IS A WEAPONLESS WORLD REALISTIC?

Back in the 1900s, the invention of the machine gun was considered to be the key for ending wars and conflicts as we know them; as the killing capabilities of it were thought to be so great that no nation would risk its people and soldiers to such deadly machines in combat. Of course, such calculations were wrong since, as terrible as automatic fire may be, the rulers of warring states were generally safe from such horrors; guarded behind the trenches which their soldiers are now made to defend. This changed, however, on July 16, 1941; after the United States successfully detonated the first nuclear weapon in New Mexico; and subsequently proceeded to detonate two of them in Japan. Suddenly, this new weapon had the chance to wipe out entire cities in a single explosion; leading other nations to develop their own as a deterrent. Their destructive capabilities, though, have led to widespread concern regarding their potential misuse and destructive capability, leading further generations to wonder: “Is a nuclear-free world possible?”. Despite what you may gather from NGOs and politicians alike, a nuclear-free world is simply not possible; at least not within our lifetimes.


First of all, nuclear weapons are incredibly entrenched in the global geopolitical landscape, and even discussions about abolishing them can lead to disastrous consequences. According to Michael E. O’Hanlon (2010), the discussion regarding the dismantling of nuclear weapons could lead to countries that depend upon a larger nation or alliance for deterrence and defense; think of NATO and East Asian states such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; to seek their own upon the possibility of their largest military ally and guarantor willingly giving up one of its main military assets. It is oftentimes overlooked just how many nations depend on being part of a larger alliance for deterrence against the strongest foe, and the dismantling of nuclear weapons could be seen as a weakening of a powerful ally´s military capabilities at best and as a sign of unreliability at worst; ironically making the problem worse and distributing the nuclear arsenal problem from a single nation into plenty of smaller ones, which could be far more difficult to negotiate and reach a consensus with, due to them depending on their deterrence capabilities of nuclear weapons for their survival.


Secondly, and relating to the topic of deterrence; the discussion to remove nuclear weapons ignores the fact that they are an incredibly valuable tool internationally; giving nuclear power leverage to others, potentially deterring conflict, and for some, even providing a guarantee for a nation's existence in light of a hostile neighbor or neighbors. Of course, according to David Krieger in 2005, the reasons why nations choose to pursue (or not) nuclear weapons vary, but they each share common factors relating to power, defense, leverage, and deterrence. The United States and Germany developed nuclear programs in order to gain the upper hand in the raging war they were facing against each other, and the Roosevelt administration considered it vital to outpace the Germans in order to guarantee the safety of the country and the allied powers as a whole. The Soviet Union developed weapons in light of the deteriorating relationship with the United States and the West and therefore developed its own nuclear program as a measure of deterrence and defense against what Soviet leadership saw as a looming American threat, and also as a way to project power upon other countries. France and The United Kingdom pursued weapons to strengthen their vanishing place among the great powers following the war, and China, similarly to the Soviets, developed nuclear weapons for defense from the Americans and Soviets alike. Israel, Pakistan, and India did so in order to deter their neighbors, with whom they had a history of conflict (against each other in the case of India and Pakistan) from attacking, and North Korea did so in order to gain leverage and power in the international stage and, fitting the pattern once more, against the possibility of attack by the United States. After all, President Bush had clumped North Korea into his so-called axis of evil alongside Iraq and Iran, and the regime saw with worry the subsequent American-led invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This means that any talks about nuclear disarmament negate the uncomfortable, but very real fact that, as long as the need to defend and deter attacks exists, then no nation will willingly give up nuclear weapons. An interesting case is South Africa, the only country to produce and then dismantle its arsenal; a situation hailed by many as a glimmer of hope in nuclear disarmament, but the situation becomes far less romantic once analyzed deeper. According to World 101, South Africa gained weapons due to the apartheid regime becoming internationally isolated and the threat of communist takeovers in neighboring Angola and Mozambique; and even more so, Soviet interference. South Africa only dismantled its arsenal once the threats to its security; mainly the Soviets and its proxies in neighboring countries; had collapsed and the country had been welcomed back into the international community. Therefore, South Africa is only an example of how nations are willing to give up weapons under very specific circumstances and in isolated cases; not replicable in the context of great powers; giving us insight into why a nuclear-free world is most likely impossible.


