“Thinking about nuclear weapons during the cold war focused primarily on the bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. The main question was how to prevent conventional or nuclear war between the superpowers. A huge body of literature examined nuclear deterrence- the question of ‘how nuclear weapons could be used to prevent an opponent from taking an undesirable action’ (Walton 2013; 198),” (Baylis 2014; 375). Thomas Schelling also discussed deterrence as “‘the threat that leaves something to chance’- the idea that if there was even a small risk that conventional attack would cause an opponent to escalate to nuclear conflict in response, that risk would deter the conventional attack,” (Baylis 2014; 375).
This blog has been covering the growing and apparent use of unconventional warfare and its different applications. Although the creation of unconventional warfare due to realism has been discussed and also a brief idea as to why smaller unconventional groups use unconventional warfare tactics of terrorism for example. Never has this blog discussed why the conventional powers choose to use unconventional warfare more than conventional warfare. It would seem the most effective way to accomplish an objective would be to pour resources into a big military and accomplish that objective through overwhelming force, aka conventional warfare. But we as a world are very hesitant to do so, even the US military used more PMCs in the Iraq than their own conventional troops (X).
“Countries that have nuclear weapons are involved more often in low- level conflicts, their disputes are less likely to escalate to major war, and they are more likely to get the outcomes they want in a crisis involving non- nuclear opponents (Rauchhaus 2009; Beardsley and Asal 2009),” (Baylis 2014; 378). This outcome is called the stability- instability paradox for the countries with nuclear weapons feel safe from large scale conventional attacks but at the same time they feel safe to engage in low- level conflicts against other countries. So it is seen that unconventional warfare is essentially only used because of the development and the acquirement of nuclear weapons. But why engage in unconventional warfare at all? If we have the ability to deter ourselves from conventional warfare, how are we unable to deter ourselves from much lower levels of conflict?
As mentioned in the blog post, ‘Unconventional Warfare: A Creation of Realism’, the security dilemma is based off the concept that there is a lack of trust between international actors requiring them to be defensive against relative losses of power which will keep the world in a constant state of warfare. But if this state of warfare is no longer conventional due to nuclear armament and if each country still wishes to engage in conflict to maintain their respective power in the world, they must do so through unconventional means. It is often the only way a country can prove their continued dominance in worldly affairs, almost as a reminder to the world that they are not afraid to do what is needed to be done to keep their country and allies safe. Which actually works its way into another reminder to the world because these countries that are willing to engage in unconventional warfare are only willing to do so because they understand their nuclear capabilities allow them to.
So this maybe stretching the connection of nuclear armament and conventional warfare, but are nuclear non- proliferation efforts actually detrimental to the world being it would encourage conventional warfare? It would seem that the combative countries that do not have nuclear weapons are doing one of two things; attempting to acquire nuclear weapons or engaging in conventional warfare to prove their place on the world stage.
Maybe it is the case that non- proliferation efforts are actually causing more conflict in the world than intended but I dare say that it would be best to let all capable international actors acquire nuclear weapons because it is a “threat that leaves something to chance,” (Schelling).
In essence, unconventional warfare has not only proved to be an often used tactic on the world stage but also a necessary one. Without the establishment and use of unconventional warfare the world would have to rely on the use of conventional warfare; which would result in the use of nuclear weapons. So in order to maintain worldly homeostasis, we must rely on unconventional warfare and do our best to refrain from the use of unconventional war tactics and we must at least engage in this because of the security dilemma that the world is entangled in therefore keeping us in a constant state of warfare.
unconventionalwarfare 
