Introduction
Freedman’s commentary of nuclear deterrence being, C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la stratégie or ‘It is magnificent, but it is not strategy’ in English, may have been coined from the famous remark of French Marshal Pierre Bosquet while watching the British light cavalry wipe itself out in The Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in the Crimean War of 1854 in which he exclaimed, “C'est Magnifique, Mais Ce N'est Pas La Guerre” or ‘It is magnificent, but it is not war’. In a similar note, Freedman is implying that the possession of nuclear weapons is inadequate as a military strategy. Even so, nuclear deterrence may not be a military strategy per se but it apparently serves a military agenda. Interestingly, being a nuclear power is not defined by economic and technological progress for even developing countries are now nuclear powers. The question is, will the world avoid a major war due to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence? How effective is nuclear deterrence in preventing another world war? Subsequently, these questions would lead us to ask whether the discovery of nuclear bombs has prevented nations to seek military actions and has led them to resort to diplomatic resolutions instead.
The Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrence
The doctrine of nuclear deterrence is based on the concept that nuclear powers are compelled to avoid armed conflicts with each other otherwise face an equally potent threat of nuclear retribution that can lead to serious damage and possibly the annihilation of human civilization. Since the power of the nuclear bomb was revealed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, several nations aside from the Soviet Union and the United States have strived to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Studies that aim to determine the major reasons as well as the circumstances that brought nations to an all-out war are quite indecisive. For a fact, most scholars believe that the reasons behind most wars are irrational making behavioral analysis in this context quite impossible . Apparently, nations would go to war for reasons such as territorial, economic, political and even cultural such as in the case of ethnic cleansing and religious wars. For the same reason, it is only logical to consider the unpredictable nature of wars and conflicts as part of a nation’s military strategic analysis. Another unpredictable aspect in the course of war and conflict between nations is the use of weapons that leads to the total destruction of their opposing side. In every major war in history, it is quite significant how nations strive to annihilate their enemies using the latest weapon technology in their arsenal. Prior to the invention of nuclear bombs, technological developments have been actively used in the military while targets during conflicts have not spared civilians in order to inflict a crippling damage to the adversary. However, nothing in the military weaponry prior to the invention of the nuclear bomb can compare to the latter in the extent of damage it brings. Even the biggest of the conventional explosives could not compare to the power and the energy that being released during a nuclear explosion. According to physicists, a relatively small nuclear weapon releases about a million times more energy than a chemical reaction brought by conventional bombs, which makes nuclear weapons “much more powerful than conventional ones under almost any conceivable set of circumstances”. For the same reason, the invention of the nuclear bomb has permanently changed how people and nations view war. As evidenced by the destruction it caused when it was first used by the U.S. against Japan during the Second World War, total destruction is almost assured under such circumstances. Because of the nuclear bomb’s apocalyptic attributes, military objectives have focused on balancing the odds of retaliation by embarking on a nuclear arms race. Such was the scenario between the United States and the Soviet Union after the Second World War wherein both nations took measures to make sure that no nuclear conflicts would occur between them as it would certainly create a nuclear apocalypse. Even with the addition of small nuclear powers, the idea of having small nuclear wars were unimaginable considering the amount of damage it would create.
