Description
A stigma has emerged towards WMD (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons), and the term is synonymous with the stigma. Historically, nuclear weapons have overshadowed chemical and biological weapons threats, however the stigma has been shaped by international recognition of the collective abhorrent nature of all three of these weapons. The deterrent strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) underpinned this belief. WMD were not used due to fear of their effects.
Today, we face threats from a wide range of technologically advanced strategic non-nuclear weapons as well as WMD. We are now in a third generation of nuclear weapons threats. Nuclear weapons are smaller and can be utilised as both strategic and battlefield weapons. This could potentially alter our understanding of the WMD stigma. Does MAD still apply?
US and European policy experts have sought to deter modern threats through an integrated approach, working with partners and using all tools of power across domains, spectrums of conflict and geography to address modern threats. The Trump administration is indicating a different approach, ‘peace through strength’. Central to this will be recognition of the power and strength of US military capability and a return to MAD.
This paper examines attitudes of policy experts towards WMD today. I argue that nuclear weapons still reinforce the WMD stigma. The development of non- nuclear strategic weapons, as well as technological advances in warfare highlight the evolving conceptualisation of this term. Efforts to deter these weapons have been driven by a historical recognition of the threats from these weapons. The Stigma is still of importance and efforts to deter future threats need to promote stigma enhancing norms.
