The outrage generated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is matched by frustration over the limited nature of the outside world’s response to this serious breach of international norms.
Many countries have modulated their response to the Russian invasion to protect their own economic interests, but above all they are mindful of Russia’s possession of a gigantic nuclear arsenal, second only to that of the United States.
In case anyone missed the point, Putin reminded the world when he put his nuclear forces on alert in a move that recalls superpower confrontations of the Cold War, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which is analyzed in my book
The Bomb and America's Missile Age.
The Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, especially the coup that temporarily displaced Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, was a nervous time as the world wondered how those changes would affect the control and use of Soviet nuclear forces. Happily, the weapons went unused and Russia agreed to reduce its nuclear forces. The newly independent Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on its territory.
In the euphoria that accompanied the end of the Cold War, the continuing danger posed by nuclear weapons faded from prominence, although the efforts of countries like North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear arsenals generated occasional headlines. U.S. President George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of nuclear weapons control, and gave Putin an excuse to reinvigorate his nuclear forces.
Three decades after the end of the Soviet Union, the nuclear worries that surrounded that event have suddenly returned to life as Putin tries to reconstitute the Soviet Union by propping up friendly dictators in Belarus and Kazakhstan, and now by invading Ukraine.
The creation of the first nuclear weapons in World War II and their spread since that time means the world faces grave danger whenever change or conflict involves the world’s nine nuclear powers. As we know, that includes Russia, but even the United States is a matter of concern because of its deepening political divisions. Nuclear weapons are present in the Middle East and are also held by India and Pakistan, both adversaries with shaky democracies. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons as a personal life insurance policy for its mercurial leader, Kim Jong-un. Iran’s troubled regime is developing them as well.
Following the Ukraine crisis with great interest is the world’s third largest nuclear power, China, whose president Xi Jinping harbours imperialist ambitions of his own, notably in Taiwan.
Efforts to limit proliferation of nuclear weapons have had limited success. South Africa gave up nuclear weapons after the fall of the apartheid regime that created them. Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons left on its soil, but the Russian attacks on Ukraine will unfortunately serve as a warning to any country that contemplates giving up their nuclear bombs and delivery systems.
Regardless of how Putin’s gamble in Ukraine plays out, it is a major step backward for a world that desperately needs to unite to deal with the challenges of climate change. The nuclear bombs and the missiles, aircraft and submarines that carry them are often held to fight regional disputes or prop up contested governments. Questions exist about Putin’s mental state, not the first time such concerns have been raised during nuclear confrontations.
In the 77 years since the first atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, efforts to limit or reverse the spread of these weapons have always fallen short, particularly in the last three decades where the nuclear danger was forgotten or believed to have receded.
Now Putin has put the threat of annihilation from nuclear weapons back on centre stage. The first step to renewing the fight against this existential danger is greater awareness of the dangers these weapons pose, even when they are not being actively used.
