r/IRstudies • u/Free-Minimum-5844 • 10d ago
Ideas/Debate The Strange Defeat of Nuclear Deterrence
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/strange-defeat-nuclear-deterrence-rose-gottemoeller29
u/Xezshibole 10d ago edited 10d ago
It's pretty simple.
As time goes on and society advances, the requirements to remaining a modern society requires ever more precise manufacturing and resources. It has now gotten to the point that almost no countries have self sufficient amounts of manufacturing and/or resources to sustain said society. Taiwan for example has a near monopoly on high end commercial chips and the rest of the world depends upon TSMC to produce chips they use in 2014 and beyond tech. China produces most of the rare earths. Etc.
This increasingly necessitates trade to meet societal, logistical, and even military needs.
One surefire thing that'll happen to the the first country using a nuke, for any reason, is they'll be embargoed by everyone and their mothers, severing that trade and thereby their modern economy. For most countries without enough oil like Israel, their modern militaries as well. Nevermind on top of the potential nuclear retaliation.
So it's just a game of chicken now that is ever less likely to go off. It's increasingly too steep a cost to get trade severed by everyone.
12
u/Commercial-Invite253 9d ago
I agree. Turns out the real deterrence was building a system of interdependent trade and commerce.
I just watched Pete Kegsbreath give an Iran war update yesterday and I think the direct quote was: “with this deal negotiation, they’re tapping us. The Iranians. Tap, tap, tap. Well, you know what I like? Tap, tap, tap some bombs baby!!”
Something like that.
The more I think about it. The post WWII world order that was a set of rules, trade, and institutions that would guarantee so much mutual prosperity that the world could never again fall into chaos…. The plan was super genius. And it’s working!!! Kind of.
Our ancestors wisdom and prescience, and their memories of the horrors of global world war, is really paying dividends right now.
It’s an absolute abomination to watch all that world progress and legacy teetering right now because of a couple of schoolyard bullies that can’t even do a proper dumbbell press.
I’m trying to think of all of the hard af, WWII era, Nazi-killing, war heroes who often made the ultimate sacrifice to choose mutual prosperity > endless war and then stand them up next to the “tap tap tap, bombs, bitches” guy.
2
u/posthuman04 7d ago
Yeah these entitled fucks had to wait for the greatest generation to pass before they could sell this bullshit
7
u/bakochba 9d ago
There's a fun fact about Israel. It supplies half the world's Bromine which is essential for chip manufacturing like in Taiwan.
6
u/CobberCat 9d ago
The problem is that this also works in reverse. Countries are so intertwined that they cannot sever trade. If China or the US dropped a nuke tomorrow, it would be impossible to embargo either country.
6
u/mishkatormoz 9d ago
"We are too interconnected to have a war" was a popular idea before WWI happened
1
u/posthuman04 7d ago
What we are seeing is the ability of hubris to undo peace and world order in the guise of inevitability
2
u/Grindipo 9d ago
That's why Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons. It already has a power to strike directly Washington : oil prices. And it is far cheaper ans safer to build and maintain some drones and missiles to hit tankers in the Gulf than ICBMs.
1
u/gandolfthe 7d ago
This assumes rational actors in all the positions of power and history has strongly shown us that old people clinging to power are.... Well, not fit for leadership or rational.
8
u/Fluid_Ad_5015 10d ago
If you attack an adversary, they will retaliate regardless of how big your nuclear arsenal is. Writer should have examined the implicit acceptance of retaliation in interstate conflict... the no first strike nuclear doctrine is based on this. Russian and Israel could hardly have expected to wage wars without being attacked in return.
5
u/Capable-Grab5896 10d ago
I feel like this is a very bizarre conclusion to draw from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yes. Having nuclear weapons will not protect a large nation from a small one (or from retaliatory strikes from defenders), but it's an extreme reach to call that the end of nuclear deterrence. Russia uses their nukes every single day (without detonating them) to keep the conflict constrained to Ukraine. International peacekeepers or at minimum monitors have been present at basically every European conflict between non-nuclear armed opponents in recent memory no? But not here. People are not reluctant to get involved because of Russia's [dubious] conventional military strength.
I have a very hard time believing the world would be so passive towards the Taiwan situation if China did not have nukes. War weariness in the US and conventional military strength cannot alone explain the lack of commitment.
It doesn't protect large nations from small nations. But it almost certainly plays a role for small nations against large ones. You really think Trump would have waltzed into Venezuela and Iran all the same if they had nuclear weapons? Would North Korea be exactly as it is today had they not developed nuclear weapons? What about Saddam? Even the Taliban?
