Preface

The war in Ukraine has lasted ten months and counting. Ever since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered nuclear forces to be placed on high alert in the early days of the war, world leaders have been grappling with the threat a nuclear war might be fought. In August, when she was still the forerunner of the Conservative Party, former British Prime Minister Liz Truss vowed that she would be "ready" to use the UK's nuclear arsenal. She said that it was "an important duty of the prime minister".[1] From October 17th to October 30th, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held its annual nuclear exercise, codenamed Steadfast Noon. 14 of the 30 NATO member countries participated. The United States reportedly deployed nuclear-capable B-52 bomber jets.[2] As soon as NATO completed its drill, Russia held a nuclear exercise dubbed Grom in November.[3] Many people believe that the apocalyptic nuclear threat has returned for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

All these seem to point toward the situation where we are at a critical juncture of an imminent nuclear war. However, Chan Kung, the founder of ANBOUND Think Tank based in Beijing, does not believe a global nuclear war will break out. He argues that even though the number of nuclear warheads has kept growing and nuclear weapons delivery systems have evolved through the decades after the end of World War II, nobody wants to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. According to Chan, the reason behind this is a subtle and dangerous balance of power that can be termed "nuclear equilibrium". Simply put, a suicidal nuclear attack will not occur unless Russia or a Western country insists on pursuing a specific result that causes the imbalance of the equilibrium.

Chan Kung introduced the theory of nuclear equilibrium in his article titled Deterrence, Intimidation and Propaganda under the Framework of Nuclear Equilibrium, which was published in March 2022. The term is based on objective facts and is closely related to the mutual assured destruction (M.A.D) doctrine, the balance of terror, deterrence theory, crisis stability as well as many other nuclear weapon-related theories. "Nuclear equilibrium" helps us to understand the mechanism behind countries' efforts to prevent a nuclear holocaust.

The Popularity of Nuclear Deterrence Theory

Just a month after the world's first nuclear explosion, known as the Trinity Test, occurred on July 16, 1945, in the Jornada del Muerto desert in New Mexico, the United States dropped two atomic bombs in Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed between 150,000 and 200,000 people.[4] On a TV broadcast, as he reflected on witnessing the Trinity explosion, the 'father' of the atomic bomb Robert Oppenheimer, recited a quote from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."[5]

Between 1946 and 1949, the United States conducted six more nuclear tests. On August 29th, 1949, the Soviet Union conducted its first atomic bomb test.[6] The US-Soviet Union nuclear arm race thus began, which simultaneously started the process of nuclear equilibrium. How to prevent a nuclear war has become the top challenge facing world leaders. As American strategist Bernard Brodie wrote in his 1946 book The Absolute Weapon : Atomic Power and World Order, "thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose."[7] The West realized at the beginning of the Cold War that nuclear war would only bring M.A.D, referring to the notion that a nuclear attack by one actor would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack such that both the initiator and the defender would be annihilated.[8] The M.A.D principle creates the balance of terror that prevents the world from falling apart and humankind from annihilation. M.A.D is therefore the goal for countries with nuclear weapons to pursue to create a deterrent against military aggression and the use of nuclear weapons from enemy states.

Brodie introduces the deterrence theory in the Absolute Weapon and argues that the US has the right to deploy nuclear weapons if it is attacked by another country. Near the end of 1953, the Eisenhower Administration approved a top-secret document that cleared the way for the US to expand its nuclear arsenal to meet perceived threats from the Soviet Union.[9]

However, as the Soviets successfully developed its own nuclear weapons, the US seemed to lose its advantages. In 1958, RAND Corporation strategist Albert Wohlstetter published an article entitled The Delicate Balance of Terror on Foreign Affairs and stated that the US must not overlook Soviet Union's nuclear capability. He believed that the Soviets might launch a surprise attack against the US and that the Washington might not be able to stop such offense on time. Wohlstetter suggested that the US government must have the resources, intelligence, and courage to make the correct decisions as well as strengthen the "second strike" capability to counterattack the Soviet's "first strike" if it decides to attack the US.[10]

The deterrence theory has progressed over the decades, and the same is true of people's understanding of nuclear war and arm race. In fact, deterrence theory is the most important theory that has impacted global security.

