Neo-isolationists embrace a constricted view of U.S. national interest: national security and defense –the protection of the security, liberty, and property of the American people –is the only vital U.S. interest. Given to the narrow interest, the U.S. should end alliances with Europe and Asia. It can maintain nuclear forces required to deter nuclear attacks, and also adequate conventional forces. They both will be effective even against a Eurasian hegemon. Neo-isolationists argue that the U.S. is inherently a very secure country and is strategically immune, and that nuclear proliferation is not our problem because it is not necessarily bad as someone claims; rather, some proliferation will even be good.
First of all, nuclear
…show more content…
Knowing this, since the state is unitary rational actor, the would-be attacker will be inhibited, and the U.S. would be secure. In other words, U.S. nuclear retaliatory capabilities are effective deterrence against even determined adversaries, including potential Eurasia hegemon like China or Russia which is less threatening now compared with China, let alone the weaker nuclear states with small number of nuclear weapons. There can be no politically rational state large or small to explode a nuclear bomb on America because U.S. retaliation would be devastating. Besides, Britain, France, PRC and Russia have nuclear retaliatory forces, and this makes it quite likely that these powers will deter each other, further reducing the risk that an ambitious Eurasia hegemon would dominate and military exploit the economic resources of the Eurasian landmass.
On the other hand, nuclear weapons reduce the possibility of war by providing security. One of the reasons for a state to get nuclear weapons is security consideration. Since nuclear weapons are good deterrent weapons, states would like to build up nuclear weapons to increase its security against foreign threats, especially nuclear threats. Admittedly, when facing with threats, a state can also increase security by waging a war and territory expansion. But every war waged invites retaliation and risks the state’s own destruction. In conventional world, the state risks winning or losing; in