The Danger of a Nuclear War / REL: Never say never

Thirty-two years later, things are different. The nuclear threat is back and the once unthinkable is no more. Russian President Vladimir Putin, since the start of the war in Ukraine, has been constantly reminding the world of his country’s nuclear power.

With nearly 6,000 warheads, Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Just three days after the start of the war in Ukraine on February 24, Putin called on his military command to put its preventive forces – a reference to nuclear weapons – on high alert.

“I have ordered the Minister of Defense and the Chief of General Staff to deploy the Russian army’s preventive forces on high combat readiness,” Putin said.

Previously, he has threatened anyone who, as he said, would hinder his operation in Ukraine, with unprecedented consequences in history.

The United States has said the threat of nuclear attacks remains low, but cannot be ignored. In an article in the New York Times in late May, US President Joe Biden said that for now “there are no signs that Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but the occasional Russian rhetoric about the explosion “Nuclear arsenal is inherently dangerous and extremely irresponsible.”

This rhetoric, according to the Stockholm-based International Peace Research Institute, has prompted many other nuclear-weapon states to consider their own strategies.

According to a report released by the institute on June 13, the world’s nine nuclear powers: Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, the United States and Russia are expected to increase and modernize their arsenal. nuclear. One of the authors of the report, Matt Korda, said:

“Soon we will reach the point where, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons in the world could begin to rise. “This is a kind of dangerous territory.”

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lasted approximately from the end of World War II until the early 1990s. The race for supremacy in nuclear weapons has been a symbol of this war.

But over the following decades, the parties have signed a series of agreements to control these weapons and have destroyed some. By the end of February, everything seemed to be working. From then on – in the words of the head of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres – “the prospect of a nuclear conflict is possible.” Guterres has said that putting Russian nuclear forces on alert is a chilling development.

“The call for peace must be heard. This tragedy must stop. “It is never too late for diplomacy and dialogue,” Guterres said.

The only time nuclear weapons were used in a conflict was at the end of World War II: the US dropped two bombs on Japan. Can Putin become the first leader to break taboos and use them?

Monica Montgomery, a research analyst at the Washington-based Center for Arms Control and Nuclear Non-Proliferation, answers Radio Free Europe’s Expose show:

“Putin remains unlikely to use nuclear weapons,” he said. His threats are mostly directed at third parties – explicitly NATO – not to get involved in the conflict [në Ukrainë]”.

“However, the chances are not zero and that is very worrying. With the war dragging on, Putin may feel like he is leaning against the wall and unable to achieve victory in Ukraine. [Atëherë]”The risk of using nuclear weapons is increasing,” said Montgomery.

In a possible nuclear war, there would be no winner. This is a phrase that is constantly repeated – from senior state officials, whether Western or even Russian, to various military strategists. The consequences, according to them, would be devastating for humanity, especially when the nuclear arsenal today is more advanced than the one used by the US for the attacks in Japan in 1945. From the attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are believed to have been killed up to 220 thousand people.

Stephen Herzog, a nuclear weapons researcher at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich, tells the Exposition that nuclear weapons have evolved in different ways.

“The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are what we call gravity bombs. They are dumb bombs, very large, and had to be thrown from the rear of the planes. For example, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, called the “Little Boy”, weighed 14,000 tons of TNT. It was all thrown away at once and it was a horrible thing. “But some of the nuclear weapons that Russia has in its arsenal today are over 50 times more powerful than that.”

Nuclear weapons today are even faster, even more accurate than those of the 1940s. This does not give attackers a chance to rethink or cancel the attack, Herzog adds.

“When it comes to ballistic missiles that can reach Russia from Europe in 20 minutes, maybe 22, maybe 18, then there is no time for them to go back. “So, the speed with which nuclear war can happen today and the levels of destruction are much, much greater, because, simply, there is a greater variety of technologies,” said Herzog.

Despite the US role as a nuclear umbrella, European countries would not be able to prevent a nuclear attack by military means. “Umbrella” is based on the assumption that an adversary must not attack NATO countries with nuclear weapons, because the aggressor must then wait for counterattacks.

From this angle, nuclear weapons can also be seen as an asset for peace, says Herzog, an analyst at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich.

“All major NATO cities are less than 30 minutes away from destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The United States is similar. And the only thing that protects countries from Russian nuclear weapons is the fact that the United States, France and Britain threaten to do the same against Russian cities if Russia attacks them. This is nuclear prevention. “So, from this point of view, nuclear weapons can also be seen as an asset for peace, because Ukraine did not have the preventive shield, it did not have the US nuclear umbrella, and look what happened to it.”

Asked how the risk of nuclear war could be assessed, Herzog said: “Never say never.”

Montgomery of the Center for Weapons Control and Nuclear Non-Proliferation says the risk will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist.

“The only sure way to avoid nuclear war is to destroy nuclear weapons in the world. This of course is not going to happen overnight. It will be a long process, but it is something we have been working on for decades. This work has certainly stalled in recent years and events like these – [kërcënimet e Putinit] – damage nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. “But the only way to prevent the use of a nuclear weapon is to destroy nuclear weapons.”

According to the International Peace Research Institute, there are currently over 12,700 nuclear warheads in the world. Most of them are owned by Russia – followed by the US.

From a legal point of view, any use of nuclear weapons, with a massive impact on civilians, is a violation of international humanitarian law. Russian military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons for defense purposes. In April the Russian military tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the Sarmat, capable of carrying over ten nuclear warheads and hitting the US.

Russia, however, has not been threatened by any nuclear rival. The United States and NATO have warned that the eventual use of nuclear weapons by the Russian state would be unacceptable and would have massive consequences, but did not specify them.

top channel