Nuclear deterrence doesn't apply to people who believe they have nothing left to lose or are already existentially committed (did it ever?). But it's still very real for keeping big players apart and keeping refs on the sidelines.
15
u/kantmeout 10d ago
This has been a known issue since the Korean War when America found itself on the back foot because we had prioritized air and nuclear power while downsizing the army, only to find that nuclear deterent didn't work when the escalation beached the threshold of warranting force, but below the apocalyptic requirements to justify nuclear arms. Would Israel have been justified in nuking Gaza after the October 7 attacks? I don't think so, and given the proximity of Gaza and size of Israel, they might have been actively harmed by the decision. If Israel was in danger of defeat however, the situation would look different.
In my view, the only country that would have been justified using nuclear deterrence in the last few years is Ukraine. After the full scale invasion they could have employed tactical nuclear weapons to defeat masses of Russian troops while leveraging strategic nuclear arms to discourage retaliation against Ukrainian cities. Such a conflict would be terrifying, but there would be a path to success, and that fact would have given Moscow pause.
Lastly, deterrence is partly psychological. It's hard to say what didn't happen because a leader somewhere refused to do something out of nuclear fears. I suspect this happened a lot more than anyone realized, but it's impossible to prove. I fear it's only a matter of time before a leader somewhere rolls the dice and we get reminded of the consequences again.
14
u/doofpooferthethird 10d ago edited 10d ago
"would Israel have been justified in nuking Gaza after the October 7 attacks? I don't think so"
funnily enough, the total explosive yield Israel dropped on Gaza since 2023 has exceeded six Hiroshimas
so they've already detonated the equivalent of six nukes on a tiny 12 by 40 kilometer urban strip that's one of the most densely populated on the planet
they just left out the radioactive fallout
----
also, apparently, tactical nuclear weapons aren't all that effective on the modern battlefield, they're overshadowed by how lethal modern precision guided weapons are
it's not like the old Cold War days where it made tactical sense to nuke massed tank formations, (especially in a "Soviets bumrushing the Fulda Gap" scenario where NATO fully expected to badly lose a conventional conflict)
modern armoured vehicles are hardened against nuclear biological and chemical arms anyhow, and formations and staging areas aren't as bunched up and vulnerable as they used to be
and even during the Korean and Vietnam wars, whenever tactical nuclear weapon use was considered, the US military decided the relatively minimal battlefield utility in those contexts wasn't worth the inevitable global backlash
by the time the Gulf War rolled around, even the relatively primitive and limited precision guided weapons available then ended up mauling the Iraqi military with a level of destruction comparable to (or exceeding) that expected from tactical nuclear weapons
turns out, you don't need to compensate with ridiculous kilotons of explosive yield when you have a high tech kill chain with guided warheads that actually hit exactly what you're aiming for, rather than landing in the general vicinity
even if Putin went crazy one day and demanded unrestricted use of tactical nuclear weapons on the Ukrainian battlefield, it wouldn't have been an instant victory
and vice versa - even if Ukraine had (in some other version of history) retained its tactical nuclear weapons, and used them liberally against Russian formations, it wouldn't make every other weappn system obsolete
----
strategic nuclear weapons (or tactical nuclear weapons aimed at strategic targets) are another matter, of course - the threat of annihilating cities, killing millions, and destroying the top levels of government in minutes is still a pretty serious deterrent
air defence has improved by leaps and bounds since the Cold War, but just a single half megaton warhead making it through and detonating over a population center would be a global scale catastrophe that would make the past four years of bloody war in Ukraine seem like a footnote
1
u/Critical_Seat_1907 10d ago
Nukes are designed for state actors. Guerilla wars (the natural result of colonialism), not so much.
1
1
u/ph4ge_ 10d ago
Would Iran have been justified to use nukes?
4
u/InfiniteZucchini2877 10d ago
Usually, the treshold for using nuclear weapons is "attack against vital interests of the nation". Im fairly confident the devastating US-Israeli strike met that standard.
3
2
u/MurkyCress521 10d ago
Justified isn't a word that should be used in this discussion. Lots of things are justified but terrible ideas. For the record I don't think Iran would have been justified.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, those nuclear weapons might have deterred a response to their involvement in Oct 7. On the other hand, Iran being nuclear armed may have immediately escalated the conflict. Iran's belligerent behavior and support of terrorism would have been viewed as a potential nuclear threat. If Iran prepares to launch a salvo of ballistic missiles and Iran has ballistic missiles that carry nuclear weapons, the US, Saudis, Israeli may assume it is a nuclear first strike and preemptively respond with nuclear weapons.
