Researcher discusses increased risk of nuclear weapons usage

Several world leaders have threatened the use of nuclear weapons in recent years. Therefore, it is especially important to have a peace prize that reminds us of the consequences of using nuclear weapons in warfare, believes a researcher.

"This year's Peace Prize is an interesting choice at a time when most of us in the West are focused on the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. Mobilization against nuclear weapons has been overshadowed. Perhaps we need a strong reminder of the consequences of nuclear weapons," says Jamie Withorne.

She researches nuclear weapons and is affiliated with the Oslo Nuclear Project at the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo, where she is writing a doctoral thesis on the topic.

The Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded on December 10 to survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the grassroots movement Nihon Hidankyo. The organization receives the prize for its efforts for a world without nuclear weapons and for testifying as to why nuclear weapons must never be used again.

Not in my lifetime

Jamie Withorne does not see the matter optimistically.

"The desire for a world without nuclear weapons is idealized—and unfortunately, not something I believe I will experience in my lifetime," she says. Despite the increased threat of nuclear weapon usage in recent years, Withorne believes it is unlikely that words will turn into action.

Most people are aware of the potential destructiveness of crossing a boundary and using nuclear weapons, the researcher points out. She says the so-called taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, which has existed since the bombs fell on Japan in 1945, still holds the world's nuclear powers back.

"What I am most afraid of is that this taboo will be broken. It is difficult to imagine the environmental, civilian, and humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons. What we know is that the nuclear weapons we have today are ten times larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," says Withorne. She refers to the website NUKEMAP, where one can plot the capacities of some nuclear weapons and place them over—or instance—Oslo. Most of them would annihilate the Norwegian capital.

Putin makes threats

"Putin has been issuing threats about using nuclear weapons since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He usually does not do it explicitly but makes sure to mention that Russia possesses nuclear weapons in various contexts," says Withorne.

She emphasizes that threats like these contribute to increasing the risk that weapons could be used. Withorne points out that during his previous presidency, Donald Trump also often highlighted that he was in control of the famous nuclear button.

"Trump boasted that he had a bigger nuclear button than North Korea's Kim Jong-un. But then he stopped after the two developed a closer relationship. They began to send love letters to each other instead," says the researcher ironically. Withorne emphasizes that North Korea, along with Russia, are the countries most inclined to potentially use nuclear weapons. Therefore, they are the actors to watch most closely.

"During the war in Ukraine, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and adjusted the conditions for when nuclear weapons can be used. It is disturbing to see that threats of nuclear weapon usage take up so much space in a conventional conflict."

Nuclear panic

As a researcher, Withorne is accustomed to diving into various scenarios and dangers of nuclear weapons usage and other weapons daily. It is part of her research field. But she noticed that panic spread among the population, which also rubbed off on her after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, all of us were concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons and that they could indeed be used.

The fear also affected her. In Ukraine and in Gaza and the Middle East, we see that two nuclear-armed states, Russia and Israel, are engaging in conventional conflict, the researcher points out.

"Russia and Putin are not afraid to wave the nuclear weapons flag, while Israel and Netanyahu, who have never officially admitted they are a nuclear-armed state, although everyone knows they are, indirectly claimed that nuclear weapons would not be used in Gaza," Withorne notes.

Nuclear-armed countries with and without treaties

The U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China are the nuclear-armed states in the world that are part of the UN treaty prohibiting the spread of nuclear weapons—The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which was indefinitely extended in 1995. Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are also nuclear powers but are not part of the treaty since they developed weapons after it was adopted.

Withorne has little faith that it will be possible to negotiate a similar treaty that includes all nuclear powers in the future.

"In recent years, we have seen a shift away from arms control agreements, not least in the U.S.. It started with the Trump administration but has continued with the Biden administration," she points out. Researchers at the Oslo Nuclear Project have observed that the world has taken a step back regarding such agreements.

"Today, nuclear powers are more concerned with being competitive and less with cooperating or negotiating with other countries, says Withorne," emphasizing that this is a very difficult situation.

"Previously, nuclear weapons agreements could be isolated from other politics. Today, when the U.S. tries to involve Russia or China in matters involving nuclear weapons, we do not see a willingness to create such politically isolated agreements."

Concerned with strategic stability

In her doctoral thesis, Withorne has looked at underlying political mechanisms that could serve as alternatives to common treaties on nuclear weapons usage when such treaties cease to exist.

"I am concerned with what is called strategic stability to curb arms races and crises. It involves communication, dialogue, and bilateral political summits," Withorne explains.

She hopes to contribute to better guidelines for nuclear weapons outside of specific agreements.

"I am trying to come up with new ways of thinking, ensuring we can navigate a new reality without binding agreements on nuclear weapons. The U.S. and China have already agreed not to include artificial intelligence in launch systems for nuclear weapons," she says. "That is a good example of how to handle the risk of nuclear weapons, even with low effort."

Best and worst scenarios going forward

What does she think, as a researcher on arms races and the danger of nuclear weapons usage, would be the worst-case scenario from a five-year perspective?

"The worst-case scenario is the use of nuclear weapons. That Russia decides to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. That they conduct some sort of nuclear test, which is misinterpreted as the use of nuclear weapons. That it then escalates into a full-scale nuclear war.

"That China invades Taiwan because of the precedent Russia set invading Ukraine. That North Korea continues to test or use nuclear weapons. That the U.S. gets a new Trump administration that says no to agreements and decides to go to war, for example with Iran. That the U.S. simultaneously tries to engage Russia in a nuclear conflict. That would be quite bad."

And the best scenario?

"That the war in Ukraine ends. That Russia decides that nuclear weapons arms control is good. That the U.S. agrees and continues with arms control. And that China does the same. That there is increased political communication and dialogue between the three major nuclear powers. And that North Korea agrees to limit their nuclear weapons in some way. That it does not escalate between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. And that the war in Gaza ends. That would be the best scenario. That would be magical."

Provided by University of Oslo