The Growing Incentive to Go Nuclear

From now on, any state with genuine fears for its own security is bound to consider building nuclear weapons. Over nearly eight decades after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, careful diplomacy and multinational collaboration have limited the number of nuclear-armed countries to nine. But that count is likely to rise—ironically because of American policies designed to prevent nuclear escalation with Russia. Recent events have shown how much deference even superpowers give to countries with nuclear weapons, and how grievously Ukraine has suffered for lacking them.

Last Saturday, Iranian forces launched a large air assault on Israel. They used a range of systems, including relatively simple drones as well as cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. The apparent goal was to overwhelm Israeli air defenses so that at least some of the missiles and drones could get through and hit their target. Iran’s move seems to have been inspired by devastating Russian aerial attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure in recent months—and indeed was larger than any that Russia had launched on a single night.

Ultimately, though, the operation was a bust. Israeli officials estimated that 99 percent of the Iranian attack force was intercepted; U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal that half of Iran’s ballistic missiles crashed or failed to launch. A 7-year-old girl was critically injured, but there were no other casualties. Few if any targets of military value were hit. (Last night, Israel retaliated accordingly, with a limited strike on an Iranian military base. Both sides seemed to play down the significance of the move.)

Excellent Israeli air defense and faulty Iranian equipment aren’t the only reasons the Iranian attack failed. An extraordinary coalition of other states—the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and, most important, the United States—put their own aircraft into action and destroyed many, probably most, of the incoming drones and missiles.

[Anne Applebaum: Why did the U.S. defend Israel but not Ukraine?]

The United States has made a number of strategic miscalculations since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, but the single greatest may be the message that the Biden administration just sent about nuclear weapons. The U.S. showed that it would protect a nuclear-armed friend, Israel, from an as-yet-nonnuclear enemy (Iran); at the same time, Washington has refused to consider using its forces to defend a nonnuclear friend (Ukraine) against a nuclear-armed Russia.

Other governments will deduce that states with nuclear weapons can barbarically attack America’s friends and bully U.S. leaders into abandoning them. The British government has underscored that sentiment by basically admitting that, precisely because of fears of escalation with Russia, Ukraine won’t get the same help that Israel did. Even if the U.S. and its allies were more coy about their calculations, their conduct will encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation in the coming years.

Indeed, escalation worries have made the U.S. timid about helping Ukraine in ways far short of the direct defense it provided Israel. Even when grudgingly going along with Kyiv’s requests for advanced weaponry, the Biden administration has imposed limits on how and where that equipment can be used.

The immediate aid that the U.S. and its allies provided to Israel hints at how much more of a difference they could make in the Ukrainian war effort. They could, for instance, institute a no-fly zone over the western part of Ukraine. This would protect vital infrastructure in half of Ukraine from missiles and drones—while also using the West’s own power of deterrence to keep out manned Russian aircraft. Furthermore, by protecting the western half of Ukraine, the U.S. would allow the Ukrainian military to concentrate its air-defense efforts in the east. The beleaguered Ukrainians would have fewer variables to worry about and could use their precious stocks of anti-air ammunition more efficiently.

Instead, the Biden administration is allowing Russia to use the threat of nuclear weapons as cover for its effort to conquer a sovereign neighbor by force. Ukraine is not just any nonnuclear state; it is a state that gave up its nuclear weapons because the U.S. and Russia firmly promised in 1994 to respect its territorial integrity.

In their passivity, the U.S. and its allies are acquiescing in the destruction of the post–World War II nuclear order—which in many ways was a great success. Since the Second World War, the two major nuclear powers never used their nuclear weapons to win wars—even when, as with the U.S. in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, they were losing in conventional warfare. And although a small number of other states, including China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, have built nuclear arsenals, many more governments with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons have so far declined to do so.

[From the July/August 2022 issue: We have no nuclear strategy]

The global order is becoming less stable in other ways. The Biden administration’s weak response to Russia is bad enough; a second Trump administration could follow a still more destructive policy of telling even close, longtime allies that they can’t count on American support. When Donald Trump said publicly earlier this year that he would encourage Russians to do “whatever the hell they want” with European NATO member states that don’t spend enough on defense, he was signaling to leaders in Europe and around the world that the North Atlantic Alliance is in jeopardy.

Other countries will take note—and begin to arm themselves for a more dangerous world. South Korea, for one, is quietly discussing the prospect of developing nuclear weapons. It’s also talking about constructing a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines, even though it has an agreement with the U.S. not to do so. Many governments will make similar calculations.

We have reached a dangerous moment. In its desperate attempts to de-escalate tensions with Russia, the Biden administration is reinforcing the message around the world that nuclear weapons provide security and freedom of action. When countries are presented with a clear choice between being shielded from attack and being left to their fate, no one should be surprised at which option they’ll take.