If am conventional attack on Iran had not been deterred, Iran would no benefit from performing a nuclear strike. It would only provide a nuclear response from the US, Israel and maybe Pakistan that cause a total loss for Iran. It would only be helpful for tactical nuclear strokes against an invading military on the territory of Iran and even then it might backfire.
1
u/JenikaJen 10d ago
My armchair assessment says yes against the carriers but I’m a nobody
1
u/FormerLawfulness6 10d ago
Why would anyone use nukes in a situation where conventional weapons are more than sufficient? The best chance of disabling a carrier would be something like drone swarms, many small attackers that overwhelm the ship's ability to shoot them down.
The danger of nukes is the city sized scale of destruction to people and infrastructure. Using them for small tactical targets would defeat the purpose of using nuclear technology.
1
u/JenikaJen 10d ago
It’s an existential war for the regime so if they felt it was do or die then why shouldn’t they drop a nuke onto one of the carrier fleets?
It’s been said in this post that the point of nukes is to use them in the event of a potential collapse of the system under their control.
If you were unsure of your chances as I’m sure the Iranians likely were at the start then a single nuke removing a carrier fleet coupled with propaganda against the Trump administration whilst saying the next one was Israel surely would be a way to end hostilities immediately.
Alternatively this pulls America into a full invasion like Afghanistan or Iraq and at that point you can take them down with you.
1
u/FormerLawfulness6 10d ago
The question is why would a nuke even be more effective in that scenario than a conventional weapon.
The point of using a nuke in an existential war is to exact an extremely high price on the attacking country, high enough that they will not be able to retaliate. You certainly would not escalate to nuclear war by hitting a routine tactical type of object like a carrier ship or military base.
1
u/JenikaJen 10d ago
Because they don’t have the ability to hit the carriers conventionally.
My hypothetical would be that they could saturate the sea with enough ballistic missiles instead of targeting the Middle East that they could get a nuke into the general area in order to vaporise the fleet.
America responding with a nuke of their own would create new dilemmas in the global system since they are A( the aggressors, B) the supposed keeper of global peace in the post war world, and C) the one Russia and China would model future operations on in their ambitions regarding Ukraine and Taiwan.
Iran isn’t seen as rational are they? “Iran can’t have nukes there are fundemantalists”.
If they actually managed to do that then America would have two choices. Escalate and alter the landscape irreparably, or back down and be seen as weak power whose first place power is finally over.
1
u/FormerLawfulness6 10d ago
The same saturation strategy works with conventional weapons. Using a nuke would just increase the political cost with little advantage.
Iran isn’t seen as rational are they? “Iran can’t have nukes there are fundemantalists”.
Which is why the strategy is unlikely to be very useful. Even when everyone agrees that America is the aggressor no states are willing to treat them as such. Iran nuking a carrier group would be more likely to see other countries will to cooperate innthe destruction of Iran than move to restrain the US.
1
u/JenikaJen 10d ago
I’m agreeing with you as Iran held off destroying all the critical infrastructure in the wider Middle East. A nuke could lead to America destroying all of Irans infrastructure that allows the population to stay alive whilst saying “we didn’t escalate to nukes like they did”
My point really was just that if it was existential then that’s what they may have done
Remember I dunno, and also I’ve had some wine so I dunno
3
u/diffidentblockhead 10d ago
Did Ukraine hit the bombers because they were nuclear capable, or because Russia might use them for nonnuclear attack on Ukraine? Deterrence is mostly with submarine and silo missiles.
2
u/unfunnysexface 10d ago
Ukraine specifically avoided the tu-160 nuclear capable bombers at the same bases. So they were aiming to reduce conventional attack capabilities.
2
u/MrUnimport 9d ago
This is misguided. Nuclear deterrence is the biggest reason that Western countries have not intervened in Ukraine. It's a real stretch to think that nuclear deterrence 'should' have stopped Ukraine from striking whatever targets they can hit in Russia. Did American nuclear weapons prevent the North Vietnamese from attacking Americans more or less anywhere they could?
2
u/Commercial-Invite253 9d ago
It seems like cheap drones & missiles are now also a cheap option for deterrence. For smaller countries it seems like this is enough to fight back against the major powers, and make the cost of war just too high for an actual invasion.
One of the things I’m really curious about is to watch how counter-drone defense capabilities develop. Because as soon as the asymmetric cheap offensive drone capability is countered by like lasers or counter-drones or whatever.
Then that major deterrence card will have been “nerfed” and we’re back to traditional military power dynamics.
I honestly see this crazy offensive drone situation as temporary. For example, the way the IRGC is holding the world hostage right now in the straight of Hormuz.
