Although we claim that the security issues of the post-cold war era are fundamentally different from those confronted during the Cold war, an important counterargument to consider is that the threat of nuclear weapons that were a hallmark of that era are still very much at play. As the list of states who possess nuclear capabilities increase, the potential for another nuclear standoff similar to that between the United States and Russia is viable. However, the context for such a standoff may be entirely different. The ideological competition that underlined the Cold War Era of the past may be substituted with a competition between states tomaintain the current global power dynamics. For example, as China continues to rise and threaten the United States’ international dominance, the United States may get agitated into utilizing its nuclear capabilities to deter the “overturn of the existing order.”¹ If pushed too far, such threats could lead to another Cold War era like situation if a threatened state responds to those threats with their own nuclear arsenal.

Other security issues developing currently from the continued presence of nuclear weapons maintain Cold War era properties. The relevance of the security dilemma arising from the threat of nuclear weapons has continued as a larger share of states have gained access to nuclear capabilities since during the Cold War Era. The debate over whether such access makes states safer is more important than ever before. Richard Smoke warned, “by the middle of our century, threats to national security could appear across a wide and growing spectrum of violence.”² The reality of Smoke’s statement is being proved true by some of the possibilities of further violent action that accessto nuclear weapons can afford to states.

For example, a nuclear Iran can pose a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East region. Access to nuclear weapons could embolden Iran to act more aggressively to achieve their regional goals through conventional war-making capabilities while deterring overly aggressive retaliation by other states. Further, Colin Kahl suggests that an Iran with newly acquired nuclear weapons will view conflicts and disputes “below the nuclear threshold seem safe.”³ Nuclear weapons and their ability to deter and threaten adversaries with their devastating power is a security issue that has continued since the Cold War and will continue until states collectively decide to changethe nuclear status quo.

Troops patrolling in Mosul

Another counterargument to be made against the current post-Cold War era being fundamentally different from is the continued utilization of Third Generation Warfare tactics by the United States military. The United States military has been reluctant to change its tactics facing the current circumstances and warfare styles they have encountered while in the Middle East. This reluctance to adopt a newer tactic may be due to what John Nagl describes as a “rejection of irregular warfare as a significant component of future conflict.”⁴ As such, the United States military continues to use uniforms, train soldiers to fight in conventional head-to-head combat, and utilize technologically advanced military assets to wage war. The United States military is further limited in its capacity to engage in Fourth Generation Warfare tactics because of ethical as well as strategic concerns and conditions of their missions abroad. Given that the United States sends troops abroad to reestablish order, it is imperative that the military acts as transparently as possible. The optics of engaging in some fourth-generation warfare tactics, such as surprise attacks, that insurgents utilize against the United States would be devastating to the goal of winning the favor of the public from the adversary which is an imperative strategic component to winning the war.

It is important to note that the world requires international cooperation and multilateralism to solve the security issues that we face.  However, it will be considerably challenging to face these issues without enforcing action at an international level. With the reality of the non-hierarchical structure of the international system, enforcement of states to carry out their part in a global project is impossible without a state’s consent. As Professor Elias argued, “In international politics, there is no clear chain of command among states and although there are international institutions that exist, they have no real authority over the states that are a part of these institutions.”⁵ In order to solve the complex and overarching issues that the international community will face in the future, there must be an effort to find a solution that fits all states or find ways to get all states to agree to some higher form of decision making for the benefit of all.

1. Ikenberry, John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West Can the Liberal System Survive?”, 31.
2. Smoke, Richard.  “National Security and the Nuclear Dilemma”, 21.
3. Kahl, Colin. “Iran and the Bomb: Would a Nuclear Iran Make the Middle East More Secure?” 159.
4. Nagl, John. “Let’s Win the Wars We’re In”, 21.
5. Elias, Barbara. “The Diplomacy of Violence.” International Security. September 7th, 2020. Lecture.

Image Sources:

1. Gatehouse, Gabriel. “BBC NEWS | Middle East | US Troops Back on Patrol in Iraq,” News, accessed December 19, 2020, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8170562.stm.
2. Alfredo Collosa, “Importance of International Cooperation between Tax Administrations,” September 2, 2019, https://www.ciat.org/importance-of-international-cooperation-between-tax-administrations/?lang=en.