Description
Are nuclear weapons still relevant to global security? Compared with the nuclear confrontation in the depths of the Cold War, nuclear weapons and deterrence appeared to have lost their salience. The focus in strategic studies changed to counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and sub-conventional conflict. But with the conflict in Ukraine and the increasingly confrontational relationship between the United States and China, this narrative has come into question as Europe is witnessing an armed conflict on a scale unprecedented since 1945. In the context of increasing geopolitical rivalry between the main nuclear powers, the risk of armed conflict and the potential escalation to the use of nuclear weapons is increasingly interpreted as a fundamental challenge to the stability of the international system based on nuclear deterrence.
There are three factors that, according to the recent literature, raise the risk of nuclear use:
The first is a decline in deterrence stability due to technical advances, the modernisation of nuclear forces and the emergence of a third nuclear superpower (China). The second is what is described as increasing “entanglement” between nuclear and conventional strategic capabilities. The third is the increasing preparedness to use military force in the context of intensifying great power competition. This study argues that the opposite is the case and that these developments are misinterpreted. It demonstrates that nuclear deterrence between the Great Powers remains robust and argues that in the third nuclear age direct armed conflict between the main nuclear powers remains unlikely. It posits that the “stability/instability” paradox defines the strategic environment and that even though the risk of armed conflict between states has increased, the main military powers rely on conventional forces to deter or engage in such conflicts.
