The concept of disarmament has long been touted as an approach to ensuring international security. It involves the elimination or control of various types of weapons through voluntary agreements between states, with the aim of reducing international tension and fostering peaceful coexistence. Advocates argue that disarmament is essential for upholding human rights and preventing the devastating consequences of armed conflict.
There are two contrasting schools of thought on armament and disarmament: Realism and Idealism. Realists argue that armaments contribute to global peace, while Idealists believe that pursuing armaments leads to fear, anarchy, and threatens world peace.
Recent historical events, such as the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 9/11 attacks, underscore the complex dynamics between armaments and peace. Advocates for disarmament emphasize the need to eliminate existential threats posed by nuclear weapons due to their potential catastrophic impact on human life and the environment.
Initiatives for disarmament have been discussed in various international forums, including the United Nations General Assembly. Committees and commissions have been established to address disarmament issues, with conferences and agreements aiming to create a comprehensive disarmament program. The advancement of science and technology, particularly in nuclear capabilities, has led to a power imbalance between developed and developing nations. Disarmament is seen as a means to maintain a balance of power, preventing the domination of states and promoting global peace. International treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) play crucial roles in disarmament efforts. The NPT, for instance, limits nuclear weapon possession to specific states, while the CTBT bans nuclear tests for both military and civilian purposes.
While disarmament is widely advocated, numerous challenges hinder its implementation. The fear of terrorism, political distrust among nations, economic interests in the arms trade, and the desire to maintain technological hegemony all contribute to the reluctance of nations to fully embrace disarmament. To achieve disarmament, international treaties need thorough ratification and transparency. Rectification of treaties ensures that nations officially consent to their terms and abide by legal obligations. The universality of disarmament treaties is crucial for fostering global understanding and cooperation.
In the realm of nuclear weapon policy, a growing sentiment, often articulated by influential figures such as George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, suggests that nuclear weapons have become obsolete in the face of contemporary global challenges. While the moral, political, economic, and environmental justifications for eliminating nuclear arsenals resonate with civil society, a closer examination reveals divergent interpretations of their “usefulness.”
This article delves into the nuances surrounding the debate on nuclear disarmament, exploring the motivations, challenges, and potential implications of renouncing these formidable instruments of power. The “four horsemen” of Cold War-era policymaking argue that nuclear deterrence, once a cornerstone of security strategy, is losing its legitimacy in today’s multipolar world. They contend that nuclear weapons exacerbate tensions, contribute to environmental degradation, and divert resources away from addressing urgent global crises such as terrorism, climate change, and economic inequality.
However, amidst calls for disarmament, resistance persists, revealing a complex interplay of political, military, and economic interests deeply entrenched in the nuclear status quo. A seemingly paradoxical paradigm emerges as these influential figures advocate for nuclear disarmament while, in reality, contributing to a strategy labeled “anti-nuclear imperialism.” Their approach emphasizes disarmament through strengthening non-proliferation measures and arms control treaties, but some argue it serves to maintain the United States’ military and economic dominance well into the 21st century.
As the international community looks to nuclear powers, particularly the United States, to lead disarmament efforts, concerns arise about the true intentions behind such advocacy. Delving into the geopolitical and domestic order reveals a connection between nuclear weapons and imperialism. Nuclear arsenals, rather than mere stockpiles, function as tools of empire, perpetuating global inequalities. The United States, as a hegemonic nuclear-imperial state, stands as a prime example, wielding nuclear weapons as integral components of its military supremacy. Other nuclear-armed states align with this order, reinforcing each other’s need for a “nuclear deterrent” and hindering genuine progress toward disarmament.
The article introduces a novel perspective by applying gender analysis to the discourse on nuclear weapons. It contends that masculinity, associated with strength and military prowess, influences the politics surrounding nuclear proliferation and disarmament. The symbolism of nuclear weapons, intertwined with notions of power and masculinity, presents a barrier to dismantling these arsenals. By deconstructing this symbolism, the article suggests that gender analysis could offer insights into transforming the discourse on nuclear weapons.
The central question emerges: What does security look like without nuclear weapons? Conventional military build-up, often considered an alternative, raises concerns about increased tensions and the potential for nuclear proliferation. The article advocates for a paradigm shift in security thinking, echoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s call for a broader transformation in the concept of security. Human security, focusing on people’s well-being, access to basic needs, and equitable global development, emerges as a compelling alternative.
A nuclear weapons convention, grounded in a broader framework for global equity, represents a tangible step towards fostering a world order conducive to nuclear disarmament. While the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) have emphasized the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, it is essential to critically examine whether nuclear disarmament represents a viable solution to world peace.
