Kyle Beardsley, an associate professor of political science at Duke University, spoke about the impact of nuclear weapons on world security, Wednesday in the 1911 building. 

“Nuclear weapons do give some bargaining advantage to states with nuclear-weapons programs,” Beardsley said. 

Beardsley displayed research data stating that nuclear weapons result in less direct conflict between nuclear states and non-nuclear states. 

“War is going to be less attractive to opponents of nuclear weapon states,” Beardsley said. “Opponents of nuclear states will be less aggressive and will be more likely to back down.” 

The lecture was the last NCSU/ Triangle Institute for Security Studies Energy and Security Initiative event for the semester. More than 20 people attended the luncheon, a majority of them faculty members. 

Beardsley said the existence of nuclear weapons reduced the overall chances of war breaking out. 

According to Beardsley, as the number of powers with nuclear weapons states increased from zero to five, the probability for no violence as a result of an international crisis increased from 4 percent to 21 percent, and the chance of a full -scale war decreased from 56 percent to 19 percent. 

Beardsley also talked about the nuclear state of Iran and why complications would arise if it were to acquire nuclear weapons. 

“With nuclear-weapons programs in other countries, what we are talking about is changes in bargaining power, not the threat of an Armageddon scenario,” Beardsley said. “While some do fear a nuclear bombs being used in aggression, it’s more about preventing a non-nuclear weapons state from acquiring deterrent powers.” 

Beardsley said that once a non-nuclear state obtains nuclear weapons, using diplomacy to get that state to comply with international law goes “out the window.” 

“It’s not because I fear Iran will engage in some Armageddon-type scenario, but because of the bargaining leverage Iran will have,” Beardsley said. 

Although Beardsley said the chance of a full-scale war erupting went down due to the presence of nuclear weapons, minor conflicts increased from 11 percent to 30 percent. 

“What often comes up is the stability and the instability paradox,” Beardsley said. “When states have nuclear weapons, especially when both sides have them, they feel more free to engage in more conventional means, especially in minor cases and through proxy conflicts.” 

Beardsley pointed to the situation involving Vietnam and the United States during the Cold War as an example of proxy conflicts when both sides have nuclear weapons. 

According to Beardsley, the chance of an Armageddon-like doomsday scenario is very small, and the main concern with nuclear weapons is how it affects diplomacy and bargaining power. 

Additionally, nuclear states are primarily effective against non-nuclear opponents in achieving a goal, Beardsley said. 

“War is less likely to escalate for states with nuclear weapons,” Beardsley said. “Opponents of nuclear weapon states are less likely to be aggressive and nuclear states are more likely to be successful in achieving goals of a crisis.” 

Faculty members from several departments and universities attended, representing communications, political science, nuclear engineering and several other departments. Professors from UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke also attended.