Yes, we can act against nuclear

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear conflict haunts the planet.

A despot whose intentions are still poorly understood attacks the neighboring country, bombs children’s hospitals, shoots fleeing civilians.

Detail that changes everything: he has the nuclear button… and threatens to use it.

Whether it’s a bluff or not, this must wake us up.

The invasion of Ukraine is a reminder that nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity. And if it seems naive to believe that we can settle this huge issue in the short term, it is just as naive to think that its current management is ideal.

And fatalistic to affirm that nothing can be done about it.

The Cold War left us with a doctrine called “mutually assured destruction”, or “balance of terror”. It is based on a bet: the nations capable of blowing up the planet several times will never dare to go to war, because they would destroy themselves by triggering it.

The thesis is controversial among war theorists and we do not claim here to settle the question.

We can nevertheless note a few elements.

First, this balance only protects those who possess nuclear weapons. Ukraine, which handed over its arsenal to Russia in the 1990s, is currently finding this out the hard way.

Annelise Riles, director of the Northwestern Buffet Institute for Global Affairs, in Illinois, believes that this creates a strong incentive to “join the club of the greats”.

The policy of non-proliferation, which aims to prevent new States from acquiring nuclear weapons, shows in any case mixed results.

Michel Fortmann, a political science specialist at the University of Montreal, observes that the balance of terror previously rested on one pole: Soviet Union–United States. Today, China is complicating this balance. And other poles (India-Pakistan, Israel-Iran) have been added. This is without counting North Korea in the role of the unpredictable joker.

The building is more complex to maintain.

The principle of mutual destruction also implies that leaders think rationally. What happens when a despot doesn’t care about the consequences of his actions?

Seeing Vladimir Putin go, some pray that the time for an answer to this question has not come.

If it is easy to describe the problem, it is otherwise difficult to fix it. How could countries like the United States, France and the United Kingdom give up their nuclear arsenals knowing that tyrants like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un will never agree to get rid of theirs?

Here, the experts tell us a very wise thing: the path to denuclearization must start with small steps.

Matt Korda, nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists, points out, for example, that about a third of American and Russian nuclear warheads are deployed and ready to launch within minutes.

The United States, he says, could reduce this proportion without losing any of the famous deterrent effect. The idea: to reduce the risk of accidents and false alarms, but also to calm things down a notch.

This would send a signal of de-escalation in a world where, after a major reduction in stockpiles, the nuclear powers are again inflating their arsenals.

For the same reason, democracies that possess nuclear weapons could adopt clear policies affirming that they can only be used in defense, and never for a first strike.

Another side is economic. The New York City Employees Pension Fund, for example, is divesting from the nuclear weapons industry.

Of course, manufacturers will still find funds to manufacture their bombs. “But we are reducing the incentives to do so,” says Annelise Riles.

The Caisse de depot et placement du Québec says for its part that its ESG (environmental, social and governance) criteria would never allow it to invest in a company entirely devoted to nuclear weapons. However, many multinationals, such as Boeing, are developing technologies for several purposes, including nuclear, and the Caisse says there are “marginal” investments.

Last year, a treaty ratified by 122 countries entered into force to defend not non-proliferation, but the outright prohibition of nuclear weapons. No nuclear power or NATO member has ratified it, which obviously reduces its scope.

But all over the world, cities (including Montreal) have come out in favor of this ban. Under pressure from citizens, German politicians are now campaigning to join the new treaty.

“We should not underestimate the power of grassroots movements,” says Annelise Riles.

Threats such as the climate emergency and the pandemic mobilize citizens, fuel public debates, influence our policies. Putin is showing us that it is high time to start talking about the nuclear issue again, including at home.

Yes, the complete denuclearization of the world is a difficult goal. That does not mean that we should renounce any effort likely to bring us closer to it.