Impacts of National Policies and Military Strategy
The doctrine of nuclear deterrence has largely influenced the national policies of nations that possess nuclear capabilities. In the United States, for example, the possession of nuclear weapons has influenced how policy makers think about war and how it would be fought if ever a nuclear face-off occurs. Among the major implication of possessing nuclear capabilities is the decreased reliance on traditional military strategies. Before, number is considered as the major factor for winning an armed conflict since bigger standing armies equals stronger military power. On the contrary, this ‘power in number’ strategy does not seem to apply under the present circumstances since number does not seem to matter during a nuclear conflict. For the same reason, the U.S. military have been downsizing its personnel since World War II with an objective of keeping “a smaller and more capable force, putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries” (Mulrine, A., 2014). Apparently, there is a shift in priorities in national policies, which is in some way, influenced by nuclear deterrence. Most policy makers believe that the United States military have become an economic liability because its size is too large to maintain. In 2013, for example, the United States spent an estimated $600 billion on military activities, the bulk of which is spent on salaries of military personnel. For years, the country has been consistently on top of the list of the biggest spenders in defense. In fact, no country could compare to the U.S. military spending with China lagging behind with only $112.2 billion. Aside from the economic impact of keeping a large standing army, huge numbers also does not serve the current military objectives. For Feickert, what the nation needs is a smaller, leaner force that is agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, and technologically advanced to balance military presence especially in areas where it is needed most and where potential problems are likely to occur. Instead of hiring permanent personnel, the U.S. military are increasingly relying on contractors to do their work and to augment their needs. It should be noted that most military equipment and systems today are developed and made by private companies and contractors. A particular example is the contracting of the development and manufacture of drones for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as well as the deployment of mercenaries in war zones that are maintained by the U.S.. Obviously, the need for contract services does not only relate to equipment and technology but also to man power. Operating such advanced systems require specialized skills and training that can be only serviced by private individuals and corporations. In contrast, training military personnel can take months or years whereas private contractors can be deployed right away. Apparently, there is a shift from having manual warfare to a push-button warfare with the merging of computer technology and nuclear weapons. Today, the United States military is unarguably the most modern as far as technology is concerned yet it does not erase the fact that other nations have equal ability of being able to send Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) armed with nuclear warheads with just a push of a button. It is quite obvious then that obliterating each other does not require any elaborate strategies in a military standpoint. For a fact, it eliminates the need for any combat strategy since what it takes is only a push of a button while the only chance of winning is by pushing the button first. Still, behind the no-brainer military scenarios of the current push-button technology lays a more potent threat of outsiders gaining access to information and perhaps launch nuclear weapons indiscriminately. Perhaps it might be considered as a fictional scenario but with the current technology, everything is quite possible. As the United States relies heavily on its technological advantage especially in the field of nuclear capabilities for its military power, there is also a huge tendency for the country to relax its focus on military activities and divert its efforts towards other pressing matters of national concern. Although it is quite favorable for some of the nation’s non-military institutions and agencies, it is also possible that the U.S. would lose focus on military matters, which would eventually result to vulnerability. It should be noted that the post-Cold War scenario has posed new challenges to the country’s military and national security. Terrorist activities such as what happened during the 9/11 attack gives a lasting implication that the U.S. is not only threatened directly by legitimate militaries of foreign nations but is also faced by a more sinister and clandestine force that also poses a nuclear threat. Currently, the U.S. is dealing with two potent nuclear threats, the legitimate military of hostile and potentially hostile nations and the constant threat of terrorism.
Gaps and Weaknesses of Nuclear Deterrence
Intentions to regulate the manufacture, sale and use of nuclear arms and technologies have been sought after the Second World War. As observed, “At the end of World War II, when the United States had the only nuclear weapons in the world, President Harry Truman proposed in ‘The Baruch plan of 1946’ to destroy the U.S. nuclear arsenal if other countries would agree not to acquire nuclear weapons and would permit inspections to verify that agreement”. However, the futility of Truman’s intention was quite apparent as the Soviet Union, who is already developing their own nuclear program, rejected this proposal. Obviously, being the only country with nuclear capabilities, power has shifted from European nations to the United States, which the Russians are quite skeptical. The United States did attempt to keep nuclear technology as confidential as possible by passing the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 which aims to keep nuclear technology a secret and to prevent other nations of developing their own nuclear arsenals. However, shortly after the first atomic bomb was invented, the Russians were able to successfully make their own, forcing the U.S. to amend their Atomic Energy Act in 1953 and the developed a policy entitled ‘Atoms for Peace’ that aims to increase cooperation among world powers in developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and yet again, to prevent others from acquiring nuclear capability. Clearly, knowledge about building an atomic bomb is difficult to contain and so the approach was to limit the acquisition of raw materials such as Uranium and Plutonium. Subsequently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established and negotiations about regulating the use of nuclear energy were stepped up. Even so, loopholes in these policies are quite apparent for it allows acquisition of such materials if it is used in civilian purposes such as in the generation of electricity. Although the cooperation was intended for peaceful use of nuclear energy, the capability of creating a nuclear weapon out of this technology becomes apparent. The apparent weakness of policies regarding the use of nuclear technologies led the United Nations General Assembly to pass a resolution in 1961 that aims to: a) prohibit nuclear states to provide assistance to non-nuclear states for creating nuclear arsenals, b) prevent non-nuclear states from developing their own nuclear programs and c) to reduce the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states with the goal of total disarmament. These conventions led to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. Among the major provisions of this treaty are:
- Banning the transfer of nuclear explosive and devices whether directly or indirectly from nuclear states to non-nuclear states.
