The increasing likelihood of nuclear weapons in global conflicts is arguably the most significant and alarming development in international relations in recent decades. The use of such weapons, once considered taboo because of their catastrophic impact, now looms as a real possibility in conflicts involving nuclear-armed states.
The threat of nuclear warfare was palpable during Operation Sindoor between India and Pakistan, where the spectre of nuclear escalation was ever-present. Similarly, the ongoing standoff between Iran and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine, underscores how the presence of nuclear weapons complicates military strategies and international diplomacy.
The danger lies not just in the existence of these weapons, but in their potential deployment, which challenges previously held moral limits against their use.
The threat of nuclear war represents a dramatic shift in the calculus of conflict. A nuclear exchange, once considered unthinkable, has now become a distinct possibility in regional conflicts. This development raises questions about the efficacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and encouraging disarmament.
However, the growing disregard for the NPT’s principles, particularly as seen in Iran’s case, raises serious concerns. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its suspension of cooperation with the NPT, and its ongoing confrontation with Israel and the United States over its nuclear program have exposed the treaty’s vulnerabilities.
The use of the NPT as a justification for military action, such as the Israeli and American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, further undermines the treaty’s credibility. This situation begs the question: can the world continue to live under the ever-present threat of nuclear war, especially when leaders of nuclear-armed states appear to be increasingly unaccountable and unpredictable?
Nations with weak political institutions, such as Pakistan and Iran, represent some of the most concerning examples of nuclear-armed states. In these countries, where institutional checks and balances are often fragile, the control of nuclear weapons is dangerously centralised in the hands of a few leaders. The risk of nuclear conflict is elevated when those in power—often with autocratic tendencies—use nationalism and military might as tools of governance.
Israel, though a democracy in principle, relies heavily on its military power to maintain its security in a region fraught with tension. The Israeli approach to conflict resolution, which prioritises force over diplomacy, has made the country’s nuclear arsenal a key factor in its defence strategy. Should the political situation deteriorate and conflict spiral out of control, the use of nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out in these nations.
War, as famously described by Carl von Clausewitz, is an extension of politics by other means. However, when nuclear weapons are part of the military equation, the stakes are no longer just political; they are existential. The presence of nuclear weapons complicates the conduct of war, transforming it into a potential doomsday scenario.
The leaders of countries with nuclear capabilities often use fierce nationalist rhetoric, and their political survival is intertwined with proclamations of national pride. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the pressures of perceived defeat or humiliation.
The prospect of national defeat, whether real or imagined, becomes intolerable, and the temptation to escalate militarily—including the use of nuclear weapons—can be irresistible. This is particularly true when leadership is highly centralised, as is the case with many nations currently involved in nuclear standoffs.
The personalities of national leaders also play a significant role in determining whether nuclear weapons are used in a conflict. Take, for example, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As an autocratic leader with a deep commitment to both religious and nationalist ideals, Khamenei’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is driven not by a desire for peaceful resolution but by the aim of bolstering Iran’s power on the global stage.
Khamenei’s support for militant groups in the Middle East, combined with his pursuit of nuclear capabilities, poses a significant threat not only to regional peace but to global stability as well. Khamenei’s political and religious authority often operates outside the realm of accountability, where public opinion is heavily shaped by religious sentiment. This makes any decision regarding the acquisition or use of nuclear weapons particularly probable, as it is often insulated from the checks and balances that might exist in more democratic systems.
Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, demonstrates a tendency toward authoritarianism, prioritising his political survival at all costs. This type of leadership, ostensibly tied to national security imperatives, increases the likelihood of military escalation during crises.
Israel’s longstanding policy of maintaining a highly militarised state—viewing the use of force as an essential element of its national security strategy—makes it a prime candidate for nuclear weapon use in the event of a perceived existential threat. The Israeli approach to security, particularly in its dealings with the Arab world and Iran, has kept the region on edge for decades, with the threat of nuclear escalation always lingering in the background.
In Pakistan, the situation is equally concerning. General Asim Munir, who controls Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, is a career military officer with fundamentalist views. The military, rather than the civilian government, exerts significant control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and this concentration of power in the hands of a military leader heightens the risk of nuclear escalation.
In the event of a conflict with India, a nuclear-armed adversary, the decision to use nuclear weapons could be made without sufficient oversight or accountability. The Pakistani military’s fervour for Islamist fundamentalism, combined with the military’s control over nuclear weapons, creates a dangerous situation where the use of nuclear arms could be seen as a way to avoid national humiliation or defeat.
These examples underscore a critical issue: nuclear weapons are now in the hands of leaders who often prioritise nationalistic ideology and military might over diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution. The nationalism these leaders espouse is rarely a unifying force for progress; instead, it is often wielded to justify aggressive actions, bolster political power, and foster an environment where threats and hostility are amplified.
While nationalism, when constructive, can promote national pride and unity, it is also easily manipulated to stir up unfounded fears and ramp up tensions. In the case of nuclear-armed states, the consequences of such manipulation are far-reaching and potentially catastrophic.
As we examine conflicts in the Middle East, South Asia, and beyond, it becomes clear that the global community is at a crossroads. The increasing role of nuclear weapons in national security strategies, coupled with the authoritarian tendencies of many world leaders, makes the prospect of nuclear war more plausible than it has been in decades.
In this environment, the lack of meaningful international oversight and accountability is deeply troubling. While the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains a cornerstone of global disarmament efforts, its effectiveness has been severely undermined by the actions of key players like Iran, Israel, and North Korea. The world, in essence, is sitting on a ticking time bomb, and the risk of catastrophic consequences grows with each passing day.
The time has come for the world to reconsider the status quo seriously. The threat of nuclear conflict is no longer a distant, theoretical possibility but a very real concern. As global leaders continue to push nationalistic agendas and prioritise military solutions, the need for nuclear disarmament has never been more urgent. Without meaningful progress on this front, the “new normal” of nuclear weapons as instruments of war will continue to haunt the international community, and the consequences of inaction could be devastating.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved.
You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
