Written by Avani Singireddy and edited by Humyra Karim
The world watched in abhorrence as a reverberating rupture followed by blinding light engulfed the city of Hiroshima, leaving no time for refuge. A barren patchwork of land, populated with the imprints of children’s shadows, now replaces the previous greenery. With a single click of a button, tens of thousands of lives were forever lost without warning. Now, nearly 75 years later, the impending threat of nuclear war still looms as numerous hotbeds of nuclear tensions have arisen across the world. The advent of nuclear capabilities has forever altered the domain of war, further exacerbating the potentially disastrous consequences such disputes hold.
The post-Cold War world is one riddled with unpredictability and asymmetric threats. The stakes of war have only heightened and in recognition, many countries have assumed a policy of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is a policy born out of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, in which countries at war are so afraid of possibly being subjected to a nuclear attack that each country refuses to engage in one. Currently, nine nuclear-armed countries—the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea— together possess an estimated number of 13,400 nuclear weapons, making deterrence even more increasingly complex. Evidently, five of the nine countries are geographically located in Asia. Due to an explosive mix of territorial disputes, cross-border terrorism, and growing nuclear arsenals, Asia has been projected to be the area most at risk of a strategic nuclear breakdown.
While many nuclear powers, such as the United States and Russia have been downsizing their nuclear stockpiles, Asia has witnessed an overwhelming buildup. Unlike other nuclear countries, China is increasing and diversifying its nuclear arsenal. Over the next decade, China is expected to double its nuclear stockpile all the while other dominant Asian forces such as Pakistan now contain the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world. These rampant increases in nuclear capabilities mark a growing shift and abandonment of nuclear deterrence as the accepted posture. More nuclear weapons automatically translate into a higher level of nuclear combat readiness, potentially bringing the world even closer to the brink of war and devastation.
Nuclear weapons were initially expected to have a stabilising effect in Asia, instead, they seem to have had the opposite. There are several nuclear hotspots in Asia, however, the Pakistan and India dispute in Kashmir remains the most intense. India and Pakistan have been involved in a nuclear and missile arms race since Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. Since then, three major crises regarding the India-Pakistan controversy have occurred (1991, 2001, and 2008), as a result of Pakistan feeling emboldened by its newfound nuclear capabilities. The 2001 crisis was the worst as it was explicitly a nuclear crisis, one in which both sides made nuclear threats and stopped all channels of direct communication. When tensions run high, the risk of nuclear miscalculation runs even higher. It is conceivable that this territorial problem will worsen with time, further exacerbating tensions. Although it is equally possible that the threat of a disastrous nuclear war would compel both nations to seek a more stable relationship. So long as both countries continue to be internally stable, India and Pakistan’s relationship is unlikely to become reminiscent of the nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The nuclearization of Asia has long been anticipated. Without necessary de-escalation, Asia will continue to be enveloped in a fog of nuclear war as the future use of nuclear weapons by key nations, such as India and Pakistan, are almost impossible to predict. All countries have the incentive to pursue a nuclear deterrence policy, as without one the survival of the human race remains in question. However, wherever there are nuclear weapons, there remains a risk. The slightest escalatory act, whether that be a technical error or a deliberate attack, can end in total annihilation. Ultimately, it is the character and posture of nuclear state actors that have maintained the fundamental, yet eroding, pillar of nuclear deterrence. The question is: for how much longer can we depend on individual nations’ morality?
Sources:
Cover Photo by Jordy Meow on Unsplash
Arbatov, A. (n.d.). Nuclear Deterrence: A Guarantee or Threat to Strategic Stability? Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://carnegie.ru/2019/03/22/nuclear-deterrence-guarantee-or-threat-to-strategic-stability-pub-78663
Burns, R. (2020, September 01). Pentagon says China planning big increase in nuclear arsenal. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pentagon-says-china-planning-big-increase-in-nuclear-arsenal
Desk, E. (2020, September 24). Why Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Are A Bigger Threat To India Than Enormous Chinese Nuclear Stockpile? Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://eurasiantimes.com/why-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-are-a-bigger-threat-to-india-than-enormous-chinese-nuclear-stockpile/
Jaffery, S., Jaffery, S., Akhter, Z., Akhter, -., Notezai, M., Notezai, -., . . . Bhattarai, -. (2019, May 24). Understanding Kargil's Nuclear Factor: Lessons for Future Crises. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://southasianvoices.org/understanding-kargil-nuclear-factor-lessons-for-future-crises/
Juliadhomstad. (2015, October 29). Gregory koblentz. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://pandorareport.org/tag/gregory-koblentz/
Nuclear weapons: Which countries have them and how many are there? (2020, January 14). Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-51091897
Comments