Understanding the Nuclear Deterrence Theory
The balance of terror succeeds the balance of power
The argument that nuclear armament supports peace is not completely unfounded. How many times since 1945 has the world been subjected to a large-scale war? Not once. The world has enjoyed more years of peace than ever been known in the last two centuries.
Largely conceived as weapons of destruction, nuclear arms might actually be weapons of peace. They help in putting negotiations first. This means that conflicts that need to be resolved will be done through a more peaceful manner, rather than through risking lives.
Nuclear deterrence theory claims that the destructive capability of nuclear weapons triggers fear, which makes leaders cautious, thus preventing what might have been large-scale destruction and the end of world peace.
The balance of terror succeeds the balance of power
There are many examples for this instance. The Cold War between the USA and USSR, the animosity between the USA and North Korea and the strained relationship of India with its two neighbors, China and Pakistan. Historical analysis shows that nuclear weapons induced stability during the cold war, when both the USA and USSR possessed mutual retaliation capability, eliminating the possibility of nuclear victory for either side. Pakistan and China are both nuclear powers. In such a scenario, India would have been prone to nuclear blackmail, had she remained non-nuclear.
Throughout history, it has been seen that whichever nation failed to introduce new weapons for defense became the easiest target for invasion and humiliation. Non-introduction of gunpowder and cannons during the First Battle of Panipat is a case in point for India.
Coming back to the contemporary world, I think we all will agree that conflict marks all human affairs. While there have been many proxy wars and minor conflicts in the last 60 years, not one nuclear bomb has been dropped in attack. Another historical incident to support this is the lessening of chain ganging, that is, nuclear weapons decrease a state’s reliance on allies for security, thus preventing allies from dragging each other into wars. This was the major cause of World War 1.
It is evident that a decision to use nuclear weapons would not be well received by the international community. Do you think the UN will sit quietly after an unjust nuclear attack? Absolutely not! That nation will be held responsible and will be answerable to the whole world.
Why would a country fight if it can’t win much and might lose everything? Would any nation want victory at the high cost of human life?
Large-scale death of civilians is mutually assured in a nuclear war. No country would be willing to take major risks for minor gains.
Political independence grows out of power. It goes without saying that power sharing is a desirable thing. The spread of nuclear weapons is turning this unipolar world into a multipolar one. Just like the police have guns, the army has tanks and missiles, a country needs nuclear arms for its defense, or rather, deterrence from war.
“Only the powerful can preach non-violence, and only the strong can live in peace.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
Summing up
The conclusion is simple. Nuclear power can buy peace, and its concentration in the hands of one can induce danger. If one country has it, the desire of other countries to acquire it for their own safety is not unfounded.
There are two ways to go about it and still emerge as winners — first, use fear to balance out danger, and put the nuclear deterrence theory (with a clean record of 70+ years) to use, or second, and in my option the ideal way to go about it — say goodbye to nuclear armament once and for all. Because perhaps the best way to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war is to eliminate the availability of it.
For a well rounded discussion, read this excellent article by The Guardian — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash
