2024-11-29 05:00:00
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, putin has been threatening the use of nuclear weapons for more than two years. The American monopoly ended when the USSR gained nuclear capability in 1949.. Others would succeed later, even though Washington and Moscow have the largest arsenals.The doctrines for its use have become more complex as a function, essentially, of the increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons; the expansion of the range (different explosive powers and possible uses); the evolution of carriers (aircraft, missiles, submarines, cannons and mortars, now drones?); and the evolution of doctrines that are in principle defensive, although there are some that seek to win a nuclear war. These doctrines are like a game of chess in which, before starting it, the first moves are calculated, the related responses and counter-responses, the warnings to avoid escalating the conflict and avoiding a harsh final test that would lead to the end of the planet. A high voltage poker game. The 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) attempts to limit the possession of nuclear weapons by privileging those who already possessed them in exchange for a distant promise of their elimination and a willingness to transfer technology for the civil and peaceful use of nuclear energy ..
Spain joined the NPT in 1987. There are five nuclear powers recognized by the NPT China, USA, France, United Kingdom and Russiaand four more actually: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.There are contenders such as Iran,which would stimulate Saudi Arabia.
the 1972 ABM Treaty between the United States and Russia regulated mutual vulnerability by banning missile shields. It was denounced (2002) and now the US is in favor of having a shield like NATO in Europe (against Middle East missiles) and Israel (“iron Dome”). It is likely that a new nuclear delivery capacity will be developed with drones that goes beyond defense meshes and there are already hypersonic missiles considered unstoppable. Nuclear disarmament agreements also influence nuclear deterrence doctrines by limiting arsenals. New agreements similar to those extinguished by the Cold War could also concern the French, British and Chinese arsenals, without forgetting those not formally recognized, which appears more intricate. The Chinese, British and French refuse to limit theirs, while the Americans and Russians far surpass them. Confidence measures provide reassurance in the face of certain deployments of weapons, including nuclear weapons. There is a relationship with possible disarmament agreements and confidence-building measures regarding conventional weapons.. The less the balance is disturbed in the latter, the less likely nuclear occupation is.
It is legitimate to argue that if it had not given up nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR, Ukraine would not have been invaded. Its resignation, like that of Belarus and Kazakhstan in 1994 (budapest Memorandum), made it possible to avoid further nuclear states. Russia promised to respect its territorial integrity, but now we know the value of the Russian word. Also guarantors are the USA,the United Kingdom,France and China. The latter has disengaged and the other three are helping Ukraine without directly intervening in the conflict. There has been an interesting erosion of Russia’s nuclear red lines.Ukraine struck targets in Russia itself and Ukrainian soldiers entered its territory, taking up positions in the Kursk area without Russia having made good on its threats of nuclear use. Putin preferred to deploy North Korean soldiers to expel the Ukrainians. These have thus gradually managed to “make the Russian nuclear response more flexible”, demonstrating that the decision to use it is indeed not easy even for an autocracy like the Russian one. Looking at the European Union,the EU’s true strategic autonomy requires it to become a federal state,with a president or prime minister equipped with a European nuclear deterrent. It seems like an impossible mission and, in any case, it will be appropriate to overcome a phase in which France would have a role with its nuclear “Force de Frappe”. to the extent that it seems willing to guarantee the integrity of the other European territories of the Union.
It is up to the European partners to discuss this issue with Paris, which has consequences like that participation in employment decisions, with the understanding that france has the only possible finger on the triggerthe possibility of community funding of the French nuclear deterrent available to its partners, its expansion to multiple components and launchers or deployments in countries other than France. Of the three conditions of the referendum for Spain’s continued membership in NATO (1986), two were dropped. With Aznar, the lack of participation in the Integrated Military Structure and, after Zapatero, the failure to increase American forces in Spain, allowing the non-installation, introduction or storage of nuclear weapons in our territory to be excluded, although not necessarily, for reasons strategies and in solidarity with a European nuclear deterrent.
What are the main challenges facing nuclear non-proliferation today?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Nuclear Policy Expert Dr. Elena Rossi
Time.news Editor: Good morning, Dr. Rossi. thank you for joining us today too discuss the complex and ever-evolving landscape of nuclear weapons and international relations, especially in light of recent events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Dr. elena Rossi: Good morning! I’m glad to be here.It’s a critical time for discussions about nuclear policy, especially with the renewed threats from state actors.
Editor: To start, could you provide us with some context regarding the global nuclear landscape today? How have the dynamics changed since the Cold War, especially with the emergence of new nuclear states?
Rossi: Absolutely. The Cold War was characterized by a bipolar framework primarily between the US and the USSR. However, since the USSR gained nuclear capability in 1949, we’ve seen a proliferation of nuclear weapons.Today, it’s not just the US and Russia—there are now nine countries with nuclear arsenals, which complicates international security. the doctrines of nuclear use have also become more complex, evolving to include various delivery systems and different explosive yields.
Editor: You mentioned the doctrines have become more complex.Can you elaborate on what this means in practice, especially for countries involved in conflicts?
Rossi: Certainly.Modern nuclear doctrines incorporate deterrence strategies that can be seen as a chess game.States calculate their moves based on potential responses from their adversaries, attempting to avoid escalation at all costs.The risk is that miscalculations could lead to a nuclear conflict, hence the ongoing need for diplomacy and arms control agreements, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Editor: Speaking of the NPT, it has been a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation as 1970. Spain joined in 1987, but how effective has the treaty been in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons?
Rossi: The NPT has indeed played a crucial role in limiting nuclear arms proliferation among established powers—China, the USA, France, the UK, and Russia. However, it privileges existing nuclear states and recognizes their arsenals while trying to promise eventual disarmament. This has led to frustrations, especially with countries like India, Pakistan, and North Korea developing their own nuclear capabilities outside of the treaty.
Editor: It seems that despite the NPT’s goals, there are still countries pursuing nuclear weapons, which raises concerns about regional arms races. As an example, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, could we see a response from nations like Saudi Arabia?
Rossi: Yes, indeed. Iran’s activities have already started triggering reactions. If Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons, it’s likely that neighboring countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, might feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs.This could destabilize the region further and lead to a new arms race, which the international community desperately wishes to avoid.
Editor: Given these challenges, how do you see the role of international treaties and diplomacy in managing nuclear threats going forward?
Rossi: treaties like the NPT and agreements like the 1972 ABM Treaty are essential, but they need to be adapted to address current challenges. continuous dialog and negotiation are key. As we’ve seen in the recent conflicts, long-standing tensions can lead to desperate and aggressive posturing. Thus, proactive diplomacy is vital to prevent miscalculations that could escalate into nuclear conflict.
editor: As we wrap up, what would be your key takeaway for our readers regarding the future of nuclear policies in the context of global security?
Rossi: It’s crucial to recognize that nuclear weapons are not just tools of deterrence but also symbols of power and control. With increasing geopolitical tensions, it’s imperative for nations to engage in responsible dialogue and work towards disarmament and non-proliferation in earnest—if not for their own security, then for the survival of humanity as a whole.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Rossi, for sharing your insights on such a pressing topic.Your expertise is invaluable as we navigate these challenging issues.
Rossi: Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss these critically important matters.