what does this mean?

Question

Admittedly, if one assumes that states will generally prefer the status quo or embrace relatively benign political intentions, then nuclear balance will not exert much influence on international affairs…Three types of political relations might animate the future nuclear balance: multilateral and multipolar interactions and the conventionalization of nuclear war

Answer 1

A translation:

Of course, if one accepts that various governments will mostly want to keep existing stability or adopt mostly uncontroversial/ non-aggressive policies, then the ability to meet or resist nuclear attack won't much matter in international diplomacy.

......Three types of political standpoints might affect the future nuclear-threat postures: unified multiple parties co-operation and broad multiple philosophies acceptance (rather than narrow black/white, us versus them, adversarial dogma) and ready appreciation (or not) that nuclear use is a reasonable, acceptable war practise.

I hope this clarifies and helps.

Answer 2

Hmm, You assume the economy will not play a factor..If an economy crumbles or changes to an extent that one cannot monitor the multitude to nuculear warheads, then you will see smaller countries easily obtaining Nuclear arms to meet there own designs. A lion in a cage is still a lion.
The only way move that doomsday clock farther away from midnight is to get rid of the bulk of nuclear weapons.
Still, there is much out there from the collapse of the Soviet Union unaccounted for...and if the States happens into a similar fate, then we could see a free for all!

Answer 3

Not to be so technical on as the question is, its pretty simple. There was a nuclear balance during the cold war because the war was based on a contingent threat to use force if the one or the other country used a nuclear device first. Mostly a scorced earth policy....you hit us...we hit you. Just in case some don't believe that, look up history under Operation Chrome dome. we had nukes in the airplanes flying 24hours a day. 3 diffferent routes if I remember my history correct.
This "balance" is an uneasy peace at best now days if not an illusion. Because a terrorist state for instance, with a nuke, isn't going to fear anialation or the plight of their people due to detonating a nuke on their enemy. They are raised with the ideology that sacrificing themselves is for the ultimate good and they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. All their dead countrymen...assuming their enemies even counterstrikes them...would have died a martyr's death for the god they believe in.
Russia feared anialation, the same can't be said of terrorist regiems.

Answer 4

If most countries like to keep things how they are then it won't matter that a bunch of countries already have nukes. However, it will matter if: (1) a few countries get together to agree on limits or form an alliance of some sort, OR (2) if countries pick sides, OR (3) nukes become a weapon that seems normal to use (like guns or airplanes, or tanks).

About time I use my degree in International Relations.

Answer 5

If countries governments were more placid, wanted things to not change, had good intentions to eachother, then it would not be as important whether a country had nuclear weapons or acquire nuclar weapons.

Three types of political relations might change the nuclear balance (what country has them and how many) ----- conventionalizeation of nuclear weapons means the ability to use nuclear weapons in conventinal weapons such as smaller bombs or neutron bombs (radiation bombs) that just kill people not destroy property

I NEED MORE OF THE PARAGRAPH TO BE ABLE TO TRANSLATE IT.

Answer 6

Sounds like a political statement designed so sophisticatedly
that no one supporting can ever possibly be held responsible.

Answer 7

Is it a question or answer to some one's question?

Answer 8

It is pure gibberish. Someone is trying to sound intelligent and is failing miserably.

Answer 9

what u mean actually,by what does this mean? really it is an answer for ur question.

Answer 10

Its very typical