The politics of nuclear weapons have gained prominence owing to escalating tensions between Israel and Iran prompting their supporters to actively endorse their attacks based on their international geopolitical motives and regional polarisation. Nuclear weapons are more pivotal in transforming the dynamics of politics, diplomacy, and power relations globally. However, nuclear nations have an understanding based on the principle that no rational state will ever use nuclear weapons first. The recent escalation of tensions in the Middle East has reduced the deterrence effect and polarised the world into different alliances, where the principle of rationality seems to be at its lowest stage. This was also noticed in Russia, giving nuclear threats during its war with Ukraine, and the confrontation between India and Pakistan. It seems that nuclear weapons are used less as a shield, but more as a sword against their conflicting nations. This op-ed explores the intricacies of nuclear weapon politics and the escalating tensions in the international arena.
THE presence of nuclear weapons has created a state of strategic deterrence among the majority of countries, while concurrently provoking the rational issues of their legitimacy and expansion (Sagan, 1994). At the same time, nuclear power is a double-edged sword: it might be a low-carbon energy source that helps fight climate change, but it also raises worries about the hazards of nuclear proliferation; the problems of disposing of waste; and the possibility of accidents.
These complex problems need a thorough analysis of the political, strategic, and ethical aspects of nuclear weapons and their connection to their discourse on nuclear energy (Rosow, 1989).
International politics of nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons play a complex role in international politics, influencing state behaviour, global order and strategic security. Historically, the acquisition of nuclear weapons has been perceived as a means to improve national security and project power. However, this endeavour also poses a risk of inciting arms races and escalating tensions (Paul, 1995). According to nuclear deterrence theory, the presence of nuclear weapons by multiple states can establish a precarious yet stable balance of power, which prevents large-scale conflicts by posing the threat of mutually assured destruction (Shankar & Paul, 2016). However, this theory is based on the basic assumption of rationality and risk aversion among the state actors. This may not be exactly true when applied in contemporary times.
The presence of nuclear weapons has catalysed initiatives for arms control and disarmament, resulting in treaties and accords designed to restrict the manufacturing, testing, and proliferation of such weapons (Burroughs, 2012). On many occasions, the countries that want to keep or grow their nuclear weapons sometimes pose questions about how well to safeguard the nuclear expansion. During the Cold War phase, the competition to expand nuclear weapons continued after its end. Many non-nuclear nations made attempts to conduct nuclear tests, which may help them to become great powers and enhance their stature at international organisations and arenas. The negative repercussion of nuclear proliferation makes nations apprehensive about the stability of their region and the possibility of nuclear terrorism. The ploy of using the arms against other nations creates a deterrence, but the question is to ponder how far this deterrence may prolong, when other nations may also develop their own nuclear weapons.
There have been both horizontal and vertical proliferations of nuclear weapons, especially after the Cold War. The expansion of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear nations has breached international standards and created a danger for global stability and security. The non-nuclear states advocate for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their enemies, enhance their influence in their surroundings and pressure others to resolve their own perceived threats.
Another opinion, in the acquisition of nuclear weapons, is to provide an alternative energy source and fight against climate change. This has been a low-carbon energy source that may reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. This has also increased the possibility of nuclear waste and the probability of accidents. Another challenge is to get rid of nuclear waste, as the waste remains radioactive for a long period, along with the safety issues. The expenditure on the construction of nuclear plants comes from the government tax money from the masses, that have the potential to harm the commoners of other nations. On the whole, the common people are on the losing side. The fact that nuclear technology may be utilised for both peaceful and military objectives makes the argument over nuclear power more complicated.
Nuclear disarmament: Effectiveness and long-term vision
The catastrophic effects of using nuclear weapons have compelled many nations to reduce danger and encourage disarmament like Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament (2019) by 16 non-nuclear weapons states around the world with a goal of reducing polarisation between countries and make real progress towards the ultimate goal of achieving world free of nuclear weapons (https://basicint.org/portfolio/stockholm-initiative/ ). The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a seminal international accord and the foundation of the multilateral framework for global disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. The NPT framework has three pillars: non-proliferation; disarmament; and the peaceful use of nuclear energy (https://www.government.se/government-policy/foreign-and-security-policy/stockholm-initiative-for-nuclear-disarmament/). These efforts aim to encourage communication and collaboration between countries with nuclear weapons and those without them.
Disarmament is a difficult goal to achieve since it involves overcoming technological, political, and strategic problems.
There is no agreement on when nuclear weapons may be utilised, as this is based on the strategy of the national security theories of nuclear states. Some regard these as essential for deterrence, while others want to limit their role. The nuclear weapon Free Zones help to preserve peace among their nations and criticise the use of nuclear weapons. It is vital for the states to resolve their conflict in strategic, diplomatic and peaceful means in order to support the objective of reducing or limiting the use of nuclear weapons during conflicts. There is a need for strong and effective multilateral diplomacy to create pressure by forbidding the production and transfer of nuclear weapons among different nations. Diplomacy is important for lowering the risk of nuclear weapons use because it helps clear up misunderstandings and stop crises from becoming worse.
Conclusion
Some critics may point to the lack of effectiveness of NPT results in a lack of consensus on nuclear norms. With the absence of strong checks, the deterrence has partially lost its strategic aim to deliver peace and stability. It is an apprehensive thought that all nuclear power nations or the ones trying to become nuclear power will always act logically when faced with any threats. The time has come to question the very premise of using nuclear weapons for security or to create fear among conflicting counterparts. The ultimate losers are the masses whose taxes are used to develop nuclear weapons and are used upon the masses of others, to instigate them to develop their own nuclear weapons to have equal footing on the deterrence paradigm.