- Nuclear states are also prohibited to encourage a non-nuclear state to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.
- The NPT prohibits non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear or soliciting the help of a nuclear state for them to develop and manufacture a nuclear weapon.
- NPT recognize that nations have the right to develop and utilize nuclear materials and technology for peaceful purposes. For the same reason, the treaty does not affect the right of a nation to pursue nuclear projects in accordance to the safeguards and statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
- Most importantly, NPT requires participating nations to pursue negotiations cessation of the nuclear arms race and complete disarmament.
.
Even so, the effectiveness of the NPT to make nations submit to its provisions is questionable. For a fact, the treaty was left open to all states for signature but it also left open the possibility of withdrawal provided that the supreme interest of a nation participant is jeopardized through extraordinary events. The weakness of the NPT was quite apparent throughout its history. Looking back, nuclear capability was confined within five major Powers that possess nuclear weapons when the treaty was concluded in 1968. These nations are the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China. However, France and China refused to sign the treaty as they were developing their own nuclear weapons when the treaty was concluded. Technically, France and China only exercised their right to join or not to join a treaty with other nations and by doing so, they have not violated the provisions of the NPT and so no military or political sanctions can be employed. The actions of France and China left other non-nuclear countries to follow suit as their own nuclear programs are close to becoming successful. In fact, it was not until 1992 when France and China signed the treaty. Still, other nations such as Israel, India and Pakistan remained non-assignatories. Althought the NPT has been a milestone in nuclear weapon control, it failed in many respects. Primarily, the treaty lacks the political will to compell nations to agree to its provisions. Its depositories, the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain, are technically powerless to compell a nation to sign the treaty. Furthermore, those who signed are neither bound by the treaty to develop a nuclear program of their own. Over the years, the treaty’s weakness have been exploited. For example, despite international pressure, Iran continued to increase its nuclear programs while North Korea has left the treaty to eventually develop its own nuclear arsenals. None of them faced any dire consequences of their actions.
Non-Legitimate Threat
Currently, there are nine countries that are known to have nuclear weapons however, the actual number of nations that are suspected of having nuclear weapons are still unknown. Even in countries that are known to have nuclear capabilities, the number of nuclear arsenals that they posses could not be sufficiently determined as it is held in utmost confidentiality. In a rough estimate, observers believe that the world's combined stockpile of nuclear warheads remain at unacceptably high levels. This confidential nature of nuclear capabilities has even caused serious military conflicts. Logically, it is indeed possible for hostile nations to keep nuclear arsenals in secret and to use it whenever necessary. In this line of thought, it is arguable whether the possession of nuclear weapons becomes an effective deterrence since it becomes a legitimate reason for some country to strike pre-emptively or to plan such strikes. Most notably, the Iraq War have been triggered in part by assumptions that the country is holding weapons of mass destruction and was used by the U.S. as a propaganda to legitimize it pre-emptive strike against Iraq . The Iran-Israeli conflict that followed when Iran proposed its intention of developing its nuclear programs elicit similar reactions from Israel. Aside from nations clandestinely acquiring nuclear capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terror groups are also serious military threat. Presently, the knowledge on how to build and manufacture a nuclear weapon has become widespread that the possibility of terrorists having access to a nuclear weapon could not be eliminated. Today, terrorist’s organizations were not only concerned about toppling a government or a religious adversary as their focus is now on world-scale terror. Terrorism attacks today are aimed at critical infrastructures in order to inflict the most damage. Apparently, they are motivated to inflict intimidation, terror and to decapitate the normal functions of a government. Obviously, in order to inflict greater damage, terrorists would find the most potent weapon they can get their hands on and nuclear weapon is on top of the list. The problem is, the doctrine of nuclear deterence fails when non-conventional threats such as terrorism are considered since these groups will fire at any cost without considering any diplomatic resolutions. Another problematic scenario regarding nuclear deterence is that there seems to be an increasing link between terrorism and legitimate political organizations. These groups can readily jeopardize any nuclear treaties obviously because they are not part of it or in any other way willing to be part of it. Examples of influential terror groups that are suspected to have links with their governments are the PLO, Al Qaeda and the Islamic militants that operate in the Middle East. While these groups have limited capabilities and resources, these groups could be utilized by states that have been known to have notorious and rogue intentions towards the U.S. Iran and North Korea are legitimate governments that have been open about their hatred towards the U.S. and its allies. Logically, they are potential threats as they may harbor terror groups and give them access to nuclear weapons.
