An aerial photograph of Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 shortly after the 'Little Boy' atomic bomb was dropped.Universal History Archive/Getty Images
In a competition for the prize of most wonderful irony ever, there is a strong candidate. How about the turn of events that has seen the most lethal, destructive force mankind ever created, nuclear weapons, becoming the greatest preserver of peace?
Prior to 1945, major wars between great powers occurred about every 20 or 30 years. This era ended when the second of the two catastrophic world wars terminated in 1945 with the United States dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The nuclear age began. In the 80 years that have followed, there have been no significant wars between countries that have nuclear arsenals. The weapons have gone unused. The U.S. hasn’t deployed them. Russia hasn’t. And not China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea.
Opinion: Keeping Canada’s options open on nuclear weapons is not as simple as it sounds
They’ve been restrained by the barrier known as mutually assured destruction. Because of MAD, nuclear-armed states realize that attacking one another is likely suicidal. There’s the realization that any strike would trigger a retaliatory nuclear attack, resulting in both sides being annihilated. No government is irrational enough to want that.
Hence MAD, with its basically unblemished record, has become our war preventer, our security blanket. There have been times, today’s times included, when there have been fears of World War III. MAD stands as a prime deterrent.
Great powers have involved their forces in proxy wars, such as the failed missions in Afghanistan of the Soviet Union and later the United States.
But in the 40-year history of the Cold War, the superpowers remarkably never engaged in direct conflict. Without MAD, one can only speculate about the conventional wars that may have – or more likely – would have occurred.
Prior to the late 1990s, when Pakistan joined India as a nuclear power, there were three big conventional wars between them. Since that time there have been high tensions, skirmishes and air strikes, but no major India-Pakistan wars.
Even in the case of mad-hatter regimes like North Korea, MAD appears to work.
But if one great irony is that the most horrific weapons have been a preventer of war, another is that Iran’s efforts to acquire such weapons have become, as we see today, a cause of war.
The question of Iran getting nuclear weapons has been a major source of international tension for three decades. Tensions culminated in U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision, based on the distinctly dubious claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, to launch an aerial invasion.
With Iran, the logic behind MAD does not apply. There’s the presumption that with the possession of nuclear weapons, the Iranian leadership would not just maintain them as a deterrent but might be irrational and suicidal enough to deploy them, thus bringing on almost certain retaliation from stronger nuclear powers that would kill tens of millions and reduce their country to rubble.
The Editorial Board: Canada should not join the nuclear club
The view that Iran, which likes to boast that it has never invaded another country, cannot be trusted with atomic weapons is near universally held on account of its reputation as a pariah state, a repressive dictatorship which exports terror.
Though the nuclear arsenal of a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea is held in check by MAD, the belief is this wouldn’t be the case with Iran. Ahmad Naderi, an Iranian parliament member, posted on X last year that a nuclearized Iran would receive similar security benefits as in North Korea. He noted how Mr. Trump dealt with Kim Jong Un.
But even if Iran is given the benefit of the doubt on whether it would use nuclear weapons, there are still strong reasons for blanket opposition to it getting them.
A nuclear-empowered Iran could transfer nuclear technology to proxies just as it has provided funds and weapons to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Being a nuclear power, it would feel shielded from military retaliation in so doing.
Ian Brown: Mother, do you think we’ll get the bomb?
A nuclear Iran could very well prompt Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to pursue their own nuclear programs.
MAD works as a great deterrent when it’s a case of one nuclear power versus another. It doesn’t preclude a nuclear power from using atomic weapons against non-nuclear powers.
In any case, a nuclearized Iran is not something the world will have to worry about. Any and all lengths, as seen in the current war, will be taken to prevent it from happening.
MAD, with its great track record, will not be in danger of being undercut. There will be many wars to come but MAD – the paradox of nuclear weapons being enablers of peace – will hopefully continue to provide insurance that those wars won’t involve the mega-powers or be as catastrophic as those seen prior to 1945.