A (Temporary) Case for Nuclear Deterrence
Terrifying, yes, but the feeling is mutual*
The credibility of nuclear deterrence should not be dismissed as it is one important factor among others that have kept the world's great powers at peace since the end of the Second World War. Let us not dismantle this mechanism until we find an appropriate, and effective, replacement.
The history of mankind is long and complicated, but there is one theme which stretches its entirety...war. Whether we like it or not, humanity and conflict have been inextricably linked from the days of the first permanent settlements. In fact, of those original settlers, the first farmers, otherwise known as the first to tie themselves to geography (and the local resources), were more likely than any of his or her nomadic hunter-gatherer peers to die from blunt-force trauma caused by another human. This was inter-group competition, over territory, in its earliest known (human) form. The territoriality that we discussed in class, likewise contains our riches and is the basis from which we project our ideologies. The wars we wage, are simply modern manifestations of the same trends that date back countless millennia.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, in the 70 years since the end of the Second World War, mankind has endured a relative peace unlike any other in its history. Fewer people are dying today from war and violence than at any other point in our history. In my view, there are three fundamental (though certainly not absolute) reasons for why this is so. The first is the liberal world order that was constructed following the end of the last world war. Through it, we have created a dynamic and relatively predictable, though admittedly fragile, system of global governance that benefits not only our international discourse (favoring diplomacy versus conflict as a first resort) though the creation of legitimate forums for exchange, but also our economies. I am a big believer in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To this lens I posit that nations, like people, are more inclined to favor dialogue and peace when their basic physiological and safety needs are met. Prosperity favors peace.
The second factor(s) is the rise of mass media and democratic traditions. While certainly not universal in nature, the growth of mass media has awoken many to the true costs and brutality of war, moreover, in democratic societies (and in some less-than-democratic societies), this has increased the burden of a war weary society on the decision making process of governments. How this holds up when those basic needs are threatened (in times of economic or security crisis), is something to be seen.
Finally, the third factor is the subject of this blog: nuclear deterrence. It was important to understand that such deterrence alone is not the only factor that contributes to the relative peace we live in, but nevertheless it contributes. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) may seem terrifying as Kirstin points out in her post, and it certainly is, but that is ultimately the point. The great powers are dissuaded by fear from pursuing large-scale conflict with one another. Such fear has prevented a return to the style of total industrialized warfare that plagued the first half of the 20th century and killed tens of millions.
It is critical, however, to note the very clear weaknesses of this system. The asterisk in the sub-title is intended to highlight the flaws of MAD. There are two that I will focus on. The first is proliferation. Without question, I disagree with the notion that proliferation is a recipe for peace. It is not. It is the calculus of disaster. The reason MAD worked, and continues, generally, to work well, is because of the limited number of actors that are able to initiate a truly global nuclear exchange. The fewer the actors, the less room there is for miscalculation on anyone's behalf. This is why it is absolutely critical to ensure that the norm of non-proliferation is maintained and enforced. The threat of conflict grows exponentially with the addition of new nuclear powers. The second is access. This goes hand-in-hand with proliferation, but even in a world with perfect non-proliferation policies, the threat of irresponsible access remains a threatening specter. Should an irrational head of state, anywhere in the world, arise with more liberal views on the use of such weapons, this spells disaster. Good governance and accountability are the only true bulwarks here.
This blog was a long and complicated way of saying that while in principle I agree with Kirstin, in practice, the realities are far more complex. I too believe that a world without the looming threat of nuclear Armageddon would be the ideal, but at the moment, a world without it only poses the far more likely threat of a return to industrialized on a massive scale in hot-spots around the world. We do not presently have sufficient global governance mechanisms, or other forms of deterrence, that would adequately prevent the world's great powers from wreaking havoc should their basic needs be threatened. The nuclear threat is unfortunately, the only such mechanism. In light of proliferation among the world's middle powers and violent extremists, the answer is that the great powers must work together to suppress such behavior in places like Iran, North Korea and around the world in an effort to ensure mutual security. Such cooperation is much more likely than not only the total elimination of nuclear arsenals, but also significantly more likely than the notion that, in its present form, a world without nuclear weapons would lead to an era of continued peace. On the contrary, without coercive deterrence, the use of coercive force would only heighten. The specter of unending wars of conquest would return.
