Küreselleşmenin artmasıyla birlikte bir ülkenin sorunu artık kendi sınırları içinde kalmamış, diğer devletleri de etkilemeye başlamıştır. Artan bu küreselleşme ve nüfusla birlikte artan enerji talebi nükleer enerjiye olan eğilimi de artırmıştır ancak bu nükleer enerjiye duyulan istek devletler için tartışılmaz bir güç talebidir diyebiliriz. Nükleer enerjinin enerji güvenliğindeki rolü, bu güce yönelik karşı konulamaz arzu nedeniyle çok büyüktür. Devletler için güvenlik kaygıları devreye girdiğinde, diplomatik müzakereler tek yol olmayabilir. Caydırıcılık eyleminin devreye girdiği yer burasıdır ve nükleer gücün caydırıcılık fikriyle birleşmesi devletler için altın bir kozdur. Üstelik bu koz öyle bir kozdur ki günümüz dünyasının hegemonik güçleri olan ABD, ÇHC ve RF'ye karşı bile caydırıcı bir güçtür. Bununla birlikte bahse konu küresel güçlerin son dönemde bazı anlaşmaları askıya almaları veya anlaşmalardan çekilmeleri küresel güvenlik algılamalarını derinden değiştirmiştir. Bu çalışmada nükleer güç olma ve güvenlik ilişkisi incelenecek, güvenlik ve enerji güvenliği kavramı tartışılacak ve nükleer caydırıcılığın rolü antlaşmalar tarihi ile birlikte açıklanacaktır.


With the increase of globalization, the problem of a country is no longer limited within its own borders but has begun to affect other states as well. With this increasing globalization and population, the rising energy demand has also increased the tendency towards nuclear energy, but we can say that the desire for this nuclear power is an indisputable power demand for the states. The role of nuclear power in energy security is huge, because of the irresistible desire for this power. When security concerns come into play for the states, diplomatic negotiations may not be the only way. This is where the deterrence action comes into play, and the combination of nuclear power with the idea of deterrence is a golden trump card for the states. Furthermore, this trump is such a trump card that it is a deterrent force even against US, PRC and RF which are the hegemonic powers in today's world. In this study, the relation between being nuclear power and security to be analyzed, the concept of the security and the energy security to be discussed and the role of the nuclear deterrence to be explained within the history of the treaties.


  • Arbatov, A., Dvorkin, V., & Evseev, V. (2005). Nuclear deterrence and arms control after the Cold War. In V. Evseev (Ed.) Revising nuclear deterrence (p. 58–66). Center for International & Security Studies, U. Maryland.
  • Basrur, R. (2015). Nuclear stability and polarity in Post–Cold War Asia. Asia Policy, 19, 5–13.
  • Baylis, J. (1987). NATO Strategy: The case for a new strategic concept. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 64(1), 43–59. 
  • Becker, J. D. (2020). Strategy in the new era of tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 14(1), 117–140.
  • Blackwell, J. A. (2020). Blackwell, J. A. (2020). Cognitive hyper-dissonance: nuclear signaling through military Exercises. Institute for Defense Analyses. (p. 28–35).
  • Blight, J. G., Nye, J. S., & Welch, D. A. (1987). The Cuban missile crisis revisited. Foreign Affairs, 66(1), 170–188.
  • Brauch, H.G. (2011). Concepts of security threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks. In Brauch, H., et al. (Eds.) Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17776-7_2
  • Brom, S. (2016). Israel and strategic stability in the Middle East. In E. B. Landau & A. Kurz (Eds.), Arms Control and Strategic Stability in the Middle East and Europe (pp. 99–114). Institute for National Security Studies.
  • Buchan, G. (2002). Nuclear weapons and U.S. National security strategy for a new century. In Z. Khalilzad & J. Shapiro (Eds.), Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century (1st ed., pp. 225–282). RAND Corporation.
  • Cohen A. and Burr, W. (2020). Revisiting the 1979 VELA mystery: A report on a critical oral history conference. Retrieved on 2023, May 21 from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/revisiting-1979-vela-mystery-report-critical-oral-history-conference.
  • Cheema, P. I. (2011). Anatomizing Pakistan’s motivations for nuclear weapons. Pakistan Horizon, 64(2), 5–19.
  • Chyba, C. F., & Legvold, R. (2020). Conclusion: Strategic stability & nuclear war. Daedalus, 149(2), 222–237.
  • Chuliá, H., Furió, D., & Uribe, J. M. (2019). Volatility spillovers in energy markets. The Energy Journal, 40(3), 173–198.
  • Ciutǎ, F. (2009). Security and the problem of context: A hermeneutical critique of securitisation theory. Review of International Studies, 35(2), 301–326.
  • Clapson, M. (2019). The blitz companion: Aerial warfare, civilians and the city since 1911. University of Westminster Press.
