Stress Tests for Nuclear Taboo, Global Deterrence Template Under Strain

Stress Tests for Nuclear Taboo, Global Deterrence Template Under Strain

Introduction

On August 6, 1945, the world entered a new and terrifying epoch. The bombing of Hiroshima with an atomic weapon, followed three days later by the nuclear attack on Nagasaki, left more than 140,000 dead and ushered in the nuclear age. These events not only marked the conclusion of World War II but also gave birth to a grim realization—the unimaginable destructive capacity of nuclear weapons.

From this horrific beginning emerged what is often referred to as the “nuclear taboo”—a global understanding that the use of nuclear weapons in warfare must never be repeated. For nearly eight decades, this taboo has shaped international relations, doctrines of deterrence, and efforts toward arms control.

However, as the world approaches the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this taboo is under unprecedented stress. With heightened tensions between nuclear-armed states such as the US and Russia, the crumbling of long-held agreements, and the real risk of escalation in ongoing conflicts, the global nuclear deterrence framework is being tested like never before.

This article explores the evolution, resilience, and fragility of the nuclear taboo, the current pressures it faces, and the implications for global peace and security.

Birth of the Nuclear Taboo

The apocalyptic power of nuclear weapons was demonstrated only twice in history—Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The sheer scale of death, destruction, and radiation fallout imprinted a deep fear on humanity and created a moral consensus that nuclear weapons must never again be used militarily.

This became the foundation of the nuclear taboo:

• Moral restraint: A belief that nuclear weapons, due to their indiscriminate and catastrophic consequences, are beyond the acceptable limits of warfare.

• Strategic restraint: Nuclear-armed states internalized the understanding that actual use would lead to mutual annihilation, thereby limiting their role to deterrence.

Thus, by the 1950s and 1960s, the world witnessed the emergence of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine—a paradoxical system where peace was ensured by the threat of total annihilation.

Cold War and the Institutionalization of Nuclear Restraint

The Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union transformed nuclear weapons into central instruments of global strategy. Both sides accumulated vast arsenals, yet recognized the catastrophic consequences of their use.

Several key developments institutionalized nuclear restraint:

1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1970:

   • Divided the world into five recognized nuclear weapon states (US, USSR/Russia, UK, France, China) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS).

   • NNWS pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons; in return, NWS promised to pursue disarmament and allow access to peaceful nuclear technology.

2. Helsinki Accords, 1975:

   • Emphasized sanctity of borders and promoted détente between the superpowers.

3. Arms Control Agreements:

   • SALT, START, INF treaties reduced nuclear stockpiles and helped avoid reckless proliferation.

For nearly three decades after the end of the Cold War in 1991, these frameworks, combined with a degree of US-Russia nuclear restraint, ensured that the nuclear taboo remained largely intact.

Challenges to the Nuclear Taboo

In recent years, the nuclear restraint system has come under increasing strain.

1. Ukraine Crisis and Russia’s Invocation of Nuclear Capability

• After the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons but surrendered them to Russia under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

• However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shattered this trust, with Moscow invoking its nuclear capability to deter external intervention.

• This was a major setback for the deterrence template, revealing that treaties and assurances may not be reliable.

2. Breakdown of US-Russia Relations

• The decline in arms control dialogue, withdrawal from key agreements like the INF Treaty, and ongoing hostility between Washington and Moscow have weakened global nuclear governance.

• The 2025 Federation of American Scientists report notes that Russia holds 5,459 nuclear warheads, while the US has 5,177—together representing over 90% of global stockpiles.

• The risk of unintended escalation remains, especially in crises where nuclear signaling is employed.

3. Proliferation Concerns in the Middle East

• In June 2025, Israel attacked Iran—an NPT signatory—on suspicions that Tehran was violating commitments by pursuing nuclear weapons.

• This episode undermined the credibility of the NPT and exposed its enforcement weaknesses.

4. Rising Nuclear Nationalism

• Leaders across states have increasingly used nuclear rhetoric in domestic and international politics.

• Examples include Russian leaders issuing nuclear warnings, Trump ordering submarine deployments in response to Russian actions, and other nuclear powers flexing deterrence capabilities.

5. Technological Developments

• Emerging technologies—hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, AI-enabled command systems—complicate deterrence and increase risks of accidental escalation.

Lessons from Ukraine and the Erosion of Security Assurances

One of the starkest lessons of the Ukraine war is the peril of giving up nuclear weapons. Ukraine surrendered its arsenal with the belief that international guarantees would suffice. Russia’s aggression revealed the fragility of such assurances.