The structure of the deterrence theory is quite basic. It is generally believed that deterrence is achieved mainly through "punishment" or "denial". The former refers to the establishment of a force with sufficient destructive power, so that the other party will be forced to give up its offensive behavior in consideration of its own losses. This method is defensive in nature. The latter refers to deterrence by reducing the success rate of the other party's offensive behavior and itself is offensive in a certain sense.[11] In his 1959 book Strategy in the Missile Age, Brodie's view was that a country with a reliable nuclear deterrent must always be ready to use nuclear weapons, but they must not already be used beforehand, else deterrence would be impossible.[12]

Thomas Schelling, an American economist professor from the University of Maryland and Nobel laureate, argued in 1966 that the ability to inflict harm on another country is now used as a factor in preventing the country from doing something. He believed that the power of bargaining based on force makes the basis of the deterrence theory. Schelling also defined the term "crisis stability" and said that when conflict arises, if the benefits brought by surprise attacks are less than the cost, then neither side wants to launch the first attack. Therefore, to ensure strategical stability, rather than reducing nuclear warheads, it is important for the two powers to know that no side has the motive to strike first, thus a nuclear war is prevented.

During the Cold War, the world order was established under the nuclear umbrella of the US and the Soviet Union. This setup was possible because of the formation of relative nuclear equilibrium.

Therefore, the deterrence theory had its own unique value, and hence it made sense that it was developed during this period. A relatively weak but nuclear-owning state could use the extreme destructive power of nuclear weapons to stop another more powerful adversary. As long as this particular relatively weak country could survive the first wave of surprise attacks, it would have its voice in the new international world order system. This logical thinking has prompted more countries desiring to possess nuclear power and has accelerated the development of nuclear weapons and technology.[13]

How Deterrence Theory Becomes Outdated

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world beckoned a new era with the development of nuclear technology and the popularization of nuclear weapons globally. More and more countries have begun to come into possession of nuclear weapons, and this has greatly questioned and challenged the existing value of deterrence theory.

Frank Zagare, an American political science professor at the University at Buffalo argued in 2004 that the classic deterrence theory was logically inconsistent, empirically inaccurate, and prescriptively deficient. He pointed out that the deterrence theory assumes states are rational and conflict is the worst outcome. He said that these hypotheses are internally contradictory because under the rational condition, since conflict is the worst result, when the initiator launches attack, the defender has only cooperation as an option, otherwise conflict cannot be avoided. This is illogical. What if the initiator has less deterrence power than the defender? To cite North Korea as an example, its nuclear power cannot compete with that of the US, and it is unable to arbitrarily drop a nuclear bomb on California. Will the US government simply agree to cooperate with Pyongyang and the two parties might reach a deal favoring the North Korean leadership? Zagare objected to the classic deterrence theory and proposed the perfect deterrence theory, which argues that states should develop limited nuclear capability and pursue treaties that prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.[14]

Geopolitical experts and scholars such as Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Schultz, and Sam Nunn also expressed similar views. From 2007 to 2011, they wrote articles calling for a world without nuclear weapons. They believe that nuclear deterrence is far from making the world a safer place and that nuclear weapons have become an extremely risky element.[15]

In China, having tracked the risk of nuclear warfare, ANBOUND has warned numerous times that since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, because of the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, especially the universalization of nuclear states, the world is facing unprecedented risks of nuclear war.

In other words, ANBOUND's main point of view is that the theory of nuclear deterrence is now outdated, and the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war is actually kind of self-numbing in nature. As the world enters an era of nuclear confrontation, nuclear strategy is now a norm that is part of the greater scope of military strategy. With the change of times, the dated model of nuclear deterrence that relied on "punishment" and "denial" simultaneously is disintegrating. In the era of nuclear confrontation, Chan believes that the future nuclear forces and its related theory will gradually tilt toward the "denial" approach. The operational objective of nuclear weapons will be to rapidly transit from confrontations in values to the confrontations of forces. The future of nuclear deterrence will be ever more aggressive. This also means that the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used will be ever higher and that the risk of a real nuclear war taking place in the world will be more shocking and confusing than ever before.[16]

Nuclear Equilibrium Constrains Nuclear War

As the number of countries with nuclear weapons increases, there are presently several forms of nuclear confrontations:

1. The Israeli-Iranian nuclear threat model that ensures the military geography superiority formed by the possession of nuclear weapons.

2. North Korea's nuclear provocative model that ensures geopolitical bargaining power.

3. The India-Pakistan nuclear superiority model that ensures conventional military superiority.

4. The nuclear equilibrium model of the United States, Russia, and China that ensures the nuclear order holds true among the major powers.[17]

The example of North Korea is used here as a case study. The country's landscape, national power, and military power cannot sustain itself in a nuclear war with other nations. It can only use nuclear weapons to intimidate South Korea and Japan but its ability to counter the US is practically null. As American columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in 2001 about why he is against Bush Administration's plan to build a national missile defense shield, rogue states such as Iran and North Korea are anything but insane; instead they want to survive. They will not launch missiles toward the American shore because they know they will be punished heavily during the counterattack. Friedman said that these countries will only use terrorists, secret agents, and third parties to hit the US indirectly in its weakest spots, such as bars and embassies in foreign countries.[18] In the current world, only the US and Russia are at nuclear parity and able to destroy each other. Chan believes this resulted in the nuclear equilibrium which prevents the world from a nuclear war after World War II.