  • Clarke, P. (2020). Nuclear power. In P. Jennings & M. Hellyer (Eds.), Submarines: Your questions answered (pp. 54–62). Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
  • Deudney, D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (1992). Who won the Cold War? Foreign Policy, 87, 123–138
  • Farrell, T. (2010). Nuclear non-use: constructing a Cold War history. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 819–829.
  • Fattouh, B., Heidug, W., & Zakkour, P. (2021). Transitioning to net-zero: CCUS and the role of oil and gas producing countries. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
  • Gavin, F. J. (2009). Same as it ever was: Nuclear alarmism, proliferation, and the Cold War. International Security, 34(3), 7–37.
  • Grausam, D. (2016). Cold War, Post–Cold War: What was (is) the Cold War? In J. Gladstone, A. Hoberek, & D. Worden (Eds.), Postmodern/Postwar and After: Rethinking American Literature (pp. 141–152). University of Iowa Press.
  • Gottfried, K. (2006). Climate change and nuclear power. Social Research, 73(3), 1011–1024.
  • Haynes, S. T. (2016). China’s nuclear threat perceptions. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 10(2), 25–62.
  • Heard, L.S. (2017). The forgotten bomb in the basement. Retrieved on 2023, April 01 from https://www.arabnews.com/node/244392.
  • Herwig, H. H. (2002). Germany and the “short-war” illusion: Toward a new interpretation? The Journal of Military History, 66(3), 681–693.
  • IEA. (2023a). Monthly electricity statistics. Retrieved on 2023, March 01 from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/monthly-electricity-statistics.
  • IEA. (2023b). Nuclear. Retrieved on 2023, March 01 from https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/nuclear.
  • Kan, N. (2018) The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster and the future of renewable energy. Cornell University Press.
  • Kaysen, C., McNamara, R. S., & Rathjens, G. W. (1991). Nuclear weapons after the Cold War. Foreign Affairs, 70(4), 95–110.
  • Kimball, D. G. (2012). FOCUS: Ending Cold War nuclear thinking. Arms Control Today, 42(2), 4–4.
  • Koshy, N. (2002). New US nuclear doctrine. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(14), 1319–1321.
  • Kroenig, M., & Gibbons, R. D. (2016). The next nuclear war. In H. D. Sokolski (Ed.), Should We Let the Bomb Spread? (pp. 137–182). Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
  • Laffey, M., & Weldes, J. (2008). Decolonizing the Cuban missile crisis. International Studies Quarterly, 52(3), 555–577.
  • Landau, E. B. (2012). Decade of diplomacy: Negotiations with Iran and North Korea and the future of nuclear nonproliferation. Institute for National Security Studies. 
  • Leffler, M. P. (1990). National security. The Journal of American History, 77(1), 143–152. 
  • Leffler, M. P. (2005). Cold War and global hegemony, 1945-1991. OAH Magazine of History, 19(2), 65–72.
  • Lebow, R. N., & Stein, J. G. (1995). Deterrence and the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 110(2), 157–181.
  • Leveringhaus, N. (2018). Beyond “hangovers”: The new parameters of post–Cold War nuclear strategy. In R. W. Glenn (Ed.), New directions in strategic thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre’s Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings (pp. 77–90).
  • Miller, L. K., & McAuliffe, M. (1994). The Cuban missile crisis. OAH Magazine of History, 8(2), 24–41.
  • Mueller, J. (2010). Nuclear weapons. Foreign Policy, 177, 38–44.
  • Nadir, L. C. (2013). Cold War. The North American Review, 298(3), 3–5.
  • Nichols, T. M. (2014). No Use: nuclear weapons and U.S. national security. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Niebuhr, R. (1959). The Cold War and the nuclear dilemma. CrossCurrents, 9(3), 212–224.
  • Nuckolls, J. H. (1995). Post-Cold War nuclear dangers: proliferation and terrorism. Science, 267(5201), 1112–1114.
  • Oakes, G. (1993). The Cold War conception of nuclear reality: Mobilizing the American imagination for nuclear war in the 1950’s. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 6(3), 339–363.
  • Paterson, T. G. (1986). The origins of the Cold War. OAH Magazine of History, 2(1), 5–18.
  • Phillips, A. F. (2001). Forgotten dangers of the Cold War: Nuclear accidents and nuclear winter. Peace Research, 33(2), 129–144.
  • Reuters. (2022). EU parliament backs labelling gas and nuclear investments as green. Retrieved on 2023, March 01 from https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-parliament-vote-green-gas-nuclear-rules-2022-07-06/.
  • Roehrig, T. (2017). Japan, South Korea, and the United States nuclear umbrella: Deterrence after the Cold War. Columbia University Press.
  • Rühle, M. (2019). NATO’s nuclear deterrence: more important, yet more contested. NATO Defense College.
  • Sagan, C., & Turco, R. P. (1993). Nuclear winter in the Post-Cold War era. Journal of Peace Research, 30(4), 369–373.