Conclusion
Considering the potential threat that nations face despite the notion of nuclear deterrence, we can deduce that nuclear deterrence is just an illusionary concept that does not have bearing when present national security conditions are considered. Perhaps it might have served its purpose during the Cold War era wherein the United States and the Soviet Union were the only possible origins of nuclear weapons. Even at its early stage, the flaws and weaknesses of nuclear deterrence have been exposed with the failure of nuclear treaties. Under the present circumstances wherein nuclear technology becomes widespread, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence loses its meaning. Maybe it can be considered as a passive defense strategy yet it does not effectively deter new threats such as terrorism and rogue governments that may arbor terror activities. And so, instead of focusing on developing push-button nuclear technologies, a nation should focus its efforts on preventing nuclear weapons from being acquired by potential threats. Also, it is necessary for a nation to develop not only prevention strategies but recovery and mitigation strategies in case of a nuclear attack. In the modern context, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is not applicable primarily because it does not eliminate legitimate and non-legitimate threats therefore, Freedman’s commentary about nuclear deterrence being ‘magnificent, but not a strategy’ is quite factual and realistic.
References
THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION . (2005). Retrieved July 2014, from http://www.un.org: http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html
World Nuclear Stockpile Report. (2014, January). Retrieved July 2014, from http://www.ploughshares.org: http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report
Bainerman, J. (2003). Why The Middle East Conflict Continues To Exist . Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.rense.com/: http://www.rense.com/general38/whyds.htm
Baker, E. (2006, December). Jihadi terrorists in Europe. Retrieved 2013, from http://www.clingendael.nl: http://www.clingendael.nl
BBC. (2014, February). Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military. Retrieved November 2014, from http://www.bbc.com/: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26326969
Broadstuff. (2010, August). C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.broadstuff.com/: http://www.broadstuff.com/archives/2261-Cest-magnifique,-mais-ce-nest-pas-la-guerre.html
Brodie, B. (2006). The Development of Nuclear Strategy. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/: http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/pol179/Brodie.pdf
Bunn, G. (2003, December). The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: History and Current Problems. Retrieved July 2014, from http://www.armscontrol.org: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/Bunn
Feickert, A. (2013, January). Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress . Retrieved November 2014, from http://fpc.state.gov/: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202877.pdf
Freedman, L. (2003). The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 3rd Ed. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/: http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/polintstudextd/browse/inside/inline/9780230379435.pdf?chapterDoi=$%7Bchapter.getDoiWithoutPrefix()%7D
Harris, W. (n.d.). The Modern Mercenary: Private Military Companies. Retrieved March 2014, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/: http://science.howstuffworks.com/mercenary3.htm
Jackson, M., & Morelli, M. (2009, December). The Reasons for Wars – an Updated Survey . Retrieved January 2014, from http://www.stanford.edu/: http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/war-overview.pdf
Schwartz, M. (2010, June). The Department of Defense’s Use of Private Security Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background, Analysis, and Options forCongress. Retrieved March 2014, from http://fpc.state.gov/: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/145576.pdf
Steinmeyer, K.P. (2004). Differences Between a Fission Bomb and a Dirty Bomb . Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.radpro.com/: http://www.radpro.com/terrorist-1.pdf
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968. Retrieved July 2014, from https://history.state.gov: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/npt
Washington Business Journal. (2013, October). DARPA picks 5 contractors to design drones to launch from small ships. Retrieved March 2014, from http://www.bizjournals.com/: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/10/darpa-picks-5-contractors-to-design.html
