Lecture 17 - Nuclear Weapons

What is the overview for this lecture?

Nuclear weapons generate a lot of important questions, with often surprising answers:

1. What makes nuclear weapons so special?

2. If nukes are so special, why don’t more countries have them?

3. If nukes are so special, why haven’t countries been using them?

4. If nobody uses them, why keep them around?

What makes nuclear weapons so special?

The combination of how destructive they are and yet they are so small.

You can destroy cities via airplane/missle.

What states have nuclear weapons?

US (1945)

USSR/Russia (1949)

Great Britain (1952)

France (1960)

China (1964)

Other proliferators:

Israel (1967/)

India (1974)

Pakistan (1998)

North Korea (2006)

What is the argument against nuclear proliferation?

Allowing every nation to possess nuclear weapons increases the risk of catastrophic accidents or misperceptions. In a crisis, leaders might misread a situation and launch a retaliatory strike before realizing their information was false—especially given short response times that force hasty decisions.

Moreover, even without war, nuclear capability can embolden states (like Iran) to pursue aggressive political agendas without fear of military consequences.

Why don’t more countries have nuclear weapons (Norms)?

Norms

• Nuclear taboo makes nuclear weapons undesirable (countries think they don’t need it because they aren’t useful given this norm)

• Plus, nukes aren’t useful given the territorial integrity norm

Why don’t more countries have nuclear weapons (Institutions)?

Institutions

NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty): Cooperative Equilibrium

• Establishes which states are legitimate nuclear powers (the five permanent UN Security Council members).

• These states commit to eventually abolishing nuclear weapons.

• Non-nuclear states agree not to develop them but are allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and receive technical assistance.

• Defines the rules for legitimate nuclear ownership and use.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Monitoring and Trust

• Oversees nuclear programs to ensure compliance and transparency.

• Tracks materials entering and leaving nuclear facilities and reports discrepancies to the international community.

• Agents act as neutral monitors to maintain trust among states.

Why don’t more countries have nuclear weapons (Power)?

Power

• US enforces nuclear nonproliferation

  • Nuclear umbrella for allies (if you nuke other countries then we will treat this as war against the US)

  • Sanctions/preventative war against proliferators

    • Make it obvious that there are real and enduring costs to proliferation

• Success of American policy means that we see few attempts at proliferation even though nukes are politically attractive

Why was getting rid of nukes easy in the begining?

It was easier in beginning to get rid of nuclear weapons in beginning cause easy to cut 90% of arsenal and stop testing (you don’t need that many and you know what you need to know).

Why haven’t nukes been used more often (deterrence)?

Deterrence:

The threat of mutual destruction discourages nuclear states from using them against each other.

Non-nuclear states:

Against non-nuclear states, fears of escalation and global backlash also limit use.

However, their non-use even against weaker, non-nuclear opponents suggests that nuclear weapons are often not militarily useful for most conflicts.

Why haven’t nukes been used more often (norms)?

• Nuclear taboo

• Nuclear weapons belong to a separate and morally objectionable class of weapons

• Nukes target civilians and that is not legitimate target in war

• But is it really a taboo?

  • Nukes appear in war plans

  • Unexpected public support for nuclear use

Why keep nukes around (deterrence)?

• Perfect defense against a nuclear attack is impossible (shooting a bullet with a bullet)

• A single successful nuclear strike has unacceptable costs.

• So…No one will ever risk a nuclear war

  • At least once both sides have a secure second-strike capability.

Why are there so many nukes today (other perspectives)?

The U.S. and USSR built massive arsenals to maintain deterrence and the belief that victory in a nuclear war was possible. The U.S. expanded its stockpile to match Soviet growth and keep open the option of nuclear use for strategic goals.

Who thinks going nuclear is a good idea?

Nuclear No-First-Use Policies

• China: Maintains a small nuclear arsenal designed purely for deterrence.

• USSR (historically): Had conventional military superiority over NATO, making nuclear first use unnecessary.

• India: Holds conventional superiority over Pakistan, so deterrence alone is sufficient.

These countries view their nuclear weapons as defensive tools, not offensive ones. Because they are confident in their conventional strength and security, they can commit to using nuclear weapons only in retaliation.

What if you can’t win a conventional war but have a nuclear advantage?

• Problem: The U.S. couldn’t defeat the Soviet Union in a conventional war in Europe.

• Solution: Use nuclear weapons to deter Soviet aggression.

• New problem: Is that nuclear threat credible? Would the U.S. really risk its own cities for Europe?

Responses:

1. Massive Buildup: The U.S. expanded its arsenal to make nuclear deterrence seem believable and to preserve the idea of a “winnable” nuclear war.

2. Shared Control: The U.S. let European allies have some nuclear capability or control, making the Soviets fear retaliation even if the U.S. hesitated (“would the U.S. give up New York for Paris?”).

3. Brinkmanship: The U.S. deliberately allowed limited uncertainty and partial loss of control over escalation (gave Europe control over when to use nukes)—creating risk to make deterrence more convincing.