Theory of Nuclear Deterrence

There are a number of problems with the theory of ‘deterrence’. For a start it is a contradiction in itself. Each side must believe that it will use nuclear weapons if necessary. It must be convinced that it can strike and knock out the enemy missiles before any retaliation can be launched. But it’s very difficult to sound convincing when you are talking to an enemy that must think exactly the same. But to be a threat, each side must be prepared to use nuclear weapons and that is the one thing nobody wants as it would pretty much finish off the planet. What would you do if you were the leader of a country that had been destroyed in a first strike? Would you really try to launch the same thing back? What would be the purpose?

Much has been written about the myths of by people such as Ward Wilson of CNS and Nick Ritchie of Bradford University.

The continual reliance on deterrence can actually make situations worse as people become more worried and scared of an enemy. It makes negotiations more difficult as any compromise is seen as a weakness. So the tension can rise. That tension is then seen as an excuse for yet more weapons.

It’s also worth thinking about whether any country would actually want to use a nuclear weapon. World opinion would no doubt be appalled at any use and could well make it worse for any attacker. But, if it did happen, what would an attacker gain? After all, once a country was destroyed the attacker would have nothing to take over. The land would be uninhabitable.

Nuclear weapon states have been involved in wars over the last 50 years – for example, the US in Korea and Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan and Britain in the Falklands. Although Britain ‘won’ what would have happened if defeat had been likely? In the other examples the big boys ‘lost’ but still didn’t resort to using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. Is that because using nuclear weapons is simply unacceptable? In which case, the deterrence theory is nonsense.

Nowadays the situation is very different. Although deterrence is still given as a major reason for possessing nuclear weapons, the ‘enemy’ has changed. Some seem to think that the current war on terrorism justifies keeping nuclear weapons. But as was seen in the terrible attacks in New York and Washington on 9 September 2001, terrorists are not deterred by nuclear weapons nor can they be stopped by them. Does anybody really think that something as indiscriminate as a nuclear weapon could be used in response to a terrorist attack?

At least three of the nuclear weapon states have said that, in certain circumstances, they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons first. The question that needs asking is ‘Do they really mean it?’ and if so doesn’t that mean that deterrence is no longer an accepted theory?

Without a doubt, the possession of nuclear weapons increases tension and does nothing to help global security.