WHETHER THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPON MATTERS OR NOT?

There is a game of trust lying between the countries all over the world which is changing the concerns of the writers. Some writers claim that the number of nuclear weapons for a country is particularly important. A country should not trust even its neighbors and friends in this contemporary world as everyone thinks about their interests and goes to that side from which it is being benefited. So, these writers claim that the country should enhance its number of nuclear weapons or arsenals even if the state ensures the second-strike capability. Because when a country ensures the second-strike capability, the adversary will not get to war. Instead, it indulges itself in damaging the second-strike capability and will enhance its number of nuclear weapons. Thus, it will develop an arms race between the states.

Such the case of the United States and the USSR. They followed this policy and kept on increasing the number of nuclear weapons. It results in not going into the direct confrontation between USA and USSR but indulged in the Cold war. Cold war between them happened in the history due to their arms race. At the end they signed the arms-control treaty with each other that is suggested as the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty whose objective is to prevent the nuclear weapons and weapon technology. It involves the peaceful use of nuclear weapons and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.

Where, there are some writers that claim that the number of nuclear weapons has no essential role between the relations among the states. They claim that there is no need to increase the number of nuclear weapons when a state ensures its second-strike capability. It will be useless for a state then to increase its nuclear arsenals. It will not make any difference. So, when aby country ensures the second-strike capability then a state should not increase its number of nuclear arsenals as they are enough for creating deterrence for the state.

Hence, Whether the number of the nuclear weapons matter or not? This debate is complex and a multi-faced issue. While it is a subjective question, arguments can be presented on this issue of whether the number of nuclear weapons matters or not. Following are the arguments that will explore the question from a specific purpose rather than to respond to it that it implies endorsement of nuclear weapons or their proliferation.

1. Deterrence Theory:

The possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent against potential adversaries. This theory suggests that the fear of catastrophic retaliation prevents nations from starting a nuclear conflict. According to this frame of mind, the specific number of nuclear weapons owned by a state becomes less significant than the feeling of assured destruction. Even a relatively small number of nuclear weapons can effectively deter aggression.

2. Diminishing Returns:

Nuclear weapons hold widespread devastation capability. The incremental increase in the destructive potential becomes less significant when a country has achieved a certain level of nuclear capability. Therefore, there is no difference in having any substantial impact on deterrence or military effectiveness between owning, for instance, 100 or 1000 nuclear weapons.

3. Survivability and Second-Strike Capability:

For the safety and security of nuclear weapons, these are kept in secure locations, including submarines, and hardened underground facilities. This ensures the nation’s ability to retaliate even after a preemptive strike, supporting a credible second-strike capability. Therefore, owning a small number of nuclear weapons can be considered sufficient for deterrence.

4. Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Efforts:

Different efforts were made to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, such as arms control treaties, focusing on reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons owned by a state. However, the threat is still the same even if the number of nuclear weapons decreases. Therefore, the emphasis should be on non-proliferation and disarmament rather than fixating on the exact number of weapons.

5. Evolving Military Capabilities:

A wide range of conventional and asymmetric threats participate in modern warfare. Precision-guided conventional munitions and cyber warfare capabilities that can significantly affect military operations lead to technological advancement. In this context, the relative importance of nuclear weapons diminishes as other military capabilities gain prominence.

It is essential to consider historical evidence and scholarly research while examining whether the number of nuclear weapons matters. Here are some arguments supporting the position that the number of nuclear weapons may not matter significantly:

Cold War Era:

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a massive arms race and accumulated tens of thousands of nuclear warheads against each other. However, despite the sheer quantity of weapons, the world did not see a nuclear war between these superpowers. In this view, the number of nuclear weapons alone did not decide the outcome, but rather the policies, strategies, and deterrence doctrines associated with them.

Currently USA possesses 5244 Warheads, out of which 1770 are deployed. On the other hand, Russia possesses 5889 warheads out of which 1674 are deployed. But never seen them to be directly involved in the war.

Deterrence Stability:

Scholars argue that the stable deterrence relationship does not depend on the number of nuclear weapons but rather on the credibility of a nation’s deterrent capabilities. Mutually Assured Deterrence (MAD) is the key to deterring nuclear conflict that holds the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary. This principle runs regardless of the number of nuclear weapons each side owns.

Declining Numbers:

The number of nuclear weapons in the world has greatly decreased since the peak of the Cold War. According to the Federation of American Scientists, as of 2021, there were an estimated 13,080 nuclear warheads globally, with the United States and Russia having the majority. The deterrence relationship and the overall security situation have not substantially changed despite this reduction. This suggests that the number of weapons alone does not have a decisive impact.

Changing Security Dynamics:

In contemporary security scenarios, the threats facing nations have diversified and evolved beyond the traditional superpower rivalry. Issues such as terrorism, cyber warfare, and regional conflicts have gained prominence. In this context, the number of nuclear weapons becomes less significant in addressing these complex security challenges.

CONCLUSION:

After reading both writers’ under whether the number of nuclear weapons is important beyond a certain point or not, I concluded that the number of nuclear weapons matters for the states for achieving Nuclear Superiority, and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons just creates the fear for the adversaries and it is the wastage of resources up to a limit. But in my point of view, NUCLEAR DETERENCE depends upon the regional political environment or the strategic environment. Such as a state in a strategic environment where its adversary is under threat and an arms race then the number of nuclear weapons plays a significant role. In this scenario, even when you assure the second-strike capability your adversary may reach the position of a comprehensive strike, you will increase the number of nuclear weapons just because of the security dilemma that has been developed between the states. So, it’s important to emphasize that the discussion above presents one viewpoint and should not overshadow the widely held belief in the importance of disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation efforts. Nuclear weapons pose significant risks, and reducing their numbers and ultimately achieving a world free of nuclear weapons remains a crucial global aim. Moreover, military technology is advancing day by day, and side by side the threat is also increasing is causing insecurities among the states that need to be controlled or vanished and it is causing an arms race between the two enemies that is not only harmful for the two countries rather it has effect over the world. Military technology that is now most evolving at the time is the Hydrogen bomb and cyberwarfare is posing a serious threat among the states that even their data will not remain secure. It should be treated as early as possible as treating this security dilemma.