A Map Out of the Wilderness
The world is at greater risk for nuclear war than at any time since the first Cold War.
Some of the danger lies in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats in the Ukraine war, as stated by writers Doreen Horschig and Heather Williams in their story “How to Save the Norms Against Testing, Building, and Using the Ultimate Weapon.” Tensions in the Middle East may cause Iran to speed up its suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. Plus, North Korea continues to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal. If Donald Trump wins a second term, the United States could return to nuclear testing as well, as Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien suggested in “Foreign Affairs” this summer.
Horschig and William sum up the current state of international affairs as well as writer Anne Applebaum in her new book Autocracy Inc: “Together, these developments represent a challenge to the institutions, rules, and taboos that have prevented the use of nuclear weapons since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But the erosion of this nuclear order is not happening in isolation. Autocratic leaders–primarily in China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia–often work in concert as part of a quest to undermine the existing international order, challenging norms related to human rights, international borders, and, increasingly, nuclear weapons. Despite the success of global diplomatic efforts to establish norms around the use of nuclear weapons, the world can no longer assume that nuclear weapons will not be used in a conventional conflict.” Regarding nuclear weapons, norms can be embodied by institutions, such as the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1997 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the nuclear order, norms can prevent states from using nuclear weapons through constraining mechanisms, and the so-called nuclear taboo relies on the widespread rejection of nuclear weapons to discourage their use. Horschig and Williams said: “Norms against nuclear use, proliferation, and testing are well established but have been historically contested, especially the norm against nuclear testing. In a recent study, we found that these norms, which have been firmly in place since the mid-twentieth century, are increasingly being challenged by a handful of actors. One particular vulnerability is the norms’ interconnectedness: if one norm, such as that against nuclear testing, is violated, then other norms, including nonuse and nonproliferation, could also become threatened. Thus, a rejection of one nuclear norm might spur a rejection of the entire nuclear order.”
In the worsening security environment of recent years, international leaders and nuclear experts have suggested that all three norms (testing, nonused, and nonproliferation) could be further challenged. In 2022, the US intelligence community estimated that the risk of nuclear use in Ukraine could rise to 50 percent. One hundred eighty-seven countries have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the countries observe the norms against nuclear testing. However, some nuclear states, including the US, have not signed the treaty.
If nuclear norms continue to break down, the world might become a much more dangerous place. More frequent nuclear testing, for example, could have devastating humanitarian and environmental results, as stated by Horschig and Williams. The issues addressed by Horschig and Williams are a part of our current Cold War. Chinese President Xi Jinping said that China is competing for the future of the international order, challenging the alliances, institutions, and principles that the United States has long relied on to shape the international system. A decade ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a new world order that was more aligned with Russia’s interests. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are increasingly enabling one another in an “axis of upheaval,” as stated by writers Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine. Kendall-Taylor and Fontaine said: “The growing cooperation among the four countries (China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia) is fueled by their shared opposition to the Western-dominated global order, an antagonism rooted in their belief that that system does not accord them the status or freedom of action they deserve.” These powers rely on nuclear weapons to make their point. Of course, the US broke with global norms when it refused to sign the CTBT in 1999.
Horschig and Williams offer a way forward – engaging the global South. Mexico has voiced concern about the crumbling nuclear order, and India’s Narendra Modi, an authoritarian like Putin, has sought to constrain Putin, despite the similarities in their leadership style. The current threats offer a platform for consensus building. Perhaps a part of the consensus building will be the US signing the CTBT. We could also stress that NATO countries and Asian allies uphold nuclear norms. Horchig and William ended their story in an open-ended manner: “The United States must continue to invest in its alliances, extend its commitment to deterrence, and engage in honest dialogue with both nuclear and non-nuclear states, making clear the stakes if the current slide continues.”
Dialog, or diplomacy, is the cheapest and most non-lethal path forward. However, easing tensions with the authoritarian orbit – authoritarian and totalitarian states that are allied against the democratic world – should be a part of the long-term path to a world defined by nuclear arms control. Ending the Ukraine War and pacifying China on the Taiwan issue will be critical. Maybe Putin will wear down, and several rounds of diplomacy will ensure a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine War. Perhaps China will realize how disastrous a war with Taiwan would be.
The world looks like a scary place currently. However, we work toward a map out of the wilderness.
