No Clear way ahead

Just a bit of a rambling piece today after a bit of related research on the theme.

In order to analyse the potential threat of Nuclear War it is necessary to put the level of risk in

context.

There are only five Nuclear Weapon States as defined by the Treaty of the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

These are Russia, The United States, United Kingdom, France and China.

Other nation states with a nuclear capability are India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Beyond this there is speculation that Israel and potentially Iran also possess weapons of mass

destruction.

Under the North Atlantic Treaty organisation (NATO) there are weapons sharing states which include

Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. 

From a high of over 70,000 active weapons in 1986 this declined to around 15,000 in total in 2018.

This massive reduction in weapons has been seen as a major step towards avoiding a nuclear war in

that an attack using them is more likely to be caused by poor decisions, crisis escalation, mechanical

or human errors or malicious acts.

To highlight the potential for an accidental launch of nuclear weapons there was a near incident in

1983 when Soviet Early Warning Radar was alerted to what resembled a five missile attack from the

West and the computer programme prepared to retaliate with nuclear weapons. One Soviet Officer

was suspicious of such a limited attack level when the United States had capability of multiple

warheads. He doubted whether a small scale rather than a devastating full attack would be a tactical

decision.He cancelled the proposed counter launch and in the enquiry after the event the alert was

attributed to a reflection of moonlight on cloud cover which had fooled the automated system.

The Cold War Era is likely to have had many other such incidents but these have not yet been

made available under secrecy laws.

The main Nuclear States, in order to avert Nuclear war have tried to deny other nations the ability to

 acquire the capability. This has been through Treaties and other Agreements.

The recent hostility between the USA and the rogue State of North Korea over Nuclear Weapons

Development and Testing did threaten to escalate in a war of words including respective leaders

insulting and degrading each other. Although there is still potential for conflict the high level

Summit Meeting in 2018 between President Trump and Kim Jong Un seems to have helped in a

mutual understanding of political and global issues affecting both of their interests and domestic

situations.

The main Nuclear States are all stable and balanced regimes which also helps significantly in the

prevention of an international crisis which could escalate to Nuclear War.

The fringe nuclear states do have a degree of instability and militant leadership which increases the

risk of conflict.

The neighbouring states of India and Pakistan have a long history of conflict and have fought over

minor border disputes and alleged incursions on territory. Their possession of nuclear weapons and

high risk of their use in any escalation of hostilities continues to concern the wider international

community.

Israel’s nuclear armoury is also worrying particularly as that nation perceives a constant level of

threat from its enemies, in particular Iran who have also been developing a nuclear capability and

have been punished for it by major sanctions and restrictions.

Dialogue and international pressure on the rogue nuclear states is essential to avert escalation of

any situation where conventional weapons could be replaced by nuclear weapons.

 The Nuclear Taboo still exists as the main influencing factor on their potential use. The taboo is that

use of nuclear weapons is morally illegitimate and not compatible with human values. This is

supported by 189 out of the 195 world countries who have committed to the non proliferation of

nuclear weapons.

The reliance on Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent has certainly declined since the Cold War Era mainly

because of improved communication, intelligence gathering and the continued understanding

between the main Nuclear States that a conflict using such weapons of mass destruction can have

no winners. Calls for full disarmament, for example by former US President Obama, have been

welcomed as the definitive way to avoid a nuclear war and many believe that their relevance to

global security is no longer as important.

However, a developing risk in global security is the potential for terrorists to acquire nuclear material

in either a warhead or in the form of a dirty bomb which could contaminate wide target areas and

beyond. 

There is an abundance of weapon grade materials either still being produced or from the

dismantling and decommissioning of old weapons in, for example, the former Eastern Bloc countries

which now have independence and no desire to have such weapons.  Strict monitoring and control

of materials capable of terrorist use is an essential requirement to avert their use. This is already

being carried out through the co-operation of member countries.

Even with the best technology and accountability systems there is always an outside risk of a nuclear

war because of mechanical or technical errors, misjudgement, misperception, poor communication

and intelligence failure but to date the world has avoided a nuclear war.