One of the key arguments against nuclear disarmament stems from the inherent security concerns and risks associated with the elimination of nuclear weapons. The expert meeting convened by the ICRC and IFRC highlighted the increased probability of nuclear weapons being used due to various interconnected developments, including the modernization and development of new nuclear weapons with potentially “more usable” capabilities. The trend towards nuclear reductions has been replaced by a process that raises concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear weapon command-and-control networks to human error, cyberattacks, and the dangers of access to nuclear weapons by non-state actors.
Furthermore, the geopolitical landscape and existing military doctrines underscore the complexity of achieving nuclear disarmament without compromising global security. The conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons pointed out that tensions between nuclear-armed states, coupled with doctrines that consider “nuclear warfighting” and expanded circumstances for nuclear weapons use, heighten the risk of nuclear weapons being used. The erosion of the nuclear arms control legal framework, exemplified by the abrogation of treaties like the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, contributes to reduced transparency and predictability, making it challenging to interpret adversaries’ intentions.
A critical aspect to consider is the potential unintended consequences of nuclear disarmament, including the risk of unauthorized use, accidental use, and the lack of a deterrent factor. The conferences identified four risk-of-use scenarios: doctrinal use, escalatory use, unauthorized use by non-state actors, and accidental use due to errors. The interconnectedness of technological developments, such as digital technologies in decision-making processes, adds complexity to the potential risks, creating challenges in predicting and controlling paths to a nuclear catastrophe.
In the pursuit of world peace, proponents of nuclear disarmament must grapple with the question of whether eliminating nuclear weapons would lead to a more secure and stable global environment. The increased risk of use, as highlighted by the ICRC and IFRC, suggests that complete disarmament may not be a panacea for peace. Balancing the desire for a nuclear-free world with the need for a credible and effective deterrent against potential threats remains a significant challenge. Understanding the risks associated with disarmament is crucial for crafting effective policies that address both security concerns and the imperative for a peaceful world. The international community must engage in nuanced discussions, considering the disadvantages and potential unintended consequences of nuclear disarmament, to arrive at comprehensive solutions for a safer and more peaceful world.
Nuclear Ban Treaty
The debate surrounding the nuclear-ban-treaty movement brings forth a nuanced perspective on the practical implications of pursuing nuclear disarmament as a solution to world peace. While acknowledging the long-term aspiration for a world without nuclear weapons, it is essential to scrutinize the potential consequences and challenges associated with such a pursuit. The central concern is that, in practice, the target of the nuclear-ban treaty appears to be the nuclear-armed democracies, notably the United States, and their allies. This raises questions about the treaty’s effectiveness, its impact on global security dynamics, and the potential benefits accruing to Russia and China.
At the heart of the critique is the assertion that the ban treaty could significantly disrupt the landscape of U.S. extended deterrence. By potentially pressuring the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from NATO host countries or hindering NATO’s unity in response to Russian nuclear posturing, the treaty may inadvertently compromise existing global norms of nuclear restraint. The leaked U.S. non-paper highlights the legal obstacles that could emerge, affecting extended-deterrence-related operations and placing constraints on U.S. allies and partners. This includes potential prohibitions on the transit of nuclear weapons and limitations on participation in nuclear planning or adherence to nuclear doctrines.
Proponents of the ban hope it will influence nuclear procurement choices in countries like France and the UK, potentially creating hurdles for existing disarmament efforts. However, the skepticism arises from the realization that such a treaty is unlikely to induce disarmament commitments from nuclear-armed states like Russia, China, or North Korea. The motivations behind their nuclear programs are primarily driven by factors other than U.S. extended deterrence, such as U.S. conventional military strength.
Many research papers emphasize the need for a global nuclear restraint regime that actively involves multiple nuclear-armed states in negotiations. It raises concerns that the focus on a ban treaty may divert attention and diplomatic resources from other crucial initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and a potential Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Moreover, the ban treaty’s potential to heighten political tensions within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) adds another layer of complexity to the global nuclear landscape.
Reflecting on historical context, the article suggests that the initial U.S. hostility to the humanitarian initiative in 2013, which evolved into the current ban movement, might have contributed to the present challenges. However, it asserts that the ban, if successful, represents an attack on core U.S. security interests. The nuanced argument here is that while the ban might not bring the world closer to a nuclear-free state, it could potentially weaken the nuclear underpinning of the U.S. alliance system.
Written by – Sakshi Nitin Joisher
Edited by – Kushi Mayur