Of course, to some extent, the problem of defense could be avoided by simply putting a mechanism in place to guarantee equal nuclear disarmament amongst powers in order to eliminate the need for defense and deterrence. According to Emmanuel Maitre in 2020, this idea has been floated around since the 1950s, but so far, no such proposal has been made and even more so, many problems have appeared regarding such an idea. Because, in order to guarantee that such an idea is successful, an extensive verification process must be undertaken by nuclear powers in order to generate trust and cause further disarmament; even quoting President Truman, who once said that the United States must not lay down its weapons until other States have verifiably put down theirs. Therefore, the existence of an international and independent group tasked with overseeing the successful disarmament seems to be ideal, but this idea comes with many problems which have been seen with countries such as Iran; that is, such an international team only has as much power as a country is willing to let them have; and therefore, there is no definite way to prevent countries from simply holding onto some weapons and potentially continue with the production of more. Not only does this problem speak directly to countries whose main motivation for possessing nuclear weapons is defense and deterrence, but the discovery of such a thing could potentially hinder the continuing process of disarmament by putting to light the fact that other, rival countries are not trustworthy when it comes to the disarmament of their nuclear arsenal. Of course, even this ignores two unfortunate realities; the cases of Iran and Iraq have shown that such an international verification often serves to heighten tensions between states, making conflict more likely and that there would be no mechanism in place to stop countries from simply making more weapons; after all, even if States chose to get rid of their arsenals, the knowledge, and experience in building them is still there; there would be no guarantee that a country wouldn´t simply choose to build more in the future. Therefore, unless all nations come together to establish such a system of verification which is capable of breaching all trust issues existent between nuclear powers; something which has failed to materialize for decades; then the idea of disarmament is impossible in the current day.


Finally, something oftentimes not considered in the discussion of nuclear disarmament is the fact that a nuclear-free world could, incredibly enough, be undesirable and potentially dangerous. According to Gideon Rachman in 2010, even though much debate exists on the topic, it is undeniable that the likeliest explanation for the lack of conflict between superpowers and powerblocks following the second world war is the existence of nuclear weapons. This is because, for the first time in history, the thought of a war between powers would be so dangerous that, contrary to the example of the machine gun, even the centers of power and the State as a whole could be destroyed in a matter of hours. Many analysts agree that such a possibility was among the main factors which prevented a direct confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union despite plenty of close calls during the cold war. We live in a period of history in which direct wars between states are at an all-time low, and most conflicts are now either internal or indirect. A world without nuclear weapons could, ironically, make a direct confrontation between States possible again, leading to the possibility of great powers using their military strength to kill and destroy rivals once again in light of a lack of direct threat once again. Even more so, without the deterrence of nuclear weapons, analysts predict that countries would once again start compensating by placing more effort and money into the development and improvement of conventional arms; and even worse, into biological and chemical weapons. Therefore, the possibility of a nuclear-free world seems nearly impossible because of the fact that the leadership of their respective countries could recognize the likelihood of conflicts in the future.

In conclusion, despite the fact that the disarmament of nuclear weapons may sound like a good and noble idea at first, a nuclear-free world would be extremely difficult; potentially impossible; to ever hope to achieve, and could potentially be even more dangerous and undesirable than one with nuclear weapons. Not only do movements proposing the disarmament of nuclear states ignore the very real motivations which have led States to pursue nuclear arsenals (sometimes being an existential matter), but also the fact that a process of nuclear disarmament could potentially motivate smaller nations to develop their own, the fact that the establishment of an international inspectorate is nearly impossible to achieve and could potentially increase tensions between nuclear powers, and finally and most importantly, that a nuclear-free world could see a return to full-scale war between powers and the potential for the development of more devastating chemical and biological weapons. Due to these facts, it seems likely that, unless a dramatic change occurs in the international geopolitical dynamic between States, then a nuclear-free world is quite simply impossible and even undesirable to achieve.