Nuclear deterrence is not infallible: a conventional war can escalate into a global nuclear war
If – God forbid – a global nuclear war should ever come upon us, it is most likely that it would develop out of a conventional war.
In the 1970s argument about nuclear weapons, supporters of deterrence frequently averred that “No rational man would use a nuclear weapon”. This was before the advent of Trump, who more than once suggested that he could attack another country and say he was not responsible. This story appeared in another news outlet.
At the time of writing (May 2026) the leaders of Russia and of the USA have both given quiet hints that they might use nuclear weapons in the wars they are fighting, Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine, and Trump in his illegal attack on Iran. The muttered threats are probably just “nuclear blackmail” (as in “This is what I could do if you don”t give me what I want”), but they do also give an indication of the way they are thinking, that nuclear weapons are something they could actually use.
Modern nuclear doctrine makes a distinction between “strategic” and “tactical” nuclear weapons. The latter are much smaller, about the size of the bomb that was used on Hiroshima in 1945, killing a mere 100,000 people, and some military theorists suggest that they could be used in much the same way as conventional bombs are used. This would be a very dangerous step, because it could escalate to the other side delivering more or bigger nuclear weapons, and then to a rapid escalation to an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons, that is, to an all-out, global nuclear war. The main worry of politicians fighting a nuclear war is that the adversary might succeed in eliminating their nuclear forces. This is the “First Strike” doctrine, and it leads to hair-trigger instant responses and rapic escalation.
The alternative would be an act of de-escalation on the part of the side that was hit by the tactical weapon, taking the hit philosophically, as if to say “Well, these guys really do want to win, so we had better turn the other cheek and put our hands up and start talking about de-escalation”.
If politicians cannot see their way to de-escalation in times of peace, how can they possibly hope to de-escalate in wartime, when one tactical nuclear weapon has already been used?
This response is unlikely to the point of impossible. It is far more likely that they would respond with delivery of one or two of their own tactical weapons, starting a vicious spiral of escalation that would culminate in a global nuclear war, which would end human civilisation on this or any planet.
It is therefore of the greatest importance that nuclear powers start talking together about these dangers right now, and set about reducing, rather than increasing, the number of nuclear weapons that they have in their possession.
There have been at least eleven incidents where nuclear deterrence came perilously close to making the transition to nuclear war
Deterrence is not infallible.
It follows that we must rid the Earth of these weapons of mass destruction, and reduce significantly the number and intensity of wars that are taking place.
This is possible, given the political will, and it is up to us, the people, to create that will, working with wise politicians to overcome the denial and intellectual laziness that operates in so many politicians and commentators.
Next: An all-out, Global Nuclear War would end human civilisation
A More Peaceful World 