Sam Douds Blog Post 2 - Why Do We Talk About Nuclear War like it is an Acceptable Possibility?

Why Do We Talk About Nuclear War like it is an Acceptable Possibility?

             With every moment we spend discussing nuclear war, we legitimize its practice. In reality, nuclear war would be utterly catastrophic and ultimately irredeemable for most all nations. Therefore, states - such as Russia - should not even consider using nuclear weapons when deciding which course of action to pursue in matters of war or international exchange. Furthermore, pundits and citizens of the world should not discuss nuclear war as if it is anything but the potential end of humanity as we know it.

 This past week Russian leader Vladimir Putin put his nuclear deterrent forces on “high alert” (NBC). This choice to call attention to, and thereby threaten the world with nuclear weapons in response to a sloppy beginning to the Russian invasion of Ukraine sets a frightening precedent. Afterall, in the grand scheme of international relations, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is relatively low stakes. The nuclear aggressor’s sovereignty is not being threatened and it does not particularly need Ukrainian territory. At best, the Russian invasion is pseudo-imperialistic and at worst a tragic act of egoism. Yet Russia decided to make nuclear weapons part of the conversation. The long-peace since the creation of the nuclear bomb would suggest that Russia is keenly aware of the stark reality of mutually assured destruction. Yet its recent hawkish impulses should make everyone nervous about how far they are willing to go to preserve their reputation and sphere of influence.

Beyond Russia, some have suggested that nuclear proliferation will lead to greater international stability (see Waltz). However, data suggests that “new nuclear states are often more reckless and aggressive” (Kahl 157). In the same way that we cannot solve the problem of gun violence by giving each individual a gun, we cannot solve the issue of nuclear war by providing nukes to each state. Nuclear proliferation also subliminally assumes that providing more opportunities for nukes to be used creates a safer world. But the opposite is true. In the 1940’s we lit the candle of nuclear knowledge and it is now time that we curse that light that it created. There is no plausible situation in which Earth becomes de-nuclearized now that these weapons exist. Rationally, we can only emphasize the total devastation that their use would cause.

IR Scholars frequently point to Immanuel Kant as the basis for this concept of rationalism. Rationalism plays a critical role in understanding the actions of foreign states. But it is also Kant who, in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, implores his readers to “[a]ct in such a way that you treat humanity… always as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant 36). Kant suggests that acting in such a fashion is part of the same “rational nature” that causes people (and states) to think about preserving themselves (Kant 36). In dropping a nuclear bomb today, human beings would be entirely means and not at all ends*. This means that using a nuclear weapon today is irrational. In the globalized world in which we exist, there is always another, more diplomatic, or at the very least less dramatic response. If one state drops a nuke, every other power will feel obligated to do the same, the taboo will be broken, and nuclear devastation will ensue (Tannenwald).

This is what makes the commonplace discussion about using nuclear weapons appear so ludicrous. We are bees who seem to discuss daily about chopping down the branch that supports our hive. There is no conceivable return from nuclear war. Nuclear war is not a bargaining chip it is apocalypse. The nuclear powers of the world must commit to restraint and diplomacy. Moreover, the citizens of the world must refuse to talk about nuclear war without acknowledging its holistically devastating consequences.

 

*At first glance, one might suggest that all war treats humanity as a means and not as an end. But this is not the case. By Kant’s logic, human beings can have means-ends relationships, which is how one might describe the relationship between the President and an enlisted man. When the United States goes to war, it does so (at least hopefully) to advance the humanity of some group. So long as it cares for its soldiers during the campaigns of war, humanity remains an end.