It is practically hard to exaggerate the impact of nuclear weapons on combat. World leaders have entirely rethought war as a result of the capacity to obliterate an entire nation, along with every major city and hundreds of thousands to millions of people, in less than an hour. The strongest or most determined person was no longer the winner. In a sense, the adversary became the war itself because it could not be won. They ultimately developed the idea of mutually assured destruction. In other words, the only way to prevent a nuclear conflict is for both sides to possess enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the other. This would prevent such a war from ever being initiated by one side.

It is a radical but straightforward and practical ideology. Once a conflict has begun, there is nothing that can be done to stop it or defuse the situation. Where that line is would then be up to you to decide. Is it appropriate to carry out a full reprisal strike if an enemy uses one or two nuclear bombs against you? Or is it preferable to simply ignore the harm and refrain from acting in order to prevent even worse destruction?

The largest and deadliest conflict in human history, World War II, ended shortly after the detonation of two nuclear weapons. the only instance in which nuclear weapons have been employed in battle. The justification for their use has been hotly contested, and it still is. The US was preparing to invade mainland Japan at the time, and a significant number of people were expected to die. Therefore, some contend that by preventing it, the bombs actually saved millions of lives, while others counter that Japan was already on the verge of capitulating. They knew there was little chance left after their attempt to negotiate a truce with the Soviet Union failed, so they would have given up anyhow. But it is undeniable that their use altered combat. Today, entire civilizations might vanish in a matter of minutes.

Source: Federation of American Scientists

There have been numerous conflicts throughout history fought over errors of judgement. A prime illustration of that is World War II. Germany and Japan both believed that they could win a war and would gain from it. However, those significant errors in judgement were avoided during the Cold War because nuclear weapons' costs and possible repercussions were more obvious than ever. This gave rise to the concept of nuclear deterrence. The fundamental concept of deterrence has existed for aeons. If you desire peace, prepare for battle, as the saying goes in the Pacham parabellum of the ancient Romans. However, the introduction of nuclear weapons raised the bar considerably. Both sides went to considerable pains to design strategies that would allow at least some of their nuclear forces to survive the other's initial strike so they could react.

Three essential components are needed for nuclear deterrence to function. One is that you have a powerful enough and resilient nuclear force to respond. Two: Your adversary actually thinks you will use it if required. Additionally, both sides hold the opinion that such a battle would be so terrible that any gains would be meaningless and that the costs would vastly outweigh any advantages. And that's when things can get complicated. If the threat of a major nuclear conflict is sufficient to prevent someone from ever using nuclear weapons to start a war, it may also prevent them from ever using them to defend themselves. It now becomes plausible for one side to think that they could benefit from such a battle.

It might result in a predicament. Choosing not to act would almost probably result in less overall destruction. But it does demonstrate that the advantages can exceed the disadvantages for an aggressor if you were prepared to tolerate that degree of destruction without retaliating with nuclear weapons. And because of this, you will never learn the precise course of action taken by any nuclear power in an emergency. They'll never specify where that line is. Your deterrence depends on your potential enemy thinking you would use nuclear weapons as retaliation in situations like these, but when it really happens, things turn out differently. Deterrence is therefore in this instance only a fake. However, the bluff has thus far been successful, even though there may have been more than enough justification to do so.

World War Three was never fought between the US and the Soviet Union. However, more countries than ever before now possess nuclear weapons, and there are probably still more working on developing them, which all increases the probability that someone may attempt to call that bluff at some point in the future. There have been efforts to get rid of all nuclear weapons because of these worries, whether they are related to this or even merely a nuclear accident or terrorist attack. To try to achieve this, the UN passed a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2017. It didn't signify much, though, because only non-nuclear states participated in the vote. Nuclear weapons are probably never going to be banned. They provide an advantage that is too great. No matter how little, they may essentially ensure that a country is safe from invasion. Consider North Korea. It's probable that North Korea would no longer exist today if it didn't have nuclear weapons. On the other side, the US invaded and toppled the government of Iraq, which lacked nuclear weapons.

The other issue I enjoy debating is whether getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether would be a good idea. Their risks are clear. They are undoubtedly very terrible weapons, but they also managed to break the cycle of expanding and more destructive world conflicts. So, will we start waging large-scale conventional battles again, or has globalisation made us all too dependent on one another? The Russia-Ukraine war, however, has undoubtedly disappointed such predictions. The decoupling of an economy with international politics that has driven the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has undoubtedly cast doubt on the effectiveness of globalisation. The lack of energy supply and rising prices, which pose a risk of a global recession, are crippling the world's economies, particularly those in Europe.

Putin has stated that he would use "all means possible" to defend Russian territory 

A well-known outcome of nuclear deterrence is proxy wars. Now that nuclear countries are reluctant to engage with each other due to mutually assured destruction, they often use other countries as a playground and associate themselves with opposing militias. We have seen this happen time and time again, Syria is the most recent example. Apart from proxy wars, nuclear deterrence might also perpetuate conventional warfare. If the countries know that the other side will not be using nuclear weapons, conventional warfare can go on for as long as they please. Nuclear deterrence is complicated and is based on an intricately designed assumption of rationality. To work, all the little parts of the nuclear deterrence machine have to be well-oiled and work in tandem with each other. It has worked up until now, but it seems in danger now more than ever.

Putin's threats threaten the principle of Nuclear Deterrence

0 Comments