Don't Give Up Your Nukes!
At least, not unless you can find another method of deterrence.
Time for another attempt at a value-neutral discussion of a politically-charged topic.
There is no doubt that nuclear weapons are dangerous. There is some doubt about their role in maintaining relative world peace since 1945 (compared especially to the 31 years prior to that date), but their record as a deterrent remains undefeated.1
What is clearer is how difficult self-preservation can be for a non-nuclear state when facing a nuclear adversary, unless you’re a conventional military powerhouse or diplomatically well-connected.
Ukraine is the most obvious example. After giving up their nuclear weapons following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and remaining on the outside looking in at NATO—with its Article V obligations and three nuclear powers—the last 11 years and counting have seen some devastating outcomes there.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, meanwhile, got into NATO’s nuclear umbrella, and are fine (so far). Belarus and Kazakhstan, like Ukraine, did not keep their Soviet-era weapons, but Belarus remained a Russian satellite state and Kazakhstan’s relations with Russia are also close, although apparently 2022 caused some rifts.
Ukraine is not the only government that turned over a nuclear program and later faced instability. In the aftermath of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Libya’s dictator Muammur Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program.2 Within a decade, the Arab Spring had ended his 42 years in power (with a big assist from the United States and others). Saddam Hussein spent much of his 24 years in power either running or pretending to run a nuclear program, and short some actual successes, it didn’t do him much good either.3 But the Kim family is still ensconced in North Korea.
These examples just pertain to military uses of the atom, but you can actually make related points about civil nuclear energy. Germany decided to forgo it entirely, and one consequence has been finding itself reliant on energy imports from Russia, which in turn help to finance Russia’s military aims.4
None of this is to say nuclear weapons are a common good. The world is probably better off with fewer of them, due to their worse case scenario. And by the way, if you’re worried about that type of thing, it’s worth noting that the number has fallen significantly since 1989–91.5 The Americans and Soviets had more than 60,000 combined in 1985, but now the U.S. and Russia have about 12,000 total, which represents 90% of the world supply.
However, for some countries, total nuclear disarmament isn’t all roses. Sometimes, the guns come for you afterwards.
Whether or not we yet have a meaningful sample size.
The nuclear element is the only parallel I’m drawing between post-Soviet Ukraine and Gaddafi’s Libya here.
Objectively true for him, despite all the negatives the situation also produced for the United States.
Giving up nuclear energy too soon in the shift from fossil fuels to renewables seems, to me, to be a pretty bad idea just in general.
Especially if you don’t have a geothermal energy industry either! (Disclaimer: I have some insignificant number of shares in a geothermal company.)
As I recall, John Oliver didn’t tell you this, but I’m not rewatching it now.