Blog Post #2
Is Breaking The Tradition Inevitable?
I recently researched the history of what has been considered a taboo against nuclear arms for my analytical paper. In doing so, I ultimately came to the conclusion that a taboo was too definite and absolute of a phrase used to define this long standing resistance against the use of nuclear use, finding “tradition” a better suited term. A lot of my research was focused on the consequences that would follow if a national power were to instigate nuclear warfare, and how opposing nations would react to such violence. This hypothetical was sequential to defining this universal adoration and resistance against nuclear warfare, however the hypothetical has recently been brought into a more realistic circumstance. Contrary to a statement made less than a year ago where Biden and Putin issued a statement during the Geneva summit agreeing that a nuclear war was not winnable, on February 27th Putin alerted his top military officials to incorporate nuclear weaponry into the regime of combat (NYT, 2022).
Whether considered a taboo or tradition, instigating the first nuclear attack since 1945 would result in a series of ramifications with speculation that it could propel World War III, something all nations want to avoid. Yet, today we are in jeopardy of entering possibly one of the most devastating wars our world has seen. How is that? While there has been a universal taboo against the use of nuclear arms, nation’s such as the US and Russia have continued to develop such technology that has far advanced what was once exampled in the attack of Hiroshima in 1945. Despite the fact that nations have supported nuclear non-use for the past seventy-seven years, they have armed themselves anyhow, resulting in a looming conflict that was actively being opposed. Why was nuclear technology continuously created and advanced if there was a unilateral ceasefire? Is the saying accurate in our reality: a loaded gun will eventually go off?
In the past seventy-seven years where an agreement against nuclear arms has stood, an accounted nineteen threats against this stance has been made, all to which had been revoked or neutralized. It is speculated that Putin’s play to incorporate nuclear technology into his opposition against Ukraine is more of a mental strategy than a likely threat. According to an article published by BBC, Ukraine isn’t in possession of nuclear weapons, and has not made advances to obtain such technology. What’s important about this dynamic is that within the nuclear taboo, nations have further emphasized the restraint of nuclear warfare against non-nuclear states. While this is all personal speculation that may be extremely short sighted, I’d argue that if Russia were to drop the first atomic bomb since 1945, it would make the least sense to do so against a non-nuclear nation unless Putin’s intentions were to instigate a World War III.
Putin's threat alone has the capacity to compel his adversaries to submit, including the United States who is trying to avert a global nuclear war. What perplexes me the most at this juncture, and about today's political atmosphere in general, is the fact Putin is empowered by nuclear arms. Why is it that a nuclear threat is being dangled over the head of millions when a tradition to relinquish nuclear weapons has been standing since 1945?
Since the invention of the first atomic bomb, roughly 13 thousand nuclear weapons have been accumulated globally. The United States and Russia control the great majority of nuclear weapons, accounting for 90% of all nuclear weapons in existence (world population review). Is it inevitable that such technology that has been collecting dust for almost eight decades will eventually be brought into combat? Given today’s climate, I do believe that it is likely. With nineteen serious threats made since the attack on Hiroshima, a reluctant part of me believes that international politics is slowing hitting a boiling point that will not be neutralized. The threat of a nuclear attack has carried enough power through the decades to only be a threat. However, what worries me is that one day, hopefully that is far far way, a nation will be called out for its bluff, and action will then be taken.
Sources:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-weapons-by-country
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics/russia-nuclear-threats-putin-what-matters/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/opinion/ukraine-putin-nuclear-war.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who also wrote their blog post on the concept of nuclear warfare I found this opinion very interesting. It brings up a question that is often overlooked: why is their still nuclear advancements and experimentation occurring throughout the world despite the definite MAS that is known to occur if they were to be used in combat? I think this essay makes a strong argument that in there may be a time in the future when nuclear warfare has found a way to resurface. Since this technology exists and essentially handed over the ruler in control, human rationality and unpredictability may trigger a nuclear war. Similarly to what was stated in this essay, I do believe that Putin's nuclear threat was mostly to spread fear throughout Ukraine and the world. I do think that there is a possibility that he may actually his nuclear weapons if he becomes desperate enough. This essay brings up a very important question: why do rulers like Putin even have access to weapons like this. I agree that it is absurdity that one man can make a threat that puts the lives of millions of civilians at risk. This essay also highlights that even if nuclear warfare is not seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the probability that nuclear weapons will resurface at some point in the future seems to be increasing.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with this blog. I find this premise of it to be interesting and thought provoking. While I think that we have been extremely lucky as a species that no leader has ever sought to use nuclear weapons after the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I also believe that every leader has been somewhat rational in their approach to nuclear weapons, including states such as North Korea. However, with the recent ongoing events in Ukraine and the stalling of Putin's advance, I do believe that his threats are credible. As I have seen in several publications, many of the actions that he is taking are not very rational and this combined with the fact that the world has in a sense cut out Russia, makes me believe that if Putin finds himself in a large enough corner, with no way out, that he will turn to nuclear weapons to solve his problems. Finally, as both you and Carter mentioned, I think that by making the amount of threats regarding nuclear weapons that he has, Putin has in a way made it more likely that the threat or even the use of nuclear weapons increases in the future.
ReplyDelete