  • Santosuosso, A. (1996). Kadesh Revisited: Reconstructing the battle between the Egyptians and the Hittites. The Journal of Military History, 60(3), 423–444.
  • Santoro, D. (2005). Rethinking the concept of weapons of mass destruction: An assessment of the weapons of concern. AQ: Australian Quarterly, 77(6), 21–40.
  • Scarlott, J. (1991). Nuclear proliferation after the Cold War. World Policy Journal, 8(4), 687–710.
  • Schulz, M. (2006). Nuclear power is the future. The Wilson Quarterly (1976), 30(4), 59–63.
  • Shull, A., & Wark, W. (2021). Reimagining a Canadian national security strategy. Centre for International Governance Innovation.
  • Simpson. J. (1994). Nuclear non-proliferation in the Post-Cold War era. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944), 70(1), 17–39.
  • Singh, K. (1979). Foreign Affairs Pakistan, India, and the bomb. Retrieved on 2023, April 10 from https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/01/archives/foreign-affairs-pakistan-india-and-the-bomb.html.
  • Siracusa, J. M. (2009). Reflections on the Cold War. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 1–16.
  • Science News. (2007). Winter wonders. Retrieved on 2023, April 15 from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/letters-april-7-2007-issue-science-news.
  • Suri, J. (2008). Nuclear weapons and the escalation of global conflict since 1945. International Journal, 63(4), 1013–1029.
  • The World Nuclear Association. (2023). World nuclear power reactors & uranium requirements. Retrieved on 2023, April 08 from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx.
  • UN. (2023). Risk of nuclear weapons use higher than at any time since Cold War. Retrieved on 2023, April 14 from https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm.
  • US Department of State. (2023). New START Treaty. Retrieved on 2023, April 12 from https://www.state.gov/new-start/.
  • Thomas-Noone, B. (2016). Tactical nuclear weapons in the modern nuclear era. Lowy Institute for International Policy.
  • Vuving, A. L. (2020). Great power competition: Lessons from the past, implications for the future. In A. L. Vuving, (Ed.). Hindsight, Insight, Foresight: Thinking About Security in the Indo-Pacific (pp. 13–36). Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
  • Walker, J. S. (1990). The decision to use the bomb: A historiographical update. Diplomatic History, 14(1), 97–114.
  • Wallace, M. (2016). Risk criticism: Precautionary reading in an age of environmental uncertainty. University of Michigan Press.
  • Weaver, M. E. (2014). The relationship between diplomacy and military force: An example from the Cuban missile crisis. Diplomatic History, 38(1), 137–181. 
  • Wells, S. F. (1992). Nuclear weapons and European security during the Cold War. Diplomatic History, 16(2), 278–286.
  • Zwierlein, C., & de Graaf, B. (2013). Security and conspiracy in modern history. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 38(143), 7–45.


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { akademik-hassasiyetler1283487, journal = {Akademik Hassasiyetler}, issn = {2148-5933}, eissn = {2529-0088}, address = {}, publisher = {Hüzeyfe Süleyman ARSLAN}, year = {2023}, volume = {10}, number = {22}, pages = {109 - 134}, doi = {10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487}, title = {THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY}, key = {cite}, author = {Şeker, Burak Şakir} }
APA Şeker, B. Ş. (2023). THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY . Akademik Hassasiyetler , 10 (22) , 109-134 . DOI: 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487
MLA Şeker, B. Ş. "THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY" . Akademik Hassasiyetler 10 (2023 ): 109-134 <
Chicago Şeker, B. Ş. "THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY". Akademik Hassasiyetler 10 (2023 ): 109-134
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - NÜKLEER GÜCÜN ENERJİ GÜVENLİĞİNDEKİ ROLÜ AU - Burak ŞakirŞeker Y1 - 2023 PY - 2023 N1 - doi: 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487 DO - 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487 T2 - Akademik Hassasiyetler JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 109 EP - 134 VL - 10 IS - 22 SN - 2148-5933-2529-0088 M3 - doi: 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487 UR - Y2 - 2023 ER -
EndNote %0 Akademik Hassasiyetler THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY %A Burak Şakir Şeker %T THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY %D 2023 %J Akademik Hassasiyetler %P 2148-5933-2529-0088 %V 10 %N 22 %R doi: 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487 %U 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487
ISNAD Şeker, Burak Şakir . "THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY". Akademik Hassasiyetler 10 / 22 (Ağustos 2023): 109-134 .
AMA Şeker B. Ş. THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2023; 10(22): 109-134.
Vancouver Şeker B. Ş. THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2023; 10(22): 109-134.
IEEE B. Ş. Şeker , "THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER ON ENERGY SECURITY", , c. 10, sayı. 22, ss. 109-134, Ağu. 2023, doi:10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1283487