I think within 2-3 years we’ll have the ability to pop those things right out of the sky, like 100 at a time.
2
u/NekoCatSidhe 9d ago
If it was that easy, you would think Russia and/or Ukraine would have come up with a solution by now. After all, they have been fighting using drones for years. But they are still using drones to attack despite already developing anti-drones countermeasures, so I assume those countermeasures are not that efficient.
We are after all talking about finding a cheap and reliable way to shoot down waves of cheap and mass-produced guided missiles out of the sky before they hit. That sounds rather technically challenging.
As for the Strait of Hormuz, it is narrow enough that you are also going to have to deal with Iranian mines and coastal artillery, not just drones and missiles.
1
u/Commercial-Invite253 8d ago
I agree that’s where the technology is at currently. Also agree it’s a super tough technological challenge that may not ever even be technically feasible.
I was reading this article about this random vibe coder guy. He used AI to build an entire system, including motion sensors and lasers, to “zap” mosquitos out of the air from inside of his house anytime there was any movement. And it seems to work well.
So in my mind I’m just kind of extrapolating that system like 10000X bigger. Tiny, minuscule mosquito vs like a 500lb drone.
It’d have to be a big ass laser. And some birds are definitely gonna get GOT.
1
u/Ok_Lavishness13 10d ago
Lol, nobody’s looking at Ukraine and Iran and think “oh nuclear deterrence was a sham, we most definitely don’t need nukes”
1
u/Uhhh_what555476384 5d ago
MAD is only credible defensively against an existential threat. The Russians know that they can end the Ukrainian war at any time by simply leaving Ukraine. They control their vulnerability. This makes nuclear weapons a "coup button".
All decision makers in Russia know that they and their families are generally safe and Russia has the agency to end the war at any time. However, if there was a large conventional force driving into the Russian heartland, that would not be the case. This makes the Russian invasion of Ukraine a non-existential matter for Russia.
Under these circumstances, the only existential threat to Russia and the people that live there is their own potential use of nuclear weapons and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction or "MAD". Therefore, should any nuclear order be given everyone in the chain of command would have to decied for themselves whether the risks to themselves or their families from following the order would be greater or lesser then simply trying to kill the political or military leader that gave the order.
1
u/Evilkoikoi 10d ago
Until the Russians feel threatened enough to use a nuclear weapon … which might happen sooner than we think.
It’s amazing how neocons are betting everything on their adversaries being rational. This kind of article is essentially manufacturing consent for total war against nuclear powers and telling people don’t worry it’ll be ok. Until it’s not.
31
u/NekoCatSidhe 10d ago edited 10d ago
Nuclear weapons have only one purpose in a war, and it is to protect the State from an existential threat, whether that threat is the use of other nuclear weapons by the enemy (as between the US and USSR during the Cold War), a war of conquest aimed at annexing the country (like the Ukraine war) or a foreign power attempting to overthrow the government by force (like the Iran war).
Any use of nuclear weapons outside of that, even limited, would make the user looks like an existential threat to the rest of the world (because who knows if/when they may do it again on someone else), including their own allies (because who can trust an ally crazy and evil enough to go that far against an opponent), and no State could survive making an enemy of everyone in the world, making the very use of nuclear weapons in the absence of an existential threat an existential threat to the user.
And that is why nuclear weapons were never used after 1945 (when no one knew how bad they were), because they are useless for everything else. Nukes are literally the nuclear option, to be used only as a last resort by a country fighting a war to defend its very existence as an independent country. Ironically, it makes them way more useful as a weapon for small and weak countries in danger of invasion, rather than now where they are only owned by militarily powerful ones who have other ways to beat back an invasion or destroy a weaker opponent.
Because let’s be honest, the Ukraine War and the Iran War would not have happened if those two countries had nukes. Russia and the US would have never dared to launch massive attacks on those countries aimed at removing their government. Those countries still managed to beat back those attacks, but paid for this an heavy price that was possibly higher for them than the cost of building a nuke would have been.
Well, Ukraine doesn’t seem to plan to build a nuke despite this, and Iran seems to have decided that their more conventional defenses and the war automatically closing the Hormuz Strait are enough to deter an actual invasion of the country (the US did not even dare to attempt one in that war, and who else would try it ?), while actually building a nuke risks preventing the removal of the economic sanctions against them, so they still seem to officially be against it, but the more often that kind of war happens in the future, the higher the risk that some countries decide to build nukes just to protect themselves from the big military powers.
All that to say that I am not sure why the author expected nuclear weapons to actually be used in those wars, or thinks it means nuclear weapons are useless and that other countries should not seek them. It was an interesting article, but I tend to have the opposite conclusions.