Can Two Countries Agree to Not Use Nuclear Weapons Against Each Other?

Nuclear weapons represent a relatively modern development in warfare, but diplomacy and geopolitics are ancient practices. Throughout history, nations have resolved conflicts without resorting to war. However, recent events highlight the challenges in maintaining such agreements, particularly when nuclear-armed states are involved.

A decade ago, Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal, which had been part of the former Soviet Union, to Russia in exchange for a binding non-aggression pact. Unfortunately, this agreement has proven ineffective.

The Ineffectiveness of Agreements Between Nuclear-Armed States

An agreement is only as strong as the commitment of those who sign it. A country that is determined to use nuclear weapons will not be deterred by previous accords. Russia, for instance, continues to exhibit aggressive postures even after Ukraine's disarmament.

Can Aggressive Countries Be Convinced to Change?

Militarily aggressive and warlike nations are unlikely to change their behavior. If they were susceptible to change, they would not have become that way in the first place. Therefore, relying on such countries to adhere to agreements is challenging, if not impossible.

Limited Wars Without Nuclear Use

Will two nuclear powers that decide to go to war necessarily use their nuclear weapons? While nuclear weapons are often seen as a deterrent to full-scale war, history shows that both sides may use them in negotiations and soft-power measures. The primary role of nuclear weapons is to make conflict so costly that both sides prefer diplomacy over armed conflict.

Nevertheless, modern wars are often fought for less than existential stakes, and both sides do not expect or envision a total victor and loser scenario. For example, if two nuclear powers were to wage war over the invasion of one into the other, both nations might opt for a negotiated settlement rather than mutual annihilation. The outcome would likely involve finding a peaceful resolution concerning the future status of a third country, not a nuclear holocaust.

However, even small and limited wars involving nuclear powers carry significant risks. The threat of nuclear escalation and the potential for accidental or miscommunication-driven escalation pose major dangers. Even if the intent is to avoid complete nuclear warfare, the mere presence of nuclear weapons increases the overall danger of the conflict.

Leadership plays a crucial role in navigating these complex international dynamics. Summit conferences and direct negotiations between leaders, as Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev demonstrated, are essential for making and affirming agreements. Leaders who are thoughtful, world-wise, and capable of making concessions are critical in preventing or managing conflicts.

Conclusion

The challenge of nuclear disarmament and maintaining non-aggression pacts between nuclear-armed states is formidable. While it may not always be possible to avoid nuclear use in conflict, diplomatic efforts and negotiations remain essential for averting the worst outcomes. As such, the world must continue to strive for dialogue, understanding, and collaboration among nations to mitigate the risks associated with nuclear weapons.