There are numerous types of power: political control, economic liberty, military capacity, scientific knowledge, among several other facets of global authority. However, in recent years, the power of a nuclear arsenal has garnered widespread significance in the geopolitical playing field. As the technological element of the current global arms race intensifies, the nature of international conflict is simultaneously undergoing a dramatic transformation.
This begs the question: What is the true source of power in the possession of nuclear weapons? The military power to inflict catastrophic damage? The signifier of economic or technological development? The geopolitical authority to control others? Certainly each of these elements is a critical factor in the incentive for nuclearization. However, perhaps it is the underlying ideological threat of what nuclear weaponry represents. Instead of a nuclear weapon signifying a quality of military dominance, is it possible that it symbolizes a mere prop in the field of political theatrics?
According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are currently 9 countries that possess nuclear weaponry: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. Together, these nations (along with a few other host countries) hold the world’s 12,331 nuclear warheads, with about 9,600 in active military stockpiles. Just a single nuclear weapon has the capacity to annihilate an entire city and its human population while also emitting harmful ionizing thermal radiation that can pose long-term environmental damage. Considering the disastrous potential in just one of these warheads, why are there over 12,000 nuclear weapons currently on the planet?
The classification for nuclear weaponry dates back to the Cold War, when the threat of Soviet expansion and the infamous arms race were at the forefront of the global military agenda. In general, a “tactical” nuclear weapon is any weapon not classified as “strategic” under U.S.–Russian arms control agreements. Tactical weapons are often designed for use on the battlefield, generally in close proximity to allied territories with smaller explosive power than strategic weapons. Tactical weapons are more commonplace and less regulated than their strategic counterparts, often delivered via short-range missiles, artillery, and bombs. Strategic weaponry is designed for significantly longer-range combat with the purpose of inflicting severe damage to the target’s military bases, urban infrastructure, or other critical areas. These weapons have a higher explosive yield, primarily delivered by Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICMBs), Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), or long-range bombers.
Russia, the country with the greatest arsenal of nuclear weaponry, has historically been a source of steadfast global military attention. The Soviet threat was the ultimate catalyst for the development of N.A.T.O. and the weaponization of defense for the Western democracies. Now launching repeat offensives at Ukraine, Russia is once again a topic for the European front. An article released by Forbes discusses the possibility of an independent European nuclear arsenal as a strategic maneuver to successfully ward off Russia from the West. Alexander Bollfrass, an acclaimed scholar on nuclear weaponry at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, detailed the procedural logistics of developing a continent-wide “Eurodeterrent” to fend off Russian aggression. However, Dr. Bolfrass notes how the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.) may be an obstacle for the development of a substantial European nuclear arsenal as both France and the U.K., the two European nations with established weaponry, are signatories to the N.P.T., meaning they are pledged to “not in any way . . . assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” According to Bollfrass, in order to develop a united nuclear front, Europe would have to transform from a global proponent of nuclear disarmament into a symbol of firm nuclear power.
Another instance in which the threat of nuclear capacity has alarmed Western leaders involves the recent conflict eruption between Israel and Iran. The joint offensive between Israel and the U.S. against Iranian nuclear facilities proves that the potential for nuclear capacity is enough to spark a violent conflict. Numerous sources stated the nuclear sites in Iran were “seriously damaged,” with Trump himself claiming they were completely “obliterated.” As indicated by the attacks on Iran’s facilities, the actual possession of nuclear weaponry is only one facet of the problem—the potential for technological advancement toward developing a nuclear weapon is proving just as threatening as the explicit possession of these warheads.
From a geopolitical perspective, entering a full-scale nuclear war is not a viable decision for any country. Aside from the tangible infrastructural damages and economic costs of repair, the humanitarian toll is a risk not worth taking for any state, regardless of its level of development. This is particularly relevant considering that these weapons are generally manufactured with the intent to inflict severe damage to strategic territories and cities of the target nation, such as cities with crucial economic, governmental, or military institutions and densely populated areas. Accordingly, the power of the nuclear weapon lies not in its function but in its geopolitical theatrics: the threat of power is rooted in the perceived potential to enact mass destruction and the sense of fear it instills in its possible targets.
As of now, there are 94 signatories and 73 state parties of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the treaty prohibits nations from developing, manufacturing, testing, processing, stockpiling, transferring, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing them to be stationed on their territory. It simultaneously prohibits them from assisting or encouraging anyone to engage in these activities. Any nation that actively possesses nuclear weapons is welcome to join the treaty under the condition that it agrees to destroy the weaponry in accordance with a legally binding contract.
Regardless of a country dominating in the possession of these warheads or reports of increased uranium at a country’s known nuclear sites, the power of nuclearization is clear: It is the threat, not the weapon itself, that yields actions based in fear, control, and preventive violence. Based on the logic that either the possession or potential of nuclear weapons can ignite international violence and widespread fear, it is clear that a feedback loop is hindering progressive development toward a non-nuclear world. As long as any one nation holds a nuclear weapon, the threats, fears, and theatrics of the global military power game will persist.
