Although almost eighty years have passed since the first use of nuclear weapons, as well as the tragic consequences of that event, it still plays a key role in the global politics of the subjects of modern international relations.
This year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo, a Japanese organization for victims of the nuclear bombing. This mass movement of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also known as Hibakusha) won the Peace Prize for their efforts to create a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating (through eyewitness accounts) that nuclear weapons can never be used again. To remind the world of the urgent need for nuclear disarmament, the Nihon Hidankyo movement has provided thousands of witness statements, issued resolutions and public appeals, and sent annual delegations to the United Nations and various peace conferences.
The relevance of this year’s nomination lies in the fact that in almost 80 years nuclear weapons have not been used in any war. On the one hand, this is a “reassuring fact”, on the other hand, today’s “nuclear taboo” under pressure is a serious concern. Nuclear weapons have a huge impact on international politics and diplomacy. It created the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) between countries possessing these weapons. This led to the so-called “nuclear deterrence”, where nuclear powers avoid direct conflicts, fearing the consequences. Two states with nuclear arsenals cannot go to war without the threat of catastrophic consequences for both sides, which was the basis of relative stability during the Cold War, when, despite tensions, the US and the USSR never engaged in direct conflict. Nuclear weapons are also an important factor in diplomatic negotiations. Countries that own it have additional leverage that changes the balance of power in the world. States often use their nuclear arsenals as an argument in negotiations for sanctions, peace agreements or disarmament.
The presence of nuclear weapons has led major powers to sign arms control agreements (such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the START Treaty), which have helped curb the arms race and provide some control mechanisms. By reducing the number of direct military conflicts between great powers, nuclear weapons have created new risks in the context of global security. Each new nuclear state increases the risk of regional conflicts with global consequences. Nuclear weapons can be used as a means of escalation during crises or conflicts. So, for example, in Russia’s current war with Ukraine, there is a threat of using nuclear weapons in conditions where conventional forces will be ineffective.
Having studied the parallel between the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War and the modern war between Russia and Ukraine, it is worth noting that it lies in the political and strategic context, and not in the actual use of these weapons. During the Cold War, nuclear weapons became a key tool of deterrence: the US and the USSR amassed huge arsenals, but neither side used nuclear weapons for fear of mutual assured destruction. Despite numerous regional conflicts, this deterrence maintained relative stability in international relations.
Ukraine, having lost its nuclear arsenal in the nineties as part of the Budapest Memorandum, does not have nuclear weapons, but received security guarantees, which, unfortunately, were not properly fulfilled. In the context of the war between Russia and Ukraine, nuclear weapons play mainly the role of a political instrument of intimidation, although their actual use remains unlikely due to global consequences. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russia has repeatedly raised the issue of the possibility of using nuclear weapons. These statements were aimed both at the domestic audience and at the West, to deter more active support for Ukraine, including the supply of modern weapons. Russian politicians and media have repeatedly hinted at the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
Such statements are more like nuclear blackmail since the actual use of nuclear weapons would create catastrophic consequences not only for Ukraine but also for Russia itself, in particular, due to international isolation and a possible response from other nuclear states. The international community, particularly the US and NATO, have made clear their position on the possible use of nuclear weapons, warning Russia against such a move and stressing that the response will be decisive and likely to include conventional military measures. Such an analysis gives grounds for asserting that, both now and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons perform the function of deterrence with elements of blackmail and political pressure.
On the other hand, if the West and NATO continue to pay attention to Russian nuclear threats, other countries may consider acquiring or returning their own nuclear status. States that feel threatened by the Russian Federation may decide that their own nuclear arsenal is the only real guarantee against aggression. Russia’s constant threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine could set a dangerous precedent: countries that do not have nuclear weapons become more vulnerable to blackmail. Therefore, other states, such as Iran, South Korea, or Eastern European countries, may reconsider their position on nuclear weapons, seeing them as the only way to deter potential aggression.
The more states feel that their security depends on the presence of nuclear weapons, the more this undermines global efforts to deter nuclear proliferation. Such a scenario of events can destabilize the international non-proliferation regime, where new countries can begin to actively develop nuclear programs. The situation remains delicate: on the one hand, the desire to contain escalation may motivate some countries to think about nuclear weapons, on the other hand, acquiring nuclear status may exacerbate conflicts and destabilize regions. First of all, the triad of countries such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia belong to the states that feel threatened by Russia and could potentially think about acquiring or returning nuclear status.
Conclusions. So, are nuclear weapons a tool of influence, intimidation, or strategic balance? In my personal opinion, nuclear weapons are a combination of all three aspects. It serves as a tool of influence and intimidation because states with nuclear weapons can use it as an argument in negotiations. However, at the same time, it contributes to the maintenance of strategic balance, as countries with nuclear potential can refrain from conflicts due to fear of mutual destruction. Complete nuclear disarmament now appears to be a long-term goal that can only be achieved with global cooperation, trust, and the creation of new security mechanisms. However, in the modern realities of international relations, most countries see nuclear weapons as an important strategic asset, and therefore, unfortunately, humanity will not achieve complete disarmament soon.
The history of the establishment of Nihon Hidankyo. In August 1945, a global movement emerged in response to the atomic bomb attacks, whose members worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Subsequently, an international norm arose, which created a prejudice against the use of nuclear weapons as something morally unacceptable and gave rise to the concept of the “nuclear taboo”. The fates of people who survived the then hell of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hidden for a long time. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations, together with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific Ocean, formed the Japan Confederation of Atomic and Water Bomb Victims’ Organizations (this name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo), which later became the largest and most influential Hibakusha organization in Japan.
For reference. The Nobel Peace Prize, founded by Alfred Nobel, has been awarded since 1901. This prize is awarded to individuals, organizations or movements that have made a significant contribution to establishing peace, resolving conflicts or promoting international cooperation. An analysis of previous years’ Nobel Peace Prize laureates who played an important role in the struggle for peace and disarmament showed that there were only three so far.
In 1985, the winner of the nomination was the international movement “Doctors of the World for the Prevention of Nuclear War” for its efforts in solving the problem of nuclear weapons. In 1995, the Pagvo Movement of Scientists and Joseph Rothblatt (one of the 11 founders of the movement) were recognized for their efforts to involve scientists in the cause of peace and the rejection of nuclear weapons. In 2017, for work on drawing attention to the catastrophic consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, the Peace Prize was awarded to the “International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons.”
Interestingly, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Norway (Alfred Nobel indicated this in his will), since Nobel saw Norway, which at that time was in union with Sweden, as a peaceful and neutral country.
Vladlena KOTSYUBA,
Doctor of Philosophy
in international relations
