A nuclear dilemma over the situation in Ukraine. Did Russia's hard-line stance deter US intervention?
A nuclear dilemma over the situation in Ukraine. Did Russia's hard-line stance deter US intervention?
The military tension in Ukraine is showing nuclear deterrence. Of course, it's due to a verbal bluff that only suggested the use of nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States. However, it is certain that Russia's hard-line stance is deterring the direct intervention of Ukraine in the United States and Europe. The impression that the Russian side threatened with the fear of nuclear weapons is emphasized, but it is also possible that the US side provoked it. The world has glimpsed the nuclear fears since MacArthur's indiscriminate drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and MacArthur's remarks on the use of atomic bombs in northeastern China in the 1951 Korean War. For 77 years from 1945 to today, direct engagement between nuclear powers, including the five victorious nations of World War II (permanent members of the UN Security Council), has been avoided. It is an undeniable fact that the absolute war deterrence of nuclear weapons was able to prevent the armed conflict between the great powers for such a long time. On the other hand, human reason has made the abolition of nuclear weapons an international treaty. Now this nuclear dilemma is once again highlighted.
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered nuclear deterrence forces to take special steps on February 27. According to Russian media, Russian experts said, "After the end of the Cold War, Russia's nuclear force was not put in this position except for exercises." On the 26th of the previous day, US President Joe Biden said, "Will we fight Russia and start World War III, or let the country that violated international law pay the price?" "Starting World War III" can be taken as a paraphrase of "starting a nuclear war." It is also believed that Putin, who took these remarks as aggressive and provocative, moved to restraint.
President Putin said in a February 24 speech proclaiming the start of a "special military operation" against Ukraine, "Russia today is one of the strongest nuclear powers in the world," and those who attack Russia are "destroyed." It will be disastrous, "he warned that the use of nuclear weapons could be possible to prevent military intervention by a third country. This is equivalent to proclaiming that Russia, which has been cornered, is facing a military invasion of Ukraine as a backwater camp.
Under these circumstances, Russia's neighboring country, Belarus, which is a member of the former Soviet Union, held a referendum on February 27 asking whether to amend the constitution for possession of nuclear weapons, and the amendment was approved. Belarus, which claims to be a "nuclear-free and neutral country," faced the crisis in Ukraine and moved to deploy nuclear weapons in its alliance, neighboring Russia. This nuclear sharing with Russia has been promoted in countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Italy, which are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Europe, which is losing its nuclear-free zone, is in a balance of fear of nuclear weapons between NATO and Russia.
This nuclear sharing with Russia has been promoted in countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Italy, which are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Europe, which is losing its nuclear-free zone, is in a balance of fear of nuclear weapons between NATO and Russia. For Putin Russia, NATO accession and nuclear sharing of neighboring Ukraine was a nightmare and could never be forgiven. Following Russia's military invasion of Ukraine, the former British Foreign Minister predicted that "the next invasion of the Baltic States". This is because the three Baltic states, which are neighboring countries of Russia and are members of NATO, may share nuclear weapons with the United States and the United Kingdom. In any case, Ukraine's next move is also very important.
Even Japan's former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who denounced Russia's military invasion, held summit meetings with President Putin nearly 30 times. He probably took action from the perspective of ensuring safety, "he said, as if he had a certain understanding of the invasion decision.
Former Prime Minister Abe made a serious remark on February 27.Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he acknowledged that "nuclear sharing", in which US nuclear weapons are deployed and jointly operated within their territory, should be discussed domestically.He said, "Japan is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has three non-nuclear principles, but the world should not be taboo to discuss the reality of how safe it is.
Prime Minister Kishida immediately denied nuclear sharing and argued that he would maintain the Three Non-Nuclear Principles. It was the Abe administration, which lasted nearly 10 years in the primary and secondary, that promoted Japan's de facto accession to NATO and made efforts to make the SDF a complementary unit to the US military on a global scale. It is unclear how far the Kishida administration can withstand the offensive of the hawks, such as the largest faction Seiwakai, which is one with the neo-conservatives.
This Abe remark was an ad balloon for the post-Kishida administration to finish the military integration between Japan and the United States and to realize Japan as a NATO major country's defense cost of more than 2% of GDP and nuclear sharing. The spirit of trying to take advantage of the Ukrainian crisis and further integrate with the US military can be seen through.
The Soviet Union succeeded in developing and testing nuclear weapons in 1949. Four years behind the United States. Many commentators have questioned why the United States did not launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union during this time. The plan was to drop hundreds of nuclear bombs. One of the factors that restrained the movement is that the field surveys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the bombing by the United States revealed that the nuclear bombing was more serious than expected.
The discussion before the nuclear deterrence theory of the development of the Soviet atomic bomb will be discussed again at a later date.
