Nuclear weapons present an existential threat to human civilization and they are not going away. Technology advances every single day and with it so does nuclear; these weapons continue to become more accurate and powerful. Nation-States around the globe, previously unarmed, seek to acquire them, and even scarier, so do non-state actors. Since the first nuclear bomb was developed by the U.S in 1945, it seems as if governments worldwide have had little success in trying to effectively curb the proliferation of these weapons and reduce the risks and danger they pose to society. However, there are lessons we can learn from past mistakes and successes, especially during the Cold War. Although the world is much different now than in the days of Kennedy and Kruschev, these lessons can be adapted and translated into policy suggestions fit for the future.
1. Communication to Avoid Miscalculation!
In Thomas Schelling’s 1966 book, Arms and Influence, he believed that war between major countries was unlikely due to the increasing technology and geopolitical factors. However, he did fear that conflict could arise out of miscalculation. He worried that the USSR and U.S could misread each others “intentions” and spark a nuclear war. (Schelling, 95). Schelling’s fears almost came true multiple times during the Cold War as evident from events like the 1980 Damascus Incident, the 1983 Stanislav Pertrov incident, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In an effort to try and decrease the risk for miscalculation, the U.S and USSR established a direct hotline between Washington and the Kremlin.
The United Nations needs to emulate this idea on a grander scale that includes every nuclear-armed nation. The UN needs to create a framework for these nations to be able to communicate directly and often. Whether that be by creating a separate “Nuclear Security Council,” a new global institution, or literally a direct communication mechanism between these countries. By opening up the “phone-lines” between the nuclearized countries the chance for miscalculating a nation’s intent diminishes. Countries can communicate their intentions and try to solve their problems diplomatically before things get out of control. Furthermore, the major nuclear superpowers can monitor each other’s conflicts and try to collectively resolve or deescalate the situation.
Moreover, nuclear weapons are primarily used for deterrent threats, and for them to be effective a line must be drawn, a “trip-wire must be set” (Schelling, 71). The enemy must know what they can and can not do and where the line is drawn for the threat to be credible (Schelling). If the line is not definite and the intentions of nuclear-armed countries are not clear, then there is the potential for deadly misinterpretation. This heightens the chance of miscalculation and inadvertent war because the enemy could accidentally set off a tripwire without even knowing it was there in the first place. Opening the dialogue between nations will allow for each country to clearly set their “tripwire” which will eliminate the risk of miscalculation and unpredictability and enhance the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.
2. A Recommitment to Revamped Nuclear Arms Treaties
Some of the biggest successes to come out of the Cold War were the various arms reduction treaties made between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. However, commitment to those treaties by both countries has deteriorated in recent years, particularly under the Trump Administration. In 2019, the U.S withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty with Russia. In November, they also withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty and in 2021 the New Start Treaty expires and its future looks uncertain. While withdrawal from these treaties may appear problematic and dangerous, it may also present the perfect opportunity to revamp these outdated arms agreements.
These treaties were designed for the bi-polar system of the 1980s, where the U.S.S.R and the U.S were the only superpowers with formidable nuclear arsenals. While the U.S and Russia’s nuclear capabilities still far outweigh the rest of the globe, they are no longer the only players that need to be kept in check. One of the main reasons that U.S. cites for their ultimate withdrawal from many of the agreements is that they did not include China. China’s nuclear capabilities are rapidly expanding and they are not bound by any of the previous treaties. According to the Pentagon, China’s nuclear arsenal is set to double over the next 10 years and make great technological advances in size and delivery systems (PBS). Therefore, it goes against the U.S and Russia’s security interest to allow their arsenals to diminish and age while China expands and modernizes. This is also one of the major reasons why neither the U.S and Russia have been complying with the treaties they are in. They fear China’s rise, especially at a time when their own arsenals are becoming old and much of their missiles need to be retested or redeveloped to stay efficient in the modern age. China’s absence from the treaties has led to the general abandonment of them and a new arms race of sort. To counteract this and move back towards a world of disarmament, new treaties must include at least China and the major nuclear superpowers need to recommit to these revamped arms treaties.
Why stop at China? China’s inclusion in these new deals is definitely the top priority but an effort needs to be made to include as many nuclear countries as possible. Countries like Pakistan, India, France, UK, Israel, and North Korea should be involved in arms talks. The more nations we can get to co-operate and move towards a reduction of arms and establish set rules and guidelines for nuclear weapons, the safer the world will be.
3. U.S and Russia Led the Way on Establishing and Redefining Norms
It certainly will be hard for the U.S or Russia to convince countries like China, India, and North Korea to join arms talks when Washington and Moscow hold combined over 12,000 nuclear weapons while the rest of the world combined hold about 1,200 (Arms Control Association).
Nonetheless, Russia and the U.S need to be the leaders in this push towards peace. Rhetoric alone will not get the job done, they need to lead by example! The two countries will face obvious pushback from the others because of the size of their arsenal but if they show they are willing to practice what they preach it can make all the difference. First, each country must expand the transparency of its nuclear facilities. This starts by allowing more regular visits by the International Atomic Energy Association and other global nuclear watchdog institutions. In addition, each country must openly commit to the re-engagement in arms reduction treaties like the INF and extend the New Start treaty, hopefully alongside a newly added China. Furthermore, the two countries need to work together much as they did at the end of the Cold War to ensure nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of non-state actors. These are just a few steps that could ease tensions between the two superpowers while at the same time serve as an example to the world that cooperation and a movement towards nuclear peace is possible.
If they can move in this direction, they will then have the upper hand and a more favorable position in establishing and redefining Nuclear norms. Countries will be more inclined to listen to the two because they will have shown that they are willing to cooperate in order to promote nuclear peace and other countries should do the same. This will also eliminate many of the reasons countries use to reject U.S and Western calls for non-proliferation. While the challenge of what norms they should aim to establish is a complex one, they can start with establishing transparency, communication, co-operation, and reduction. Moreover, they can lead the way alongside the other nuclear countries to establish guidelines and rules on how to handle countries trying to acquire nuclear weapons like Iran.
These are tall tasks ahead of us but I have faith that the future generation of international security scholars are well equipped with the talent and knowledge to solve the most complex problems we face in the modern world.