Putin is engaging in nuclear blackmail over Ukraine. Do we secretly appreciate it?
The threat of nuclear war stops us from doing a lot of things our moral consciences would otherwise compel us to do. Is that one reason we don't get rid of the bombs?
Vladimir Putin’s announcement today that he would suspend Russian participation in the New START nuclear nonproliferation treaty should come as no surprise, and I’m sure it doesn’t to diplomats and anyone else paying attention. Biden’s trip to Ukraine this week was a bold declaration that the U.S. was going to stand by Ukraine in what has to be seen, no matter what one’s views on who created the context for the war, as blatant, brutal, and illegal aggression by Russia.
Of course, “standing by” Ukraine does not mean the U.S. or any of its allies is going to get directly involved in the war, for example by sending troops or even launching airstrikes or missiles at Russian positions. But it apparently does mean ramping up the kinds of weapons and weapons systems Ukraine’s allies (most of whom are members of NATO) are providing to help Ukrainians defend themselves.
In response to nonstop pleas by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the West has begun supplying Ukraine with sophisticated tanks; even the very reluctant Germany has joined in that effort (which prompted Zelensky to push even more, for fighter jets.)
In response to all this, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which maintains a “Doomsday Clock” to measure how close we are to nuclear war (and possible global annihilation), has now moved the hands of the clock to “90 seconds to midnight,” the “closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.” I think we all know that a nuclear war between Russia and other nuclear-armed nations could easily cause more deaths in a day than all the pandemics in the history of humankind.
But before I go on, a show of hands: How many readers know that there is something called the New START treaty between Russia and the United States, or any of its provisions? Another show of hands: How many have heard of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or have any idea how many countries have signed it and what it is designed to do?
I think most of us know that there is something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but that was signed decades ago (except for a few countries that have refused, including Israel, Pakistan, and India.)
Speaking for myself, I had to read up on these much newer treaties (using the links above and other sources) to find out what they were all about. And I read several news publications every day. So it’s a fair assumption that the mainstream news media is not covering nuclear disarmament efforts very closely. I think a simple search would show that is true.
The message I take away from this is that many of us, deep down, are not really all that keen to get rid of nuclear weapons. And, in response to those who want to do more to help Ukraine, many of us also have the correct and prudent response on the tips of our tongues: We can’t get much more involved because that risks a nuclear war.
One long-running rationale for not getting rid of nuclear weapons is their supposed deterrent value, that is, the idea that the fear of “mass mutual destruction” should keep anyone from being stupid and irresponsible enough to use them. Indeed, some experts on international affairs have written volumes in favor of the deterrence theory, while disarmament advocates have written volumes on how misguided it is (some good sources on this can be found here and here.)
So far, the deterrence theory would seem to have worked. After all, since the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945, no one else has done so (although I am sure they have been tempted many times.) So should we consider Putin’s nuclear threats to be just a bluff? Why not ignore them and go all out to help Ukraine put an end to the slaughter and misery that Russia is visiting upon it? Why should Ukraine be forced to fight alone when the war is against the best interests of so many others around the world?
Obviously we don’t think we can count on Putin to be bluffing. It could easily be the case that he is just crazy and desperate enough to actually go through with the threats, with catastrophic results.
I think most readers are familiar with the famous “Trolley Problem.” It has several versions; all of them, in this thought experiment, pose the ethical dilemma of whether it is okay to sacrifice one or a small number of people to save a larger number (usually by throwing a switch that will re-route a runaway trolley onto a smaller number of people on the track, or, in a more grotesque and body-shaming version, to throw a fat man over a bridge to stop the trolley.)
I would argue that we are currently engaging in a trolley problem solution by not intervening more directly in Ukraine, as Western nations did when they went to war against Nazi Germany or imperial Japan. (Unlike many fellow leftists, I do not blame the U.S. and NATO for Russia’s brutal attack on Ukraine, but that is a discussion for another time.)
In fact I would argue that we are morally compelled to do much more to stop the war, by confronting Russia militarily and halting the killing.
(The Japanese philosopher Masahiro Morioka, in 2017, published a piece entitled “The Trolley Problem and the Dropping of Atomic Bombs,” which I highly recommend for its discussion of the ethics of using, and not using, nuclear weapons.)
But we can’t intervene more directly, and almost certainly won’t, because of our fear that the deterrence theory is no longer working, and our fear that Putin means what he says when he threatens the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, our side has nukes too, and we could threaten just as easily and just as credibly to destroy Moscow or minimally use tactical weapons at the Russian front with Ukraine. But we won’t do that, because—and I am not being sarcastic here—we are living by a more humane moral code than the current Russian regime (or we want to think we are.)
But—and here is my whole point—we also won’t get rid of nuclear weapons. We won’t really talk about them (the discussion is restricted mostly to a few small rooms in Geneva and New York where unknown negotiators gather) and we are not marching in the streets to insist that our leaders ban them.
Whether we intend it or not—or I should say, whether our motivations are conscious and apparent to us or not—I suspect we are using nuclear weapons as a crutch to avoid doing what in earlier times we did reluctantly but, when pushed to it, decisively and with great courage. Thanks to that determination, China today is not occupied by Japan, and Europe is not occupied by Germany.
I don’t claim to have the answers here, but I do have a position, and I think it’s a principled one: We must get much more serious about efforts to ban all nuclear weapons, we must pay more attention to the efforts some people are making to do that, and we must support those efforts wholeheartedly.
Without nuclear weapons, we might have to find other excuses not to do the right thing when an aggressor attacks an independent country and tries to occupy it. But those excuses might not be as good, and we might end up acting more courageously as a result.