Future of Nuclear Warfare
Margret Thatcher once said “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” Nuclear weapons pose a significant threat due to their immense destructive power. The risk of accidental detonation, proliferation to rogue states or non-state actors, and the potential for a nuclear arms race all contribute to the instability and danger they bring. Additionally, the long-lasting environmental and health consequences of a nuclear attack or accident further highlight the grave risks associated with these weapons.
For decades, states possessing nuclear weapons have implicitly or explicitly threatened nuclear war. The essence of deterrence lies in threats like these: if you attack, we will destroy your society and your most crucial military assets. The fact that a nuclear threat is being made is nevertheless unusual and alarming. Since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, explicit threats and nuclear alert levels have become rare.
The implied nuclear threats that Russian President Vladimir Putin made to the United States and NATO in March of 2022 as he pressed his full-scale invasion of Ukraine were also startling.
Putin said that anyone who stood in the way of the assault would face consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history.”
A few days later, he put Russian strategic forces on “special combat readiness.” That nuclear threats can be made today is a shock to those who thought the end of the Cold War had made them historical curiosities. During the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons emboldened some national leaders to make threats that they thought would advance their positions in a crisis by coercing or deterring their adversaries.
These threats, however, often had unintended consequences, including escalation of tensions and the possibility of an actual nuclear conflict. With the end of the Cold War, many people believed that these threats were a thing of the past and that the risk posed by nuclear weapons had decreased.
Albert Einstein once said that “There is no foreseeable defense against atomic bombs”.
According to parliament’s defense committee chairman, Russia, the world’s biggest nuclear power, may reduce the decision-making time stipulated in its official policy if it believes threats are growing.
Last month, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia might change its official nuclear doctrine setting out the conditions under which such weapons can be used. The war in Ukraine has prompted the biggest confrontation between Russia and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Russian state news agency RIA quoted Andrei Kartapolov, head of the lower house of parliament’s defense committee, as saying that if threats increased, the time to decide whether to use such weapons might be shortened.
“If we see that the challenges and threats increase, it means that we can correct something in (the doctrine) regarding the timing of the use of nuclear weapons and the decision to make this use,” RIA quoted Kartapolov as saying.
According to Kartapolov, who served as commander of Russian forces in Syria and is now a lawmaker from the ruling United Russia party, it is too early to speak about specific changes to nuclear doctrine. The 2020 nuclear doctrine of Russia specifies when nuclear weapons might be used: broadly in response to attacks using nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons that threaten the existence of the state.
While Russia’s nuclear doctrine emphasizes the use of nuclear weapons as a response to a threat to the state’s existence, other countries like the United States and China have adopted more restrained nuclear doctrines, focusing on deterrence and maintaining a credible nuclear arsenal. This difference in approach raises concerns about the potential for misinterpretation and miscalculation in a crisis, further highlighting the complex and delicate nature of nuclear weapons and their potential consequences.
Herman Khan is quoted saying this about nuclear warfare, “Nuclear war is such an emotional subject that many people see the weapons themselves as the common enemy of humanity.”
The delicate nature of nuclear weapons and their potential consequences have a profound impact on international relations. The differences in nuclear doctrines among countries contribute to the complexity and uncertainty surrounding nuclear deterrence strategies, raising concerns about misinterpretation, miscalculation, and the potential for escalation in a crisis. As such, maintaining open lines of communication and promoting transparency between nuclear-armed states becomes crucial for reducing tensions and avoiding catastrophic outcomes. International organizations play a crucial role in reducing tensions among nuclear-armed states.
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.
Through platforms such as the United Nations, these organizations foster dialogue, promote disarmament efforts, and facilitate diplomatic negotiations to address concerns and build trust between countries. By providing a forum for discussion and cooperation, international organizations contribute to the stability and security of the global nuclear order.
The potential consequences of misinterpretation and miscalculation in nuclear deterrence strategies are not only limited to the immediate impact of a conflict, but also extend to the long-term consequences for global security and stability. A single misunderstanding or misjudgment could spiral into a full-scale nuclear war, resulting in unimaginable destruction and loss of life. This highlights the urgent need for effective communication channels, transparency, and diplomatic efforts to prevent such catastrophic outcomes. Misinterpretation in nuclear deterrence strategies can lead to a dangerous chain of events.
For example, if one country misinterprets another’s actions as a prelude to a nuclear attack, it may respond with its own nuclear weapons, triggering a devastating escalation. This underscores the critical importance of clear communication and mutual understanding among nuclear-armed states to avoid such catastrophic outcomes.
A full-scale nuclear war would result in unimaginable destruction and loss of life on a global scale. The use of nuclear weapons would cause widespread devastation, including the destruction of cities, infrastructure, and ecosystems. The long-term consequences would be even more severe, with the potential for lasting radiation effects, environmental contamination, and the disruption of global food and water supplies. The catastrophic human and environmental toll of a full-scale nuclear war underscores the urgent need for continued efforts to prevent the use of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament.
Other Readings:
1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/thinking-about-unthinkable-five-nuclear-weapons-issues-address-2024
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/irans-new-nuclear-threat
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-lawmaker-warns-moscow-may-change-timing-use-nuclear-weapons-2024-06-23/
https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/nuclear-security/ 5.https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm#:~:text=Environmental%20and%20socio%2Deconomic%20impact%20of%20nuclear%20weapons&text=Nuclear%20war%20would%20mean%20a,exacerbated%20effects%20of%20global%20warming
https://www.choices.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Choices_NuclearWeapons_Preview_toc.pdf
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/features/nuclear-threats-and-alerts-looking-cold-war-background#:~:text=How%20did%20that%20come%20about,coercing%20or%20deterring%20their%20adversaries.