
By Lucas Tuttle
Last summer, I participated in a life-focusing, inspiring program at the Soka Institute for Global Solutions, Nuclear Politics 2024. Connecting with a select group of international young leaders with an incredible diversity of experience, skills, and backgrounds, I discovered a passion and urgency for eliminating the threat that nuclear weapons pose to our species. As a program intern for the San Diego Diplomacy Council, I’ve seen how inspired and active people are to pursue solutions for climate change, from grassroots organizers to renewable energy startups. While the dilemma of human impact on our environment is certainly the greatest crisis of the 21st century, there have been comparably few solutions proposed to the continued threat of nuclear weapons, despite the very real and rapidly accelerating arms race between major powers. Through justifications of “strategic parity” and “defense”, we are building more weapons with fewer safeguards. This is a global humanitarian concern. The truth is nuclear weapons aren’t a security solution, because nuclear deterrence isn’t secure. And everyday citizens can demand change.
This is not to say that no effort has been undertaken, indeed, there has been more accomplished to reduce the risk of nuclear war in the past ten years than in the first twenty of the Cold War arms race. Most of the world, in fact, does not want to develop nuclear capabilities. Regional nuclear ban treaties have existed since the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco, which prohibited weapons in South and Central America. In 2017, one of the greatest achievements towards complete nuclear disarmament was signed, known as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Coming into force in 2021, the TPNW has been signed by nearly one hundred states, and not only prohibits weapons within the territory of states party to the treaty, but also has taken on the issue of handling nuclear aftereffects, particularly those caused by weapons testing. Much of the developing world doesn’t want to make the same mistakes, historically being the victim of nuclear testing themselves, such as Algeria and Kazakhstan. The main question is then whether nuclear weapons states (NWS) themselves can let go of their arsenals for a safer future, thus, the first step is dispelling the notion that nuclear weapons make nations safer.
Nuclear Deterrence relies on several dangerous assumptions. Firstly, that both “actors” (in this context, those who possess the authority to order a nuclear strike), are perfectly rational. Even the concept of rationality is flawed in this assumption, as what is optimal for the self-interest of one actor is rarely best for the other. Disregarding philosophy, however, the truth remains that human beings are flawed and lack complete information when making decisions, a recipe for disaster which has been avoided thus far solely due to luck. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense for the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations as well as a major figure during the Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps says it best: “…in the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today…The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations.” (The Fog of War, 1993).
Secondly, deterrence theory does not acknowledge the risk of inadvertent escalation due to either miscommunication or nuclear accident. The Able Archer NATO exercises in November of 1983, for example, nearly caused direct conflict with the Soviet Union due to lack of military to military dialogue. Today, nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus pose a risk of inadvertent use if an attack on them was to take place. On-the-ground personnel, in the absence of clear communication, are likely to “use it or lose it”, with disastrous results.
Thirdly, deterrence theory exists in a technological vacuum, assuming that the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction will maintain for an indefinite period of time. However, new technologies throughout the Cold War, and those being developed today, present a destabilizing risk to the fiction of perfect deterrence. Within the past ten years, hypersonic delivery systems have become a significant threat to the linchpin of deterrence, second-strike capability. The rise of A.I. and its incorporation into nuclear command, control and communication (NC3) systems represents another unknown quantity. Uncertainty, where M.A.D. is concerned, spells disaster.
States which possess nuclear weapons, and their allies which benefit from the nuclear security umbrella, are reluctant to let go of the “stable deterrence” myth. As a result, many of the attempts toward disarmament have historically come from a standpoint of deterrence being a “necessary” security strategy. Treaty regimes like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 have had limited success in preventing horizontal proliferation (The process by which more states acquire nuclear weapons) , but do not have strong enough provisions for requiring nuclear weapons states (NWS) to disarm. Bi-lateral arms reduction and limitation treaties, such as New START, have had limited success in discouraging vertical proliferation (the process by which states expand and enhance their existing arsenals) but likewise have not made full disarmament the priority. Beginning with the understanding that deterrence will eventually fail is a critical cultural element necessary to make significant progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons on a realistic timeline.
As deterrence is an inherently unstable system based largely on luck, nuclear warfare is not a question of if, but when. Whether it occurs in the 21st century or in the next century, without strong international controls and a global understanding of the insecurity of nuclear armaments, humanity will inexorably use the weapons it has created. But that does not mean it is inevitable. As the arms race between nations heats up, international recognition about this pressing issue has grown as well. It will take engaged and informed citizens on levels ranging from the local to national to achieve a more peaceful world, and it can start with a simple conversation. Organizations like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Back From The Brink are on the forefront of the fight for disarmament, and getting involved has never been easier. Start a social media campaign, petition your local officials to join the ICAN Cities Appeal, or reach out to your congressperson about H. Res. 77. Ordinary citizens are the backbone of disarmament advocacy, and organizations like the San Diego Diplomacy Council actively connect people to solve global issues which seem to dwarf our normal lives.
Image Description: Dr. Ira Helfand of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the organization’s 1985 Nobel Peace Prize
Leave a Reply