The nuclear equilibrium theory underlines that the M.A.D principle ensures the existence of a dangerous balance. In fact, this mode is a strong and objective security mechanism that is controllable, even though it does not guarantee true safety. It is important to note that nuclear equilibrium is objective and has structural implications while M.A.D is a result pursued by many countries based on geopolitical security concerns. Chan discovered that when pursuing the outcome of M.A.D, if the number of nuclear weapons owned by the major countries with nuclear power exceeds the need to absolutely destroy the other party, the nature of nuclear war will change. As soon as this line of terror is crossed, the nuclear war becomes suicidal. This sudden change of war nature makes it impossible for a worldwide nuclear war to occur.

When Oppenheimer developed nuclear weapons, he worried that he had wakened a formidable force of annihilation, and humanity would soon meet its end. Chan's discovery regarding nuclear weapons reveals another aspect of this deadly technology, that is, the balance between countries with nuclear weapons will achieve once they realize they have released an equal number of forces of destruction on the battlefield. Therefore, the nuclear equilibrium mentioned by Chan Kung is equivalent to the definition of a special equilibrium state in the theory of nuclear war. Obviously, the definition of this nuclear war theory reveals the status and future of nuclear weapons in the world.

What many people may not have thought is that after the end of World War II, the popular deterrence theory led to the continuous growth of the nuclear warheads of the US and the Soviet Union. When the number of nuclear weapons increased beyond the need to ensure mutual destruction, it led to nuclear equilibrium. Beyond this point is definitely destruction. Nobody will be able to start the war once this threshold is passed. According to the nuclear equilibrium theory, pressing the nuclear button by either party is equivalent to pressing the nuclear war button by both sides at the same time, which simply put, is tantamount to collective suicide. Therefore, the nuclear equilibrium reveals the reality of the world with atomic bombs. Nuclear war is not an act of war, but an act of suicide, a personal act of seeking destruction. Because once a "nuclear war" breaks out in the world in the future, there will be no winners and losers, no political interests, no economic prospects, no parties, no authority, no rulers nor those being ruled. The only thing left is death. There is no need for rationality in the face of this shared prospect of collective death since it is simply not the goal of any ambitious politician.

Will international treaties be able to ensure this equilibrium situation? The answer is no.

Since the birth of nuclear weapons, many treaties, organizations, and commitments related to the limitation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons have emerged, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Chan Kung pointed out that in a world dominated by geopolitical turmoil, all international treaties, organizations, and commitments are ultimately unreliable. However, the nuclear equilibrium is objective and dependable, and will not be easily broken. It is because this equilibrium maintains the basic stability of today's nuclear world, rather than relying on technology, treaties, organizations, and political commitments to maintain it. It is precisely because the nuclear equilibrium is in the hands of limited nuclear powers that the world has a real nuclear power balance. Some countries may help other ambitious countries master nuclear weapons, but there is absolutely no country that would be folly enough to help another to possess the largest number of nuclear weapons, as this will cause it to lose its decisive power in nuclear wars. This is the fundamental reason why the nuclear equilibrium can restrict and limit the outbreak of nuclear wars launched at will. International treaties simply do not have the same impacts.

Nuclear Equilibrium's Implication for Russia and Ukraine

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Putin has repeatedly talked about the use of nuclear weapons in the future, and he put Russia's nuclear forces on high alert and in special mode. At the same time, Russian bomber jets have entered Ukraine's sky. The world is unsettled because of Russia's behavior. Nearly all global media are talking about the danger of an upcoming nuclear war. As for Putin putting nuclear forces in "special mode", it is a kind of "nuclear propaganda". He did this not to frighten the foreign audience, but it was meant for the Russian public. Hence, it is a form of propaganda. The objective was to showcase Putin's power to the Russians, so as to maintain his own image. To put it more clearly, he wants to ensure the legitimacy of his political power. However, neither he nor Russia is ready to commit suicide or destroyed by another country's bombs.

Unfortunately, not many people in the West are familiar with the nuclear equilibrium theory. On a possible Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine, Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau recently said in an interview with Polish radio RMF FM that NATO would have a "conventional response". Asked whether NATO troops would enter Ukraine, Rau said he does not rule out that possibility. However, he added that NATO may strike Russia with aircraft and missiles, but not necessarily launch them from Ukraine.[19] At the same time, a retired US general who still maintains close ties with the military also stated that the West's response to Russia's use of tactical nuclear weapons may include NATO's war intervention, such as the establishment of a no-fly zone in the Baltic Sea.

