Nuclear weapons have been a topic of discussion in regards to their purpose, which is usually debatable between the concept of safety and trigger. On the one hand, a weapon of mass destruction gives countries a safety blanket in case a major threat occurs and is to be confronted. On the other hand, having a nuclear weapon may be interpreted as readiness to fight, which triggers various nations to be prepared for war, multiplying the number of nuclear weapons worldwide. To examine the topic and determine the current appliance of the framework, recent nuclear weapon threats will be discussed. The aim of the memorandum is to understand the relevance of the theory in today’s context.
The theory of Thomas C. Schelling illustrates that safety and intimidation are not necessarily opposing concepts when it comes to nuclear weapons. Instead, nuclear deterrence occurs when a nation acquires the weapons, is apparently ready to use them under the right circumstances, and intimidates opponents from starting a conflict that can lead to the destruction of both parties (Schelling, 2017). The theory, while it can be constructed to fit the narrative of the Cold War, is relevant today and is practically applied by several countries. It is important to mention that acquiring nuclear weapons, testing, building, and using them is regulated through the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons implemented by the UN and signed by more than 190 countries (UN, 1968). Still, certain countries that had nuclear bombs and had tested them before the treaty are allowed to have them under certain conditions.
An example of how the theory of nuclear deterrence is relevant today is the case of North Korea. While North Korea is a relatively small and highly impoverished country, the nuclear arsenal is often a topic of discussion and makes the country a threat. Moreover, the frequent bomb testing and frequent commentary in regards to using the weapons against the US creates tension between the two parties (Cha & Kang, 2018). The US, on the other hand, is apprehensive about intervening within the internal political environment in the country, as exemplified in Iraq, Libya, and other areas of the world. Thus, the nuclear threat imposed by North Korea is an effective weapon toward the invasion, nuclear attack, or military operation carried out by the adversary, the US. Moreover, as North Korea has left the agreement mentioned prior, the country has more opportunities to test and acquire nuclear bombs policy-wise, unlike the US, which has signed the Treaty of Non-Proliferation.
Another recent example highlighting the relevance of the theory formulated by Thomas C. Schelling is the Russian-Ukrainian war. Russia has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons, and a major threat is if the country uses them either in Ukraine or any other territory with the intent to escalate the conflict (Yamey et al., 2022). While Russia has signed the aforementioned Treaty of Non-Proliferation, the current crisis does not ensure the country’s adherence to the norms and policies. As a result, NATO members and the US are apprehensive about being directly involved in the conflict and, instead, assists Ukraine with financial and military aid. This is another example of how a nation with the most extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons intimidates opponents and allies or rivals, who remain uninvolved to avoid provoking a major crisis.
The two countries that have been discussed prior are a direct illustration of how the theory of nuclear deterrence is valid and relevant in the current time. The context of the Cold War may have become outdated, yet similar tactics are being used in modern-day conflicts and wars. Intimidation, fear of conflict escalation, and a lack of desire to engage in a war that can cause mass destruction are the results of possession of nuclear weapons by certain powers. The concepts facilitate a more reasonable approach to military involvement since the destruction that will follow will exceed the damage facilitated by other types of military weapons. Thus, the illusion of damage is, in fact, an effective solution to avoiding the actual harm.
Should you need more information about this subject, do not hesitate to contact me.
References
Cha, V., & Kang, D. (2018). Nuclear North Korea. Columbia University Press. Web.
Schelling, T. C. (2017). Arms and influence. Yale University Press. Web.
UN. (1968). Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) – UNODA. United Nations. Web.
Yamey, G., Arya, A. N., Bhutta, Z. A., Causevic, S., Chisadza, C., Fewer, S., Friberg, P., Gloppen, S., Guha-Sapir, D., Halonen, T., Hoffman, S. J., Langer, A., Lyytikäinen, M., Oppenheim, B., Ottersen, O. P., Percival, V., Shekh Mohamed, I., & Thoms, O. T. (2022). A call for an immediate ceasefire and peaceful end to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The Lancet, 399(10332), 1284–1287. Web.