0092-313-5000-734
Once Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of UK, said “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us,” implying that aggression can only be prevented through strategic use of nuclear weapons. The fear of catastrophic consequences of using nuclear weapons instilled among the nuclear powers provides a critical aspect for the global security. This principle has been central to the security postures of major powers, notably the P5 nations—US, China, Russia, UK, and France. The concept of nuclear deterrence can be well-traced during the Cold war era rivalry between US and USSR. The major events such as Cuban Missile Crisis, taking place during that tenure brought the world at the brink of World War III shaped our perception about the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. Realizing the utmost need of deterrence, Truman, former president of US, was the first person to exercise it and he was criticized by a very small margin at that time. During the cold war, United States deterred its rival USSR by leveraging a diverse arsenal, including bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)–the nuclear triad. Also, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) emerged which further strengthened concept of deterrence. The cold war ended with the disintegration of the USSR; whereas the US assumed a dominant role in global nuclear deterrence, extending its protection to allies through security arrangements like NATO.
In contrast to US, Russia’s deterrence posture quite differs since it mainly relies on land-based ICBMs and emphasizes modernization to maintain its position as a credible deterrent. As per its military doctrine, Russia can be observed to incorporate nuclear weapons in response to conventional threats. By doing so, it aims to hold the escalation control. Most importantly, regional dynamics such as NATO expansion shapes the Russia’s security posture so that the western aggression could be avoided.
In countering the threats from West, Russia sometimes goes too far that it risks its own survival. Russia-Ukraine crisis serves as a best example here. In comparison to US and Russia’s nuclear deterrence, approach of China is characterized by no-first use policy with the possession of very limited arsenal (warheads and delivery systems) focused on sufficiency over excessive buildup. However, according to some sources, China has been expanding its military arsenal to an extend which can best be compared to Adolf Hitler’s expansion of weapons for World War II. This means that China maintains a level of ambiguity to make its rivals uncertain about the response options of China. In terms of the nuclear strategy, China dissuades its adversaries in immediate vicinity, particularly Indo-Pacific region, demonstrating China’s major focus on regional deterrence. By doing so, China aims to secure its territorial interests and stability in its region.
Equally important, the deterrent system of UK majorly contribute to European security providing assurance mainly to allies and alliance’s collective defense within the context of NATO. UK’s deterrent system is centered around Trident system which comprises of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) carried by the Vanguard-class submarines silently operating beneath water. Historically, UK has been continuously always maintaining At-Sea Deterrence (CASD) with one Vanguard-class submarine on patrol.
In contrast of UK who relies on cooperation with US for certain aspects of its nuclear program, France has fully independent nuclear force. Moreover, its nuclear triad consists of Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), Air-Launched Missiles, Land-Based Missiles. The vital focus of France is on national security while it also extends its nuclear capabilities by contributing to the overall security architecture of the Europe.
Having stated the deterrent systems of P5 nations, it is important to consider certain implications and challenges associated with nuclear deterrence. First, the P5 nations’ coordinated deterrence efforts are crucial for global stability. By working together and aligning with each other’s communication channels, they can prevent conflict escalation. However, despite aligned communication channels, accidental escalation can arise from miscommunication, misperceptions, or even technical glitches. Here the question arises how nations can reduce this risk of such misunderstanding? To prevent such an inconvenience, it is mandatory for each P5 nation to keep assessing and improving their communication crisis especially during tense situations.On contrary to history, the landscape of global security has been evolving enlightening two critical aspects of security; Cyber Threats and Hypersonic weapons. For Cyberthreats, they can be significantly challenging since states heavily rely on digital infrastructure. Therefore, cyberattacks, sponsored by the state either, can be very disruptive for the any critical system to a level to cause a state to compromise its national security and even trigger a conventional conflict. Finally, the Hypersonic weapons, ultra-fast missiles, have the capability to evade any traditional defense system. With ultra-high speed, it spares very limited time decision makers to respond, adding further complexity to strategic calculations. However, on the brighter side, P5 countries need to be adaptive when it comes to their diverse deterrence strategies in accordance with the advanced technology to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of their nuclear arsenal.