Utility of Nuclear Deterrence Theory

 Utility of Nuclear Deterrence Theory

The nuclear deterrence theory was put forward by Bernard Brodie. During the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear weapons were merely treated as a better version of conventional weapons but eventually, these came to be thought of as ‘the absolute weapon’ which led the idea of deterrence to emerge. Brodie stated that in order to create a link between deterrence and emerging non-military threats, there is a need to come up with a mechanism that would encompass present and future military and non-military threats. The focus of nuclear deterrence theory was that the imminent destruction that is guaranteed with the use of nuclear weapons coupled with the risk of retaliation would deter states from using them. 

One of the major examples of this theory is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Both the sides, U.S and USSR had huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and a nuclear war between both nations seemed inevitable. The world was divided into two blocs. The only thing stopping these nations was the belief that the use of nuclear weapons use would lead to ‘mutually assured destruction’. This is what induced the U.S. to intercept warships of the USSR and Moscow to passively pull back from the war rather than directly engaging. This deterrence allowed both the parties to engage in diplomatic relations and come to a negotiation in which which the Soviet Union agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba and the U.S. promised to not capture Cuba. 

Raymond Aron in ‘The Great debate: Theory of Nuclear strategy’ was of the opinion that the destructive prowess of nuclear weapons induced caution among both nations and provided an incentive to engage in mutually beneficial negotiations.

Kenneth Waltz holds the view that nuclear weapons have ensured that the world does not witness World War 3. According to him, the gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons is more advantageous than having only conventional forces or having no nuclear weapons at all. Therefore, this gradual proliferation is not a threat but rather conducive to international peace as nuclear weapons induce a sense of responsibility on those possessing it. It also reduces the probability of direct attack due to fear of retaliation. 

Thomas C. Shelling argued that in order to harm an enemy, victory is no longer a necessary precondition. 

John Mearsheimer also advocates the deterrence theory. He commented, “with the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons, there is good reason to be very confident about NATO’s deterrent posture”. According to him, in order to ensure that the deterrence remains effective, there is a need to make sure that the military risks remain high as well. He basically advocated for the proliferation of weapons. 

To take a recent example, the Ladakh stand-off that took place between India and China in 2020 clearly shows that both nations are careful that even as a threat, to not use nuclear weapons. Both these nations have taken NFU positions, declared that the use of nuclear weapons is just to act as a safeguard against nuclear threats.