Daily Times

North Korea recently launched a ballistic missile over Japan. This is conceivably the last thing the world needed, with the global economy still recuperating from Covid and the Ukrainian conflict taking its toll. Trump once remarked that Japan and South Korea should develop nukes to deter North Korea. Military tacticians who view the world from the lens of “realism” would concur; the world is anarchical and there is no higher authority that intervenes, especially if the international community fails to prevent aggression against a weaker state. If you desire state sovereignty, nukes are the paramount guarantee of defence. Nuclear states need not worry about their territorial integrity since their enemies are dissuaded by the fear of annihilation and no rational state would dare invade them. Can we, therefore, conclude that international security would improve if more countries developed nukes?

The debate over the efficacy of nukes is contentious. Exponents of “Deterrence Theory,” such as Brodie, state that the capability to inflict significant damage can influence the decisions of states, resulting in deterrence. Kenneth Waltz argues that the logic of “Mutually Assured Destruction” works in most scenarios. For example, the introduction of nuclear weapons in South Asia makes total war unthinkable. Nukes, by de-glamourising war, compel India and Pakistan to resort to diplomacy. The Cold War is another example. The US and USSR, vary of annihilation, never blundered into a conflict. According to John Gaddis, the peace between the US and USSR-Pax Atomica-was the result of the fear of mutual destruction. In contrast, historic rivalries such as the Anglo-German enmity resulted in bloodshed.

Let us scrutinise the Ukrainian Crises; John Mearsheimer, an advocate of “selective proliferation” argued that Ukrainian nukes would ensure peace in Eastern Europe. Mearsheimer’s argument has some logic; would Russia have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine decided to retain its post – soviet nuclear stockpile? It’s hard to imagine since the threat of Ukrainian nukes would have deterred Putin.

Let’s factor in irrational actors such as renegade generals or terrorist organizations, who would not have to fear nuclear retaliation, or may not care about one.

Key factors we take for granted are an opponent’s belief that nukes will be used in retaliation and that leaders are motivated by rationality. Deterrence can give way to a nuclear spiral via a strategic miscalculation; states, fearing a prelude to offensive measures, may resort to a comprehensive first strike, annihilating the opponent’s nuclear capability. Nor can we overlook the threat posed by a false alarm or an accidental launch, particularly with the development of hypersonic missiles. A false alarm during NATO’s Able Archer 83 exercise almost sparked off a war with the USSR.

What happens when rational logic is abandoned and judgement is clouded by animosity? Nuclear blackmail could be used by autocrats to prevent them from being toppled or to extort neighbours. Totalitarian states may have a high risk of civilian casualties and may not be deterred. Would British nukes have deterred Hitler, or would he still drag Europe towards mass suicide? Has nuclear brinkmanship by the North Koreans made the world a safer place? The use of a nuke during the Iran – Iraq war by either side would have turned the Middle East into a radioactive wasteland. Nukes also result in the Stability – Instability Paradox i.e. nuclear weapons can promote strategic stability but may encourage low-intensity conflicts, covert operations, cyber warfare and use of proxy insurgent groups – all observable in the case of India and Pakistan.

Opponents of proliferation, such as Scott Sagan, argue that more nukes would be detrimental, as some states do not have adequate safeguards, lack the organizational capability to deploy weapons and can’t develop a strategic formula for their use. Henry Kissinger pointed out that if many states possessed nukes, the chances of unauthorized launches, accidents or theft by terrorists are higher. This is especially problematic if we consider rivalries between Iran and Saudi Arabia / Israel, the rise of transnational terrorist organizations and the vulnerability of military infrastructure to cyber warfare. Also, let’s factor in irrational actors such as renegade generals, or terrorist organizations, who would not have to fear nuclear retaliation, or may not care about one. The spectre of nuclear terrorism is especially poignant.

To conclude, I question the very idea of nuclear peace or ensuring strategic stability through deterrence. Dialogue and diplomacy, not sabre rattling or nuclear weapons, are the reason why peace has been achieved in other parts of the world. Europe’s economic integration has rendered conflict between France and Germany inconceivable. Political and economic institutions such as ASEAN have brought communities closer, making war absurd. Consequently, I believe more countries developing nukes would destabilise and undermine international security instead of ensuring peace.

The writer is a freelancer.