Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than experiencing nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability — so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons.
The world has benefited from an effective nonproliferation regime, a set of rules, norms and institutions that have discouraged — albeit haltingly and imperfectly — nuclear proliferation, but can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts?
In the 1960s, then-US president John F. Kennedy predicted that there would be about 25 countries with nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Yet today, there are only nine, because governments took steps to prevent proliferation.
Illustration: Yusha
In 1968, they negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognized that five states already had nuclear weapons, but secured pledges from others not to develop them. For decades, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure that it is used only for civilian purposes.
And in the 1970s, then-US president Jimmy Carter’s administration placed a high priority on slowing proliferation, in part through the newly created Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose member states pledged restraint in the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology.
This non-proliferation regime has become an important part of the world order, but some analysts believe it faces new threats. Even IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi worries about its future. The most visible challenge is Iran’s program for enriching uranium to more than 60 percent — far beyond what is needed for use in civilian reactors.
Grossi estimates that Iran could make a bomb in a matter of months, not years; and if it does develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia says it would follow suit and drop out of the NPT. Israel and the US are threatening to use force to stop Iran, even as the US and Iran engage in new negotiations over limiting Iran’s nuclear program.
Beyond this regional challenge in the Middle East lurks a global threat to the nonproliferation regime. After World War II, Germany and Japan limited their own nuclear plans because of their alliance with the US. The credibility of US nuclear deterrence was sufficient to provide them with security, and the same has been true for dozens of other states, both in NATO and in East Asia.
However, now that the administration of US President Donald Trump is weakening these alliances, it has also weakened the US’ extended deterrence, prompting others to examine whether they should have their own nuclear weapons. They are well aware that Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, only to be invaded by Russia (which had guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum).
Some analysts say we should not worry, because proliferation would have beneficial effects on world politics. Just as nuclear weapons sustained prudence in US-Soviet relations, so might nuclear weapons stabilize regional power balances today.
However, this more-is-better attitude would be tenable only if the political conditions were similar. It presupposes stable command-and-control systems; an absence of serious civil wars or destabilizing motivations (such as irredentist passions); and discipline over the temptation to launch preemptive strikes during the early stages of a conflict, when new nuclear weapons capabilities are soft and vulnerable.
Such assumptions are unrealistic in many parts of the world. Far from enhancing security, the first effects of acquiring a nuclear capability in many circumstances might be to increase one’s vulnerability and insecurity. Moreover, even a local, “tactical” nuclear strike would be a serious breach of an 80-year global taboo.
One also must consider the destabilizing roles that nonstate actors could play. Even if the risk of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is low, the mere possibility creates severe
challenges. The fact that weapons-usable materials can be stolen or sold to rogue states on the black market means that the threat posed by nonstate groups does not depend solely on their technological capabilities.
Nor would today’s superpowers necessarily be immune to the effects. The wide or rapid spread of nuclear capabilities could affect the global strategic balance and the prospects of a peaceful and just world order.
Obviously, political and technical trends would continue to change, but the key question concerns the future of US alliances and extended deterrence. Given that proliferation could be destabilizing, that nuclear weapons do not always enhance the acquiring state’s geopolitical position, and that superpowers cannot fully escape the effects, there should be a strong global interest in maintaining the nonproliferation regime.
Under the current circumstances, some inequality in weaponry is acceptable to most states because the alternative — anarchic equality — is more dangerous. As long as countries can be made better off without a bomb than with one, a policy of slowing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology would rest on a strong foundation.
Realistically, an international regime does not need perfect adherence to have a significant constraining effect, but once erosion of the norms and institutions begins, it might be hard to stop.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr, a former dean of Harvard Kennedy School, is a former US assistant secretary of defense and author of the memoir A Life in the American Century.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS