THE RISKS OF RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR POSTURING

Print

THE CONTEXT: Russia’s recent announcement of drills simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons along the Ukraine border, coupled with its decision to station nuclear weapons in Belarus, marks a concerning escalation in nuclear posturing amidst the ongoing war. This move, seemingly a tactic of brinkmanship and coercion, challenges the long-standing principles of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, raising fears of a dangerous shift towards the normalization of nuclear threats in conventional conflicts.

ISSUES:

• Brinkmanship and Coercion: Russia’s recent actions, including plans to hold drills simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons and stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus, are interpreted more as attempts at brinkmanship and coercion rather than genuine responses to existential threats. This approach aims to deter further intervention by Ukraine and its allies without the actual intention or necessity of using nuclear weapons based on the current threats posed by France and the U.K.
• Lowering the Threshold for Nuclear Use: Russia is considering lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which deviates from the long-standing principle of nuclear deterrence that is based on mutually assured destruction. This shift could normalize the use of atomic weapons in conflicts that do not pose existential threats to the nuclear-armed state, undermining the principle that nuclear weapons are to be used only as a last resort.
• Dangerous Precedent for Global Nuclear Policy: Russia’s explicit nuclear threats at lower levels of conflict set a dangerous precedent that could encourage other nuclear-armed states, particularly smaller ones like Iran and North Korea, to use their nuclear capabilities as a coercive tool in conventional conflicts. This could erode the clear distinction between nuclear and conventional warfare and lead to an increase in nuclear proliferation.
• Undermining Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Efforts: Russia’s actions threaten to undermine nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. The war has highlighted the vulnerability of non-nuclear states to aggression from nuclear-armed states, potentially motivating other states to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
• Revisiting Nuclear Doctrines: The situation has prompted states like Iran to consider revisiting their nuclear doctrines in response to perceived existential threats, which could undermine global non-proliferation efforts. This reflects a broader concern that states may shift their policies towards developing or maintaining nuclear arsenals in the face of threats, discouraging disarmament.
• Increased Proliferation Anxieties: The unfolding dynamics have created a new nuclear flashpoint, raising proliferation anxieties among smaller states, especially in regions with long-standing tensions. The lowering of the threshold for nuclear use and the asymmetric advantages provided by nuclear weapons in conventional warfare scenarios increase the risk of further atomic instability and proliferation.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Strengthening International Diplomacy and Dialogue: The Cold War era saw the use of diplomacy to manage nuclear tensions, notably through the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the subsequent Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). These agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union (and later Russia) were crucial in limiting the number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Reviving and strengthening diplomatic channels dedicated to atomic risk reduction between nuclear and non-nuclear states can help manage tensions.
• Enhancing Nuclear Deterrence Stability: The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) maintained peace during the Cold War by ensuring that any nuclear attack would destroy both the attacker and the defender. Modernizing nuclear arsenals for safety, security, and reliability without increasing their offensive capability can maintain deterrence without encouraging proliferation.
• Promoting Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Efforts: The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has been instrumental in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting disarmament. The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is a recent example of a multilateral agreement to curb nuclear proliferation. Strengthening the NPT by encouraging universal membership and compliance and resolving the issues that lead to withdrawal or non-compliance through diplomacy is essential.
• Building Regional Security Architectures: The European security architecture, including organizations like NATO and the OSCE, has played a role in maintaining peace and deterring aggression in Europe, albeit with challenges. Developing and strengthening regional security organizations in other parts of the world, such as in the Middle East and East Asia, can provide frameworks for conflict resolution, confidence-building measures, and cooperative security arrangements that reduce the perceived need for nuclear weapons.
• Investing in Missile Defense and Conventional Forces: The development of missile defense systems, such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, provides a potential shield against limited nuclear attacks, reducing the attractiveness of atomic weapons as a means of coercion. Using missile defense and advanced conventional capabilities can deter adversaries and protect allies without resorting to nuclear escalation.
• Encouraging Civil Society and International Advocacy: The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) played a significant role in advocating for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, demonstrating the power of civil society in influencing nuclear policy.

THE CONCLUSION:

By lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use and blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional warfare, Russia sets a precarious precedent that could encourage other nuclear-armed states to flaunt their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent in traditional conflicts. This development not only undermines efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament but also heightens global nuclear instability, making the prospect of atomic engagement a more immediate threat in regional and international conflicts.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:

Q.1 How would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect India’s national interest? How should India respond to this situation? 2018

Q.2 The Russia and Ukraine war has been going on for the last seven months. Different countries have taken independent stands and actions while keeping their national interests in view. We know that war impacts various aspects of society, including human tragedy. What ethical issues are crucial to consider while launching the war and its continuation so far? Illustrate with justification the moral issues involved in the given situation. 2022

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q.1 Examine the implications of Russia’s recent nuclear posturing during the ongoing conflict with Ukraine. Discuss how the lowering of the threshold for the use of atomic weapons by a nuclear state could alter the established norms of atomic deterrence and impact global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-risks-of-russias-nuclear-posturing/article68199913.ece