The history of mankind is long and complicated, but there is one theme which stretches its entirety...war. Whether we like it or not, humanity and conflict have been inextricably linked from the days of the first permanent settlements. In fact, of those original settlers, the first farmers, otherwise known as the first to tie themselves to geography (and the local resources), were more likely than any of his or her nomadic hunter-gatherer peers to die from blunt-force trauma caused by another human. This was inter-group competition, over territory, in its earliest known (human) form. The territoriality that we discussed in class, likewise contains our riches and is the basis from which we project our ideologies. The wars we wage, are simply modern manifestations of the same trends that date back countless millennia.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, in the 70 years since the end of the Second World War, mankind has endured a relative peace unlike any other in its history. Fewer people are dying today from war and violence than at any other point in our history. In my view, there are three fundamental (though certainly not absolute) reasons for why this is so. The first is the liberal world order that was constructed following the end of the last world war. Through it, we have created a dynamic and relatively predictable, though admittedly fragile, system of global governance that benefits not only our international discourse (favoring diplomacy versus conflict as a first resort) though the creation of legitimate forums for exchange, but also our economies. I am a big believer in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To this lens I posit that nations, like people, are more inclined to favor dialogue and peace when their basic physiological and safety needs are met. Prosperity favors peace.
The second factor(s) is the rise of mass media and democratic traditions. While certainly not universal in nature, the growth of mass media has awoken many to the true costs and brutality of war, moreover, in democratic societies (and in some less-than-democratic societies), this has increased the burden of a war weary society on the decision making process of governments. How this holds up when those basic needs are threatened (in times of economic or security crisis), is something to be seen.
Finally, the third factor is the subject of this blog: nuclear deterrence. It was important to understand that such deterrence alone is not the only factor that contributes to the relative peace we live in, but nevertheless it contributes. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) may seem terrifying as Kirstin points out in her post, and it certainly is, but that is ultimately the point. The great powers are dissuaded by fear from pursuing large-scale conflict with one another. Such fear has prevented a return to the style of total industrialized warfare that plagued the first half of the 20th century and killed tens of millions.
It is critical, however, to note the very clear weaknesses of this system. The asterisk in the sub-title is intended to highlight the flaws of MAD. There are two that I will focus on. The first is proliferation. Without question, I disagree with the notion that proliferation is a recipe for peace. It is not. It is the calculus of disaster. The reason MAD worked, and continues, generally, to work well, is because of the limited number of actors that are able to initiate a truly global nuclear exchange. The fewer the actors, the less room there is for miscalculation on anyone's behalf. This is why it is absolutely critical to ensure that the norm of non-proliferation is maintained and enforced. The threat of conflict grows exponentially with the addition of new nuclear powers. The second is access. This goes hand-in-hand with proliferation, but even in a world with perfect non-proliferation policies, the threat of irresponsible access remains a threatening specter. Should an irrational head of state, anywhere in the world, arise with more liberal views on the use of such weapons, this spells disaster. Good governance and accountability are the only true bulwarks here.
This blog was a long and complicated way of saying that while in principle I agree with Kirstin, in practice, the realities are far more complex. I too believe that a world without the looming threat of nuclear Armageddon would be the ideal, but at the moment, a world without it only poses the far more likely threat of a return to industrialized on a massive scale in hot-spots around the world. We do not presently have sufficient global governance mechanisms, or other forms of deterrence, that would adequately prevent the world's great powers from wreaking havoc should their basic needs be threatened. The nuclear threat is unfortunately, the only such mechanism. In light of proliferation among the world's middle powers and violent extremists, the answer is that the great powers must work together to suppress such behavior in places like Iran, North Korea and around the world in an effort to ensure mutual security. Such cooperation is much more likely than not only the total elimination of nuclear arsenals, but also significantly more likely than the notion that, in its present form, a world without nuclear weapons would lead to an era of continued peace. On the contrary, without coercive deterrence, the use of coercive force would only heighten. The specter of unending wars of conquest would return.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I do not disagree that the situation is complex. While the underlying principle I close with in my post is presented simply and without expansion, there is no question the road to a nuclear-free world is not simple at all. We probably agree on far more on that point than you may think. In fact, the Jefferey Lewis article I reference speaks to it That said, I am not sure as of November 9 that the world would agree we can remain a responsible keeper of the key to either deterrence or disarmament as they pertain to WMDs.