States can still choose the diplomatic negotiating table, rather than the red button.
Diplomacy can triumph if states recognise the futility of nuclear weapons, the absolute pointlessness of second wave capabilities (usually achieved by difficult to detect submarine-based platforms), and the crippling economic cost of maintaining and continuing to develop these trillion-dollar apocalyptic systems.
Trump's recent repudiation of the INF Treaty is symptomatic of a growing acceptance of nuclear proliferation.
Advertisement
It is also emblematic of the growing scepticism for international law and international institutions.
Although total nuclear disarmament has always been a chimera, meaningful nuclear reductions have been achieved through the implementation of agreements such as the INF Treaty.
Moving away from legal pathways that ensure nuclear weapons reductions will only heighten the risk of a new nuclear arms race. Unlike the Cold War, however, this new race will likely involve many more state actors, and could spread quickly to involve middle tier states such as Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Agreements such as the INF Treaty should not be lightly disregarded in such an environment.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
4 posts so far.
About the Authors
Glen Anderson is a lecturer
in law at the University of Newcastle. Dr Anderson researches and teaches in the
areas of international law, equity, company and property law. He has formerly
taught Australian and international politics.
Blake Pepper is a graduate in Law and Commerce from the University of Newcastle.