For Chan, the responses from the West are neither strong nor rational enough to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear war. On the contrary, they might stimulate the actual outbreak of it. In fact, Chan has criticized 'responses regarding the nuclear war from the cowardly and ignorant Western and American politicians as well as amateur strategists. French President Emmanuel Macron has already remarked that Paris would not trigger a nuclear response if Russia launched such an attack 'in Ukraine or in the region.' [20]Recently, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan warned Putin of 'catastrophic' consequences if he uses nuclear weapons. But Sullivan did not describe the nature of the planned U.S. response.[21] This kind of intimidating language, which is strong on the outside but weak on the inside, is probably very difficult for a seasoned geo-politician like Putin to take seriously. In Chan's view, these Western politicians are entrapped in the challenges at hand, and they have arbitrarily changed the rules of the nuclear game. They promote the generalization of the use of nuclear weapons that more nations are now daring to be a part of the nuclear gambling. This will inevitably bring our world into an unprecedented and extremely dangerous state.

The world is now at a critical geopolitical juncture, which is a technical decision-making one. If the politicians and relevant actors of nuclear powers do not have the courage to make professional responses to nuclear threats, it will only encourage the proliferation of nuclear war in this world. Chan points out that what the US can do now is to act according to the theory of "nuclear equilibrium". To prevent Putin from taking desperate risks, the US must convince him that it will not tolerate Russia if he pushes the nuclear war button. According to the nuclear equilibrium theory, whoever triggers a nuclear war first must take sole responsibility, because that will result in the imbalance of nuclear power. Thus, the US will have no option if Russia initiates a nuclear war. The counterattack will be overwhelming, and entire Russia can be wiped off. When Russia is erased from the planet, the denuclearization of the world will be restored, and the state of nuclear equilibrium is achieved again. As a matter of fact, the US did attempt to "eliminate" Russia, or to be more correct, the Soviet Union before. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US almost launched nuclear missiles and deployed nuclear submarines and militia nuclear missiles, which was the moment when Washington and Moscow came closest to nuclear conflict. But this was what stopped the nuclear war from happening.

Politicians in the West are still figuring out how to deal with Russia. Fortunately, Putin softened his tone. On October 27, Putin made it clear at the annual conference of the Valdai Discussion Club that Russia will not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine because it would be a meaningless approach.[22] At least Putin understands some of the key elements of the nuclear equilibrium theory. He seems to comprehend something that Western politicians fail to do so, and he is unwilling to commit suicide with Russia.

Subsequently, the US Department of Defense also released the National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review and Missile Defense Review on October 27. The Nuclear Posture Assessment Report includes that the United States will not increase the number of nuclear weapons and cancels the two policies of "no first use of nuclear weapons" and "nuclear weapons only use deterrence and retaliation to counterattack".[23] The tone of this document against Russia is quite tough, and the US has begun to revise its nuclear policy which begins its determination to return to nuclear equilibrium.

From the perspective of nuclear equilibrium theory, this is an arm-wrestling movement in the field of geopolitics. The two sides are at a stalemate, but neither the US nor Russia wants to be the first to break the balance. Russia, which was tough at the beginning, has softened its tone; the US, which was reluctant to act is becoming tougher. This change in geopolitical situation is not accidental, but a realization of the inherent objectivity of nuclear equilibrium theory. The US must ensure nuclear balance in order to achieve nuclear security. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, it will inevitably cause a nuclear imbalance, and this is absolutely unacceptable to the US. The latter will not allow itself to be threatened by nuclear weapons. Under the theory of nuclear equilibrium, all of this is an inevitable chain reaction.

For its own national security and the world to avoid nuclear disasters, it will then be inevitable for the US to flex its muscles.

Conclusion

If the signals of nuclear war appear intensively, it means that someone is indeed planning a dangerous nuclear war. During the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia once hinted at the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. At the same time, some Western politicians continued to lower their bargaining chips and prompted more nations to participate in nuclear gambling. As it stands, this has brought humanity closer to the danger of a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Fortunately, the existence of "nuclear equilibrium" prevents the outbreak of nuclear war from happening. The world is safe, at least for now.

In today's geopolitical environment, it is not easy to maintain peace. How countries rationally use the security mechanism of "nuclear equilibrium" in foreign and military policies is a test of wisdom. Although more and more countries now possess nuclear weapons, it is the United States and Russia that have the final say on the status of future nuclear war.