The inevitable proliferation of nuclear weapons

Jorge Costa Oliveira

Last Thursday marked the expiration of New START, the last remaining bilateral agreement – between Russia, with 5,459 nuclear warheads, and the United States, with 5,177 – under which the two nuclear superpowers [controlling about 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons] committed to “reduce and limit their strategic offensive arms” to 1,550 warheads each.

The U.S. and Russia did not even open negotiations on extending the treaty, and China has already made clear that it does not agree with Trump’s proposal to trilateralize the agreement. As a result, Russia and the United States are no longer subject to any legal limits on their nuclear arsenals.

Repeated threats by the Russian leadership to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, combined with the stance of the American leadership – with a “New Security Strategy” centered on a regionally focused imperialism – leave none of their allies feeling secure.

The resulting uncertainty is driving an arms race, both in conventional and nuclear weapons. At the same time, the repeated violation of international law by the U.S. and Russia legitimizes other powers in denouncing or failing to comply with international treaties aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In regions marked by conflicts between regional powers, nuclear proliferation had already begun. This is the case in South Asia, with India (172 nuclear warheads) and Pakistan (170), and in the Middle East, with Israel (90) and Iran.

In the Far East, the lack of confidence in the American superpower is leading Japan to rearm. South Korea is also likely to seek to ensure its strategic autonomy in response to the U.S. pullback. In both cases, rearmament is unlikely to stop at conventional weapons, given the external security threats posed by Russia, China, and North Korea (50).

Europe, too, cannot realistically count on U.S. intervention in the event of Russian aggression. After decades of illusions about “shared interests” with the United States, Europe has finally decided to take responsibility for its own defense. The new European policy of conventional rearmament will take time to implement and will be slowed by Russian Trojan horses that have come to power – or may yet come to power – in several European countries.

In any case, history shows that the only way to guarantee European security and prevent aggression from an increasingly militarized imperialistic Russia is nuclear deterrence – that is, through the creation of a nuclear arsenal by frontline European countries such as Poland. Poland has already stated loudly and clearly that it will have / acquire nuclear weapons. Some Nordic and Baltic countries have already said they would accept the deployment of nuclear weapons. Germany is likely to follow Poland’s path.

Moreover, if the U.S. and Russia are unwilling to reduce their colossal nuclear arsenals, if erratic, transactional American governments led by corrupt individuals cannot be trusted, if middle powers already possess nuclear weapons, why should European countries – betrayed by the current American leadership – forgo them, when they are essential to Europe’s defense?

linkedin.com/in/jorgecostaoliveira