This has two implications:

• For existing NNWS: They may now view nuclear weapons as essential for survival, eroding faith in the NPT.

• For aspiring states: The pursuit of nuclear weapons could accelerate, leading to new proliferation risks.

In essence, the nuclear taboo is weakened not only by rhetoric or threats but by realpolitik actions that devalue global treaties.

Catastrophic Consequences of a Nuclear Escalation

Even limited nuclear exchanges could be devastating.

• A 2019 Princeton University simulation suggested that a US-Russia nuclear war could cause 91.5 million casualties within the first few hours.

• Fallout would lead to nuclear winter, global cooling, agricultural collapse, and widespread famine.

• Beyond immediate destruction, radioactive fallout would have long-term health and environmental effects.

Thus, while nuclear deterrence may prevent large-scale wars, any breakdown of restraint could spell apocalyptic consequences.

India’s Position in the Global Nuclear Debate

India’s role in the global nuclear discourse has always been complex.

• India remained outside the NPT due to its discriminatory structure, arguing that it legitimized permanent nuclear inequality.

• After conducting nuclear tests in 1998, India declared a doctrine of “credible minimum deterrence” and a “no-first-use” policy.

• India has consistently advocated for universal disarmament while also modernizing its arsenal to maintain strategic balance with neighbors like China and Pakistan.

With the erosion of global arms control and the weakening of the nuclear taboo, India faces new dilemmas:

• Should it revisit its no-first-use policy in a changing security environment?

• How should it balance between advocating restraint and ensuring credible deterrence against adversaries?

India’s strategic choices in the coming decades will be crucial in shaping both regional and global nuclear stability.

The Way Forward: Rebuilding Nuclear Restraint

The nuclear taboo, though strained, has not yet collapsed. The way forward lies in reinvigorating global nuclear governance. Some critical steps include:

1. Reviving Arms Control Dialogue:

   • The US and Russia, despite tensions, must engage in renewed talks on stockpile reductions and risk management.

2. Strengthening NPT Mechanisms:

   • Greater accountability for violations and stronger verification mechanisms are needed to restore trust.

3. Creating New Multilateral Frameworks:

   • Including rising powers like India in new nuclear security discussions will be vital.

4. Focusing on Non-Nuclear Threats:

   • Hybrid warfare, cyber threats to nuclear command-and-control systems must be addressed.

5. Civil Society and Global Movements:

   • Just as the anti-nuclear activism of the Cold War era helped build moral pressure, renewed campaigns are needed to keep nuclear dangers in public discourse.

Conclusion

From Hiroshima to Nagasaki, from Cold War standoffs to the Ukraine war, the story of nuclear weapons has been one of paradox—unimaginable destruction held back by fragile restraint. For nearly 80 years, the nuclear taboo has survived because leaders recognized the catastrophic futility of nuclear use.

Today, however, with heightened US-Russia hostility, Israel-Iran tensions, and the weakening of arms control treaties, the taboo is under its most severe test yet. The risk of miscalculation or deliberate escalation cannot be dismissed.

As the article notes, if the world were to see a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the consequences would be irreversible. The survival of humanity depends on reinforcing the nuclear taboo and rebuilding trust in international norms. The next decade will be decisive in determining whether the world sustains restraint—or slides into a new nuclear abyss.

5 Exam-Oriented Q&A

Q1: What is meant by the “nuclear taboo,” and when did it originate?
A1: The nuclear taboo refers to the global norm against the use of nuclear weapons in warfare. It originated after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and led to a moral and strategic consensus against their use.

Q2: How has the Ukraine crisis of 2022 challenged the nuclear taboo?
A2: Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in 1994 under security assurances but was invaded by Russia in 2022. Moscow invoked its nuclear capability during the conflict, undermining faith in security guarantees and exposing the fragility of treaties like the NPT.

Q3: What role has the NPT played in regulating nuclear weapons, and what are its weaknesses?
A3: The NPT (1970) divided the world into nuclear and non-nuclear states, restricting the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons while obliging the former to pursue disarmament. Its weakness lies in its discriminatory nature, weak enforcement, and inability to prevent violations (e.g., suspicions against Iran).

Q4: Why is the breakdown of US-Russia relations dangerous for global nuclear security?
A4: The US and Russia possess over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal (over 10,600 warheads combined). The collapse of arms control agreements and rising hostility increase risks of miscalculation, escalation, and catastrophic nuclear war.

Q5: What measures are suggested to strengthen global nuclear restraint?
A5: Reviving arms control talks, strengthening NPT verification, involving new powers like India in nuclear governance, addressing technological threats (cyber, AI, hypersonics), and building global civil society pressure are essential steps.