Nuclear Deterrence 101

Understanding nuclear deterrence and confronting common myths and misconceptions.

Basics

Definition

Nuclear deterrence is the concept that possessing nuclear weapons prevents potential adversaries from engaging in threatening activities.  As posed, the constant, credible threat of use deters other nations from an attack.  It has its foundations in criminal theory in which threat of punishment deters violations of the law.

History

Deterrence was not always the United States’ official military strategy. During the Cold War arms race, the United States adopted deterrence as the official policy to prevent the Soviets from using their nuclear weapons.

Upholding deterrence and maintaining a “credible deterrent” plays a key role in decisions about nuclear arsenals now.

Problem

The States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons have asserted that deterrence destabilizes the nuclear nonproliferation regime and endangers every nation, including the nuclear armed ones. Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction are counter to human security.

NAPF Values: Deterrence works until the day it doesn’t.

Three core problems with this military strategy:

  1. Deterrence Depends on Rational Actors
  • Relies on the assumption that all parties involved are rational actors who will carefully weigh the consequences of their actions. 
  • Unlike states, non-state actors such as terrorist groups or rogue organizations may not adhere to the same rational calculus. They may act unpredictably and be driven by ideology, extremism, or other motives.
  • There is no certainty that state leaders will always act rationally or place the welfare of their citizens above their own interests. Leaders may be influenced by personal agendas, political pressures, or psychological factors, leading to decisions that are not in the best interest of their country or global stability.
2. Extended Deterrence Hinders Progress
  • Extended deterrence is not guaranteed: The concept of extended deterrence relies on the commitment of a nuclear-armed state to defend its allies under the “nuclear umbrella.” However, this assurance is not always foolproof. 
  • Extended deterrence creates pressure for nuclear umbrella states to align with the US agenda: Countries under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella often face implicit pressure to align their policies and actions with US interests. This alignment can lead to geopolitical tensions and limit the independent decision-making of these states. 
    • NATO states not signing the TPNW: A clear illustration of the pressures of extended deterrence is seen in the reluctance of NATO states to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). 
  • It is dangerous to rely on deterrence alone to prevent conflict among allied nations and opponents: Relying solely on deterrence to prevent conflicts is inherently risky.
3. Deterrence Encourages Nuclear Proliferation in other States
  • As long as deterrence is promoted as a policy among nuclear armed states, states may pursue nuclear weapons to alter the balance of power: States may seek nuclear capabilities to shift regional or global power dynamics in their favor. 
  • Proliferation may lead to arms races and struggles for dominance: The spread of nuclear weapons may trigger competitive arms buildups among rival states. This race for dominance not only escalates tensions but also increases the risk of nuclear confrontation.
  • Building nuclear weapons programs doesn’t resolve regional or smaller scale conflicts: Nuclear weapons are ineffective in addressing local or regional disputes. Smaller scale conflicts, such as territorial disputes, ethnic clashes, and insurgencies, require diplomatic solutions.

Extra Resources

Article: Deterrence is the existential threat, not the Ban Treaty

David Krieger- TEN SERIOUS FLAWS IN NUCLEAR DETERRENCE THEORY

NAPF Video on Nuclear Deterrence