The Case for Nuclear Diplomacy

COMMENT. In this lengthy article about treaties – why no mention of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) ?

Trend Research, 04 Apr 2024, Gina Bou Serhal, Senior researcher/ Strategic Studies Section

Due to the heightened danger of the potential use of nuclear weapons – a precarious biproduct of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the fear of nuclear war has surged to its highest levels since the era of the Cold War. Concerns over a wider conflict loom with the possibility of drawing in NATO countries – some of which possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, US backing for Ukraine’s war effort has further strained its relations with Russia, raising concerns that Cold War deterrence strategies, which shaped their relationship for decades, may be less effective in today’s geopolitical landscape.

As nuclear weapons proliferated throughout the Cold War, the stark reality of potential annihilation spurred the US and the Soviet Union to embark on a new era of negotiation, seeking innovative approaches to manage their deep-seated ideological and strategic rivalries. The risk of escalation and potential for nuclear conflict compelled the US and the Soviet Union to explore alternative methods of engagement, including holding regular summits with top leadership, resulting in opening direct lines of communication.

Arms control negotiations, including the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT I in 1967 and SALT II in 1972), limited the number of nuclear missiles in their respective arsenals by setting limits on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and limited anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Such an agreement helped prevent an unconstrained arms race, reduced the risk of miscalculation, and were considered trust-building measures geared toward de-escalating tensions. More importantly, these conducive interactions laid the groundwork for future cooperation, including the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

These types of treaties are not perfect; they are typically non-binding, and are far from a guarantee in ensuring nuclear non-proliferation. Enforcement challenges and non-compliance by some nations remain. A lack of transparency also creates challenges and increases the level of distrust among nations. Furthermore, the rise of non-state actors and heightened terrorist activity globally intensify the chilling possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, increasing the risk of a conflict spiraling out of control.

Such dangers underscore the urgent need for continued non-proliferation efforts, even amidst deep mistrust and rising tensions among major nuclear powers, particularly the permanent members of the UN Security Council. In today’s precarious global security environment, effective nuclear diplomacy remains a critical tool to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape and prevent nuclear catastrophe. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Why do states pursue nuclear weapons?

As we navigate an era of heightened geopolitical uncertainty and intensifying competition between major powers, a crucial question emerges: does the Cold War logic of nuclear deterrence still hold true? This reasoning, often referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), suggests that nuclear-armed states with similar capabilities are unlikely to attack each other for fear of devastating retaliation. According to this logic, nuclear weapons can prevent large-scale war and promote stability. International Relations realist scholar Kenneth Waltz who famously stated “those who like peace should love nuclear weapons,” believes this rationale explains the relative peace during the Cold War.

There remain two overarching arguments as to why states may look to obtain nuclear weapons, despite their obvious potential for mass destruction – not to mention the economic and political baggage. First, nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantor of security. No nuclear-armed state has ever faced a full-scale conventional war with another nuclear power (except for India and Pakistan, who have fought several wars over Kashmir). This historical trend fuels the perception that nuclear weapons provide a shield against existential threats. Secondly, nuclear weapons carry a powerful symbolic weight. Possession elevates a state’s international standing and prestige. It is no coincidence that all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the most powerful decision-making body in the world, are nuclear-armed nations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Challenges to global non-proliferation efforts: treaty withdrawals

The Cold War fostered a tense environment where both the US and the Soviet Union rapidly developed nuclear weapons. This arms race gave rise to the concept of nuclear deterrence – a defense strategy that relies on the premise that nuclear powers will never launch a full-scale nuclear attack because such a conflict would be devastating for both sides.[16] To mitigate the risk of accidental escalation and limit the number of nuclear-armed nations, treaties became a crucial tool for managing this precarious new global reality.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty………………………………………………………………

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty…………………………………………

The New START Treaty……………………………………………

………………………………………….Inaction on nuclear diplomacy can lead to a dangerous cascade of consequences. At one extreme lies nuclear proliferation, potentially culminating in a devastating war. However, a more likely scenario is the normalization of performative nuclear threats and brinkmanship by the international community. This passive approach to nuclear saber-rattling increases the risk of miscalculation. Leaders desensitized to such threats might underestimate their seriousness, potentially leading to the erosion of deterrence – the concept that has prevented nuclear war for over 70 years. https://trendsresearch.org/insight/the-case-for-nuclear-diplomacy/