For over 70 years, nuclear weapons have been an integral part of our world, evolving into a modern-day phenomenon reflected in art, literature, and film globally. Nuclear weapons are viewed as a symbol of national power and an attribute of international status. They have a significant impact on global security. However, the August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with thousands of nuclear tests conducted worldwide, have become tragic episodes in history. That has raised serious ethical and philosophical concerns. It is critical to emphasize that attitudes toward nuclear weapons have never been static.
Nuclear weapons were seen as regular bombs, just more potent, at the start of the nuclear era, which commenced with the first nuclear test on July 16, 1945. During the start of the nuclear era, states did not distinguish between conventional and nuclear arms. Numerous advanced countries tried to develop nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s, viewing no difference between nuclear and traditional weapons and arguing that nuclear weapons are as brutal as conventional explosives. During the 1950s and 1960s, the military strategies of nuclear weapon states did not differentiate between conventional and nuclear weapons. As per the military doctrine of that era, nuclear weapons were deemed significant on the battlefield, and nuclear bombs were employed in times of military conflict.
The recognition that nuclear weapons could be lethal to global security and halt the advancement of human civilization has taken time. The Korean War was a watershed moment; following it, the decision to use nuclear weapons transferred from military to political leadership in the United States. The Cuban Missile Crisis marked the second important milestone. In this time of crisis, human civilization was in grave danger as the world faced a crucial turning point. As a result, the dominant countries acknowledged the necessity of having legal, ideally global, oversight on the utilization of nuclear weapons and technology for military objectives. The acknowledgment that an unregulated nuclear arms competition could destroy human society forced the leaders of the USA and USSR to engage in negotiations.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the top two nuclear powers in the world started discussions on both bilateral and multilateral deals to regulate the usage of nuclear technology for military reasons and the creation of nuclear arms. The establishment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty represented a substantial advancement in this regard. Since the 1960s, nuclear weapons have transitioned from being used in battle to serving as instruments in political strategies. During a unique conference in 1995, the countries that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed to prolong the treaty without a set end date. This decision was critical because it demonstrated the treaty state’s dedication to the international community by upholding the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In the 1990s, major nuclear states like France, the UK, the US, and Russia made substantial cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The United States and Russia achieved it together, while the United Kingdom and France did it separately. It was also a significant step toward ending the nuclear arms race. This heft in public opinion toward nuclear weapons demonstrates that nuclear military doctrine is never static. Nuclear weapons stopped being used as weapons on the battlefield in the 1960s. In the 1990s, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation norms were bolstered by actions taken by both unilateral and bilateral nuclear weapons states.
Today, the existing state of nuclear deterrence is encountering fresh hurdles due to fast technological advancements and changing global power dynamics. Efforts to modernize nuclear capabilities by states with nuclear weapons like the United States, Russia, and China have sparked worries about the possibility of a new nuclear arms race. Moreover, recent political tensions, including those related to Ukraine and cybersecurity, have negatively impacted relations and nuclear strategies among these dominant nations. The current global situation, marked by strategic competition between key countries such as the U.S. and China and strained relations between the U.S. and Russia, highlights the fragile equilibrium of nuclear stability worldwide.
Nevertheless, this situation may change. The quick progress in technology and changes in global dynamics can impact the military strategies of countries with nuclear capabilities, which could result in a renewed use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Although the likelihood of a multi-country nuclear conflict may seem unlikely in today’s global context, Russia has been forced to warn NATO with nuclear weapons due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This progress emphasizes the vulnerability of the existing nuclear balance and the possibility of escalation.
To conclude, the United States and Russia are updating their nuclear weapons, indicating a new arms race. The Biden administration has raised worries about the expenses and strategic effects of the U.S. nuclear modernization program, which carries on the costly efforts initiated by the Trump administration in a worsening global security landscape. The result of the Ukraine conflict, in which Russia has employed nuclear threats as a political strategy, may impact global nuclear relations, potentially legitimizing nuclear coercion and impacting international security for years to come.
