Nuclear Weapons: Not Inevitable Elements of Existence

Beatrice Fihn, who leads the Lex International Fund and formerly drove the Nobel Peace Prize-honored International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, expresses concern about the mounting nuclear war threat. Russia frequently issues nuclear warnings, the U.S. is revamping its nuclear arsenal on a big scale, and China's nuclear capability is growing. Meanwhile, tension among nations possessing nuclear arms intensifies.

However, nuclear armaments do not have to be an unchangeable reality. Abolition is not beyond reach, and individuals like us can advocate for it.

The challenge of eliminating weapons of mass destruction is not without precedent. The U.S. and former Soviet Union, now Russia, previously amassed over 70,000 tons of chemical arms. By July 7, 2023, the last stockpile had been dismantled in accordance with the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, a goal Russia claimed to have reached earlier.

Nations flouting such agreements, as Syria did with chemical attacks in 2018, gain little. Such actions invoke swift global disapproval without significantly boosting their global stance. Weapons like these are widely seen as perilous rather than empowering.

The same destiny may befall nuclear weapons. Contrary to widespread opinion, nukes are inefficient for combat—they're expensive, unwieldy, and carry massive destructive potential. Their deployment would lead to widespread civilian casualties and long-lasting radioactive fallout. Thus, choosing nuclear options over conventional ones is usually illogical, given the extensive damage to both the attacking nation and its allies. Even countries with nuclear capabilities often agree these arms should remain unused.

Unlike regular weapons, nuclear arms are primarily valued for their ability to foster fear, providing deterrence rather than practical use. This deterrence depends entirely on adversaries' perception—it's a precarious security strategy.