Atoms and atomisation
Nuclear weapons in a fracturing world.
Welcome to this week’s Not in Dispatches, where this week we take a look at nuclear weapons.
It’s timely to do so. Oppenheimer, which follows the history of American theoretical physicist J Robert Oppenheimer, has just cleaned up at the Oscars, winning seven awards out of 13 nominations, including best picture. The film, which grossed around $950 million, now sits among the Oscars darlings, alongside other films that also won seven Oscars such as Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Dances with Wolves (1990).
Clearly, the story resonated. The film reminds us again of the powerful weapons humanity has created in just the past 80 years, irrevocably transforming geopolitics.
Unfortunately, the spectre of nuclear weapons has returned. Just this week, Russian President Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons if Russia’s sovereignty or independence was at stake. This is not the first time during the Ukraine war that he has said this.
There is a political element to this – Russia is going to the polls this weekend, with Putin almost certain to become Russian president for a further six years. Strongman talk is just what the Russian population expect from Putin. Nonetheless, even the threat of the use of nuclear weapons crosses an unspoken line in foreign relations when it comes to the nuclear doctrine of ‘strategic restraint’.
History
In the 1930s, scientists discovered that the nucleus of an atom could be split, releasing a large amount of energy. This process, known as nuclear fission, formed the basis for nuclear weapons.
It is well known that, in 1939, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, forewarning him that the Germans were working on an atomic bomb, a weapon unlike anything seen previously. They wrote:
In the course of the last four months it has been made probable…that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
It is less well known that, in 1940, Einstein was denied the requisite security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project, or even to be consulted on the work. His left-leaning views were considered a potential security risk by the United States.
In August 1945, the US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to the deaths of over 200,000 people. These remain the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in warfare.
Geopolitical Strategy is the advisory firm behind Geopolitical Dispatch. Our partners are former diplomats with vast experience in international affairs, risk management, and public affairs. We help businesses and investors to understand geopolitical developments and their impacts with clarity and concision.
Cold War period
After WWII, there was an arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. Both superpowers built up vast arsenals of nuclear weapons, leading to a tense standoff known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
A 2009 study pointed to evidence that nuclear weapons maintain strategic equilibrium between states, arguing that they prevent large-scale wars. They point to the lack of conflict between great powers since WWII.
On the other hand, the more weapons in the world, the more likely human error could cause a catastrophic blunder. History is replete with near misses.
Most people know the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but there were several, arguably dicier, instances.
In 1983, the Soviet nuclear early warning system Oko malfunctioned and reported that the US had fired intercontinental missiles aimed at Russia. Fortunately, a cool-headed Stanislav Petrov, a Russian engineer, decided to wait to see if it was real before alerting his higher-ups. This likely prevented a retaliatory strike on the US, potentially triggering a nuclear war.
There have been at least 20 other near misses since the 1950s, including:
In 1961, a B-52 flying over North Carolina, USA, broke up mid-flight, dropping its nuclear payload. It was only a single switch that prevented the bomb from detonating.
Also in 1961, another plane carrying two nuclear weapons suffered a catastrophic decompression. The weapons did not detonate due to safety features.
In 1995, Russian President Boris Yeltsin activated the Russian nuclear briefcase in response to the detection of a rocket. It turned out to be a Norwegian research rocket to study the Northern Lights, but the warning had failed to reach Russian radar operators.
Who knows what breaches have occurred in recent years? We will have to wait for the declassification of information before such details come to light.
Proliferation and control
Before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there were no international rules governing the use of nuclear weapons. In 1970, the treaty was signed. It included special status for those that had manufactured and tested nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967 (the US, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom).
But while the US and Russia received the most attention concerning their nuclear arsenals, for many other countries the lure of nuclear weapons was too strong. Through the 1970s, at least a dozen countries worked to acquire nuclear weapons, but many failed.
Today, India, Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear arsenals. Israel, while having never confirmed it publicly, also has a nuclear program.
Failed recent attempts at programs include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, before the 1991 Gulf War, as well as Iran’s attempts which violated treaty obligations. Libya and Syria are also suspected of having attempted secret nuclear programs at various points.
Only one country, South Africa, has at one point had a nuclear program that was entirely dismantled (in the 1980s).
This has led to a current estimate of around 12,512 nuclear warheads in the world:
Russia: 5889
US: 5244
China: 410
France: 290
UK: 225
Pakistan: 170
India: 164
Israel: 90
North Korea: 30
So, while the number of countries attempting to obtain nuclear arsenals has reduced, the number of warheads has continued to spike.
Emailed each weekday at 5am Eastern (9am GMT), Geopolitical Dispatch goes beyond the news to outline the implications. With the brevity of a media digest, but the depth of an intelligence assessment, Geopolitical Dispatch gives you the strategic framing and situational awareness to stay ahead in a changing world.
Where are we headed?
The nuclear landscape is increasingly complex. The Cold War period, dominated by two competing nuclear powers, the US and Russia, is behind us. Today, multiple actors are modernising and upgrading their nuclear capabilities. In the subcontinent, India and Pakistan are steadily increasing their capabilities.
North Korea remains on track to develop the missiles to deliver its nuclear weapons across long distances. Surrounded by two nuclear states (China/North Korea), Japan and South Korea are anxiously reviewing their defence capabilities and the reliability of the US nuclear umbrella. In January, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said, in off-the-cuff remarks, Seoul may even need to develop its own weapons, or at least request US weapons be deployed to the Peninsula to counter North Korea.
Meanwhile, Israel is in a tense regional battle and would see no reason to reduce its capability while it considers itself under an existential threat. Iran’s program continues to rattle the region, including Saudi Arabia which has confirmed it would seek a nuclear arsenal if Iran ever developed one.
On the tactical front, wargaming is becoming more dynamic as artificial intelligence and satellite data become quicker and more reliable in detecting potential adversary launches. The uncertainties about how real-time updates might affect nuclear weapons are still being worked out. And defence systems are becoming more complex, including cyber and anti-satellite technology, which is playing out in how strategic balance is maintained.
There are also uncertainties around how to develop arms control rules for the 21st century. With the US and Russia walking back commitments around nuclear weapons and arms controls, and China yet to fully engage in negotiations, there is a growing gap between the rules and the capabilities. Developing modern rules will be a key challenge for the international order. And as that order fragments the challenge is only getting bigger.