Is “zero” the right target for disarmament?

Abstract

The United States and Russia have obligated themselves to pursuing complete nuclear disarmament. But despite the two countries’ treaty obligations, it’s reasonable to wonder if Russia and the United States will ever accept the constraints on power that total disarmament implies. Here, Wael Al Assad of Jordan (2015), Li Bin of China (2015), and Sinan Ulgen of Turkey debate whether complete abolition of nuclear weapons is an appropriate goal for the disarmament movement—or whether disarmament might proceed faster if its aim were reducing stockpiles to the point that they represented only a minimum possible deterrent.

Complete nuclear disarmament is a dangerous chimera. For three fundamental reasons, pursuing this theoretically laudable goal would likely produce a more dangerous world.

First, as a means for maintaining security, it is difficult to identify a credible alternative to nuclear deterrence. Simply put, nuclear deterrence has worked. Even at the height of the Cold War’s ideological polarization, the world never witnessed the sort of large-scale wars that, in the absence of a nuclear deterrent, were fought in the first half of the 20th century. Policy makers fully recognize the destructive capability of nuclear weapons and have come to understand the complexities inherent in a nuclear world. The concept of mutual assured destruction has provided, and continues to provide, a sound basis for limiting the scope and scale of confrontations between nuclear weapon states.

Devoid of a nuclear deterrent, the world would immediately become more dangerous. If military assets were limited to conventional weapons, nations would experience fewer inhibitions against armed conflict. This would hold true even for the major powers. With disincentives to conflict reduced, the renewal of conventional arms races would likely be unstoppable. This would have an important effect on, among other things, national budgets. Today, at least for nuclear weapon states, the existence of a nuclear deterrent allows for drastic reductions in defense spending during times of austerity. In a similar vein, countries that fall under another nation’s extended nuclear deterrence can spend less on conventional military capabilities than they otherwise would; they benefit from a nuclear dividend. So overall, though it may sound paradoxical, nuclear weapons are a force for stability. It is hard to imagine how similar levels of stability could be achieved through any means other than nuclear weapons.

Second, how would a world without nuclear weapons be managed? If the world were essentially one big “peace cartel,” this cartel would be very fragile indeed. Economic theory indicates that members of a cartel become more likely to engage in cartel-busting behavior as the rewards for doing so increase and the penalties decrease. A similar logic would pertain where nuclear weapons are concerned. In a world without nuclear weapons, breaking one’s cartel commitments by developing a nuclear deterrent would seem to have enormous security benefits. As for penalties, nothing short of a sanctioned military attack intended to destroy the country in question would change the calculus of a rogue regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, ensuring that the world remained free of nuclear weapons would require the establishment of a universal regime devoted to that purpose, backed by the unambiguously credible use of force. The world has never witnessed the emergence of such an institution, and likely never will.

When the first rogue state went nuclear, the nonproliferation regime would likely fall apart completely. Today, though the regime is not universal, it remains effective in constraining the nuclear ambitions of nations such as Iran. But in a world without the security that nuclear weapons provide, a single episode of noncompliance would likely cause many nations to seek their own deterrents. The result would be a collapse of the regime and a cascade of proliferation. It is a dangerous fallacy to believe that rogue states could be prevented from reintroducing nuclear weapons to a world from which these weapons had been eliminated.

The third factor agitating against total disarmament is the difficulty of effecting a transition to a nuclear-free world. States have developed nuclear deterrents for a variety of reasons, but chief among these—whether for the great powers, or for middle powers such as India, Pakistan, and Israel—has been threat perception. Until the threats that have led these powers to acquire nuclear weapons are permanently eliminated, it is difficult to envision them agreeing to disarm completely. For example, Pakistan’s security and policy establishment will never agree to total disarmament until Pakistan feels secure vis-à-vis India, its more powerful neighbor and its geopolitical rival. A similar argument could be made about Israel. The world will have to become much more adept at peacefully solving or at least managing its regional conflicts, whether through a universal security architecture or a multiplicity of regional architectures, for the middle powers in particular to perceive complete disarmament as safe.

Eliminating nuclear weapons, though a lofty goal, is a difficult proposition. But this is not to say that disarmament efforts should be abandoned. To the contrary, the nuclear weapon states (with the United States and Russia in the lead) should move forward with reducing their arsenals. Otherwise, the consensus that underlies the entire nonproliferation regime will be increasingly open to challenge. But there is a limit to what nuclear disarmament can accomplish without introducing new security risks.

Here’s something that can be achieved: gaining a universal commitment by nuclear weapon states not to use these weapons first. Today, China espouses a no-first-use policy. The United States forswears first use against non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations—though Washington places some restrictions on that commitment (Defense Department, 2010). Russia does not maintain a no-first-use policy. This is a complicated picture, and prevailing on all nuclear weapon states to adopt no-first-use policies would be challenging. Ultimately, though, the goal is achievable. If every nuclear-armed state adopted an unconditional no-first-use policy, the risk of nuclear war would be greatly reduced.

The world came to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that was more than 50 years ago. Nuclear weapons haven’t been used in conflict since 1945. By now, the record suggests that nations have learned to manage these terrible weapons. They have adapted their security concepts to the realities of the nuclear era, developing first the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and then extended deterrence. The system that exists may not be desirable—a residual risk of nuclear warfare persists—but the system has proven itself to work. Nuclear deterrence has served the world well for many decades and would continue doing so even if arsenals were much smaller. Stability could be maintained if arsenals approached—but did not reach—zero. Indeed, that should be the goal of the global nuclear community.