Written by The Unfolding Debate Amid Russia-Ukraine Tensions
The nuclear weapons debate has seen a resurgence amid Russia-Ukraine tensions, with Vladimir Putin pressuring to test atomic bombs, ultimately heightening Western concerns. The international community, including the US, UK, France, and even China, has expressed concern and warned against the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict, and there has been a clear shift in Russia’s approach to nuclear deterrence.
As these problems arise in the landscape of international security, the enduring debate on whether to develop nuclear weapons, and what protects the international status-quo, remains.
International Relations Background
In the relentless pursuit of military superiority, nations have historically engaged in continuous innovation to develop advanced weapons capable of overcoming adversaries during times of conflict. However, the advent of nuclear weapons marked a paradigm shift in warfare, distinguishing them from conventional tools of combat. As observed by Bernard Brodie, one of the first military theorists of the atomic age:
“Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose”.
This statement encapsulates the paradoxical nature at the heart of the nuclear revolution.
Nuclear weapons as deterrence
In the post-Cold War era, multiple nations have acquired nuclear capabilities. In this scenario, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) renders it challenging to justify or comprehend the meaningful purpose behind engaging in an all-encompassing nuclear conflict, or even a “limited” one.
Mutual Assured Destruction
In that case, if nuclear weapons are not useful as “instruments of war”, what is their purpose? The simple answer would be deterrence. In this hypothesis, states use the threat of possible nuclear retaliation to deter other states from attacking them.
Nuclear Proliferation: More is better or worse?
In his 1981 publication, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better”, political scientist and international relations scholar, Kenneth Waltz, argued that nuclear proliferation could foster peace and stability as a deterrent. He contended that possessing nuclear power would heighten a nation’s awareness of the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war, prompting caution and responsibility among nuclear-armed states. Would the Bush administration have invaded Iraq, in 2003, if Saddam Hussein had even a small number of nuclear weapons? He asserted that the presence of nuclear weapons would have led the United States to reconsider its actions, given the risk of a retaliatory strike.
Waltz also addresses a Western bias regarding nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, challenging the perception that these nations would act irresponsibly. He cites China as a precedent: despite being deemed revolutionary in the 1950s and 1960s for acquiring nuclear weapons, China has maintained responsibility, refraining from their use. Today, it could hardly be defined as an “irresponsible state”, defying initial concerns.
On the other hand, renowned scholar Scott Sagan, specialized in nuclear weapons policy and disarmament, contends that nuclear proliferation heightens global instability: “More will be worse”, emphasizing that new nuclear states lack robust organizational structures for secure weapon control. Sagan challenges Waltz, pointing out the unpredictability of leaders and governments acquiring nuclear arms, especially in states lacking stable, civilian-run governments, amplifying dangerous circumstances: nuclear weapons are controlled by “imperfect human beings in imperfect organisations”.
He argues that deterrence depends on the state’s second strike capabilities, this is, the capabilities of that state to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary, even after the adversary hits first with its best nuclear attack. Lastly, he also mentions the possibility of a nuclear accident, which increases with the nuclear proliferation:
“Common biases, rigid routines, and parochial interests of military organizations will lead to deterrence failures and accidental uses of nuclear weapons despite national interests to the contrary.”
Vladimir Putin’s Nuclear Rhetoric
Vladimir Putin (Source: Financial Times)
While Putin has dialled down on explicit nuclear threats, recent simulations of a massive retaliatory strike and other manoeuvres serve as reminders of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Western analysts caution that despite toned-down rhetoric, the nuclear threat persists.
Rather than overt threats, Russia has explored other ways to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. This includes revoking the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), conducting tests on new missiles with potentially unlimited range, deploying tactical nuclear weapons to neighbouring Belarus, and suspending participation in the New Start Treaty. Podvig, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, said:
“There was an understanding that Russia won’t gain any friends by putting emphasis on its nuclear weapons, so the de-ratification of CTBT was a kind of compromise, if you will, between those who want a strong stick and those who realise it would be counterproductive.”
Within Russia, there are differing views on the use of nuclear weapons, with this internal debate reflecting concerns about Russia appearing weak without a credible atomic threat. While some suggest that Russia might consider heightened nuclear containment as part of its overall strategy in the conflict, others advocate for pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a means to halt Western support for Ukraine, with a few figures within Russia’s propaganda machine going as far as suggesting extreme measures such as detonating a thermonuclear weapon in the atmosphere, amplifying nuclear rhetoric: “Less talk, more action”, asserted Dmitry Trenin, a prominent foreign policy academic who supports nuclear sabre-rattling as a strategy to “bring back fear” to Western capitals.
Conclusion
While nuclear weapons offer a stabilizing effect through deterrence, the prospect of other states obtaining these weapons raises concerns about potential escalation into devastating conflicts. While these weapons may reduce the likelihood of war, they also amplify the potential for unparalleled destruction.
It is important to note the intricate dynamics involving nuclear weapons in the ongoing conflict and the potential impact on the geopolitical landscape, especially in Europe. The situation remains complex, and ongoing developments should be closely monitored to understand the evolving nature of the conflict and its broader implications.
The ongoing discourse on nuclear proliferation and deterrence remains crucial, aided by insights from international relations to enhance our understanding of this complex issue.
Sources: UN News; The Autralian; Financial Times; “Introduction to International Relations” Joseph Grieca, G.John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno
Catarina Franco
theawarenessnews.com 