Third Blog Post: Finding Peace in a M.A.D. World

It is an idealistic goal to push for the complete and total disarmament of a classification of weapons with the power to put an end to all of humanity. Though only used twice in the history of their existence, nuclear devices are known as Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMDs for short, because of their destructive capabilities. As of today, nine countries have known stockpiles of nuclear weapons, with the total number of warheads reaching 16,000, enough to wipe out entire continents.  Recognizing the dangerous power that these missiles hold, numerous treaties and organizations have made it their mission to stop the proliferation of, and ultimately destroy, these terrifying weapons of war. However, while their ideals may be positive, the idea of creating a nuclear-free world is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous to maintaining international peace.

One of the main components of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War was second strike capability. This meant that, in the event of an all-out nuclear strike by the enemy, the U.S., or the Soviets, would still be capable of launching their own missiles in retaliation. This ability led to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) which dominated the latter half of the Twentieth Century. No matter how many nuclear missiles one nation possessed, after crossing a certain threshold, there is no way to better increase security against the threat of nuclear war. As terrifying as this sounds, it actually leads to a Nash equilibrium, whereby two nations, both possessing nuclear weapons, has any reason to engage in hostile action, for fear of destroying itself. 

Thomas Schelling, author of A World Without Nuclear Weapons argues that the destruction of nukes would not only fail to make the world safer, but might possibly lead to nuclear war. In the instance of war where a country is facing outright destruction, it is impossible to expect that nation to abide by whatever international law might ban it from launching nuclear weapons. If leaders become desperate enough, nuclear missiles will be used, as has been the case since their inception. In the case of a “non-nuclear” world, however, the speed at which nations can mobilize will disrupt the Nash equilibrium. Nations, in order to avoid nuclear war, have to be in constant fear of assured destruction.

Politicians and scholars like Henry Sokolowski, however, feel that the proliferation of nuclear weapons might lead to destabilization, and, in some cases, almost certain war. This flawed logic rests on the notion that countries like Iran are somehow less prone to rational action than other nations. In reality, a nuclear Iran, much like a nuclear India and Pakistan, would have no reason to start picking fights with its neighbors, for fear of utter destruction. While it may not be safe to embrace the idea of giving every nation a stockpile of nukes, Iran’s entrance into the “Nuclear Club” is unlikely to cause any great tremors in global politics. In fact, its newfound status may result in Iranian leaders becoming more cautious in the way they portray themselves to other nations. 

A Nuclear free world sounds desirable only until one considers the fact that nations are focused on security, and can be distrustful of other countries’ motives when they have the power to inflict utter destruction. When the stakes become this high, Realism is the only paradigm that can provide a sufficient solution. If every nuclear state fears being destroyed by another nuclear state, then nuclear war will never start. While fear is not a very delightful motivator, it is, in this case, a necessary one in that it can bring warring parties to the negotiating table, no matter how high tensions may run. A nuclear world is therefore a safer world, because no nation can effectively stop nuclear weapons, and thus, no nation will ever use them, lest they wish to encounter the calamity that is Mutually Assured Destruction.