, lacking a categorical mediation able to end the dispute. Israel can not use atomic bombs because it would suffer from international retaliation, and, knowing this, Palestinians keep striking Israel, fearless of the nuclear reaction. Thus, the conflict remains (CNN Brasil, 2024).
One realizes, therefore, that even though the atomic bomb brought some stability in world conflicts, there are still a lot happening currently - in addition to those cited here - and that do not have a simple and fast way to solve it. Instability happens when countries search for their own interests, without having external breaks able to stop them, and, even if they use military force, getting closure to them by the end.
Conclusion
Summing up, given that negative peace is the lack of conflicts and the use of violence, it is meaningless to assure that the international system lives in it. The stability-instability paradox suits as a disproof to this acclamation, once instability exists. States still search their interest and they will always do (Morgenthau, 2003), in spite of the way they use to do it - the atomic bomb became only a new one. Economic, territorial, ethnic and religious factors still are reasons for wars, even in levels lower to the Great Wars. By any means, people suffer from those conflicts, human rights are breached and the development of nations is blocked despite the premise of growth in others. In the end, Oppenheimer may be worried about human destruction by his creation, however, though it was the main way for it, the bomb opened the doors for new policies and strategies and people will suffer along because of it indeed.
References
ALÉM de Rússia e Estados Unidos: Saiba quais países têm armas nucleares. CNN Brasil. Brasília, 2024. Disponível em: <https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/internacional/alem-de-russia-e-estados-unidos-saiba-quais-paises-tem-armas-nucleares/>. Acesso em: 14 de junho de 2024.
BELL, Mark S.. Nuclear Opportunism: A theory of how states use nuclear weapons in international politics, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 42, n. 1, 2019, pp. 3-28.
BHAGAVAD Gita: Canção do Divino Mestre. Tradução de Rogério Duarte. São Paulo: Editora Schwarcz, 1998.
GELLER, Daniel S.. Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 34, n. 2, jun 1990, pp. 291-310.
ISRAEL não tem capacidade para guerra em grande escala sem apoio do Ocidente, diz especialista. CNN Brasil. Brasília, 2024. Disponível em: <https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/internacional/israel-nao-tem-capacidade-para-guerra-em-grande-escala-sem-apoio-do-ocidente-diz-especialista/>. Acesso em: 15 de junho de 2024.
LAWLER, Peter. Peace Studies. In: WILLIAMSON, Paul. Security Studies: an Introduction. USA: Routledge, 2008.
LOUREIRO, Felipe. A Guerra na Ucrânia: significados e perspectivas. CEBRI. Rio de Janeiro, 2022. Disponível em: <https://cebri.org/revista/br/artigo/27/a-guerra-na-ucrania-significados-e-perspectivas>. Acesso em: 14 de junho de 2024.
MEARSHEIMER, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 1ª edição. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
MORGENTHAU, Hans J.. A Política entre as Nações: a luta pelo poder e pela paz. 1º edição. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2003.
OPPENHEIMER. Direção: Christopher Nolan. Produção: E. Thomas, C. Roven. Londres: Syncopy & Los Angeles: Atlas Entertainment, 2023.
O que foi a Guerra Fria? Diferenças e semelhanças com a atualidade. National Geographic. Colorado, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.nationalgeographicbrasil.com/historia/2022/03/o-que-foi-a-guerra-fria-diferencas-e-semelhancas-com-a-atualidade>. Acesso em: 14 de junho de 2024.
POR que motivos a Rússia invadiu a Ucrânia: Resumo. BBC News. São Paulo, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-60606340>. Acesso em: 15 de junho de 2024.
SAGAN, Scott D; WALTZ, Kenneth N.. (1995) The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. 2ª edição. New York: Editora W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.
SNYDER, Glenn H. The Balance of Power and the Balance of Terror. In: SEABURY, Paul. (Eds.) Balance of Power. São Francisco: Chandler, 1965.
TRATADO de Não Proliferação de Armas Nucleares (TNP). 01 de julho de 1968. Disponível em: <https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d2864.htm>. Acesso em: 15 de junho de 2024.
VASQUEZ, John A.. What do We Know About War?. 1ª edição. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2012.
WALTZ, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. 1ª edição. Pearson: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
