Skip to content Skip to navigation

Geopolitics & International Affairs Blog

Other Blogs

[Student Post] Dr Nick Ritchie: “The Threat of Nuclear War in Europe: Risks and Responses”

21 November 2022

7 mins

By Alexander Weatherstone

“The risk of nuclear omnicide did not disappear with the end of the Cold War, and it still remains a systemic, existential risk” – thus began the third series of Geopolitics & International Affairs (GIA) webinars, as Dr Nick Ritchie joined staff and students from across Loughborough University to discuss the ‘The Threat of Nuclear War in Europe: Risks and Responses’. A Senior Lecturer of International Security at the University of York, Dr Ritchie’s interest and work has long been directed towards questions of nuclear disarmament, proliferation, and arms control.

Scale of Nuclear Violence

Dr Ritchie opened his talk by reminding us of the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind, and the speed with which such incontestable violence could be unleashed. During the Cold War, a 1955 Churchill-commissioned report estimated that just ten 10 megaton Soviet bombs detonated above ten major cities, in a matter of minutes or hours, could damage the UK beyond recovery. Dr Ritchie described this as ‘nation-breaking’ violence. Today, Russian bombs increase that capacity tenfold. Even a relatively ‘small’ nuclear war would have profound effects: alongside the direct costs in terms of human lives and destruction of cities and infrastructure, such a conflict could also lead to the destruction of food systems, famines, and economic ruin, not to mention severe climatic and ecological breakdown. Indeed, establishing nuclear weapon’s real capacity for destruction is vital to understanding the gravity of the threat of conflict.

Nuclear Deterrence & Rationality

Nuclear deterrence refers to the willingness of a country to use its capacity to engage in nuclear war as a threat. However, while the intention behind the threat may be to avoid or limit nuclear conflict, the potential for miscalculation arguably increases the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe. Dr Ritchie illustrated this with consideration of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and ongoing invasion of Ukraine. To deter a Western response, President Putin has issued several direct and indirect nuclear threats to which the UK, US, and other nuclear powers have responded with condemnation. The issue is that while both sides are trying to deter one another, it is impossible to know whether the issuing of threats actually has any strategic effect. Since we have yet to see nuclear deterrence fail, we cannot assess what conditions are likely to lead to failure. Nor can we prove that nuclear deterrence is working because that would mean proving a negative (i.e. that the absence of nuclear conflict is due to successful deterrence as opposed to other factors).

Next, Dr Ritchie discussed whether it is reasonable for orthodox nuclear deterrence theory to assume that nuclear actors always act rationally. Here, Dr Ritchie pointed to questions about the role of perception, bias, simplification, group-think, and emotion, particularly in terms of how these ‘intangibles’ contribute to miscalculation in nuclear decision-making. In contrast, Dr Ritchie regards the idea of nuclear deterrence as almost entirely irrational, a point he reinforced with a powerful quote from General George Lee Butler, the US’ last commander in chief for Strategic Air Command amidst the Cold War: “[d]eterrence was a dialogue of the blind with the deaf”.

Nuclear Escalation

Dr Ritchie then turned to discuss the increasing number of pathways to nuclear use, and the oft-contradictory invocation of Western exceptionalism to argue in favour of nuclear weapons being held by certain ‘responsible’ hands. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) moves towards codifying this discriminatory nature of international nuclear relations. It makes allowances for the stockpiles of certain countries while either disregarding the nuclear status of certain countries or preventing the formation of new nuclear powers. Generally speaking, Western countries seem less inclined to take issue with the existence of nuclear weapons, than with the idea of nuclear weapons being held by others outside of their control and ideological influence. For example, Iran saw billions in assets frozen by the world’s major nuclear powers when they tried to develop nuclear weapons.

Dr Ritchie also questioned whether NATO is willing to allow itself ‘to be deterred’ – to, in effect, accept a level vulnerability to other nuclear weapons states. The West’s push for restrictions and treaties on nuclear development could be interpreted as a way of circumventing this. NATO frames Russia’s possession of nuclear weapons as irresponsible and volatile, and its own as legitimate and in the interest of the greater good. The UK Ministry of Defence describes its nuclear weapons stockpile as a means to preserve peace and prevent coercion, yet it decries nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. Beijing has recently framed itself as a ‘responsible’ nuclear power, too, and joined NATO states in denouncing Russia’s threats to use all means at its disposal as it seeks to win its war in Ukraine. In doing so, China has somewhat tentatively aligned itself with the West’s altruistic capacity for nuclear destruction.

Nuclear Identities & Pertinence  

For Dr Ritchie, the key to understanding whether and how nuclear weapons might be used requires an identity-based understanding of the nuclear powers. Using Russia as a case study, he explored the idea of NATO as a cultural, existential threat to Russia, and nuclear weapons as a last vestige of a great power in decline. Nuclear weapons form, in part, a nation’s identity: for instance, Dr Ritchie drew connections between the hyper-masculine portrayal of Putin and Pan-Slavic strength of the nation to an increase in nuclear research and development, military exercises, and threats. This further entrenches the contemporary importance of Dr Ritchie’s webinar which, with contrast to February’s 2022 webinar on How Russia Sees the World by Catherine Royle, demonstrates the unpredictable dynamism of the subject.

Post-talk Discussion

Dr Ritchie’s talk was followed by questions addressing the power of public opinion and the pacifism of Jeremy Corbyn, the extent to which there are parallels to be drawn between nuclear disarmament and efforts to address the climate emergency, and NATO’s stamina to see through the conflict in Ukraine. One point, citing the high failure rates among conventional Russian weaponry, questioning the implications of this for risk calculations, was particularly constructive. Linking back to the idea of a hegemon in decline, Dr Ritchie acknowledges the intensive use of resources required to maintain 1000s of nuclear warheads and the squandering and redirection of military budgets towards corrupt generals in Russia. Is Putin himself able to know the condition of his stockpile?

What have I learned?

First and foremost, I want to extend my gratitude to Dr Ritchie for the insightful webinar, and to Duncan Depledge for this wonderful series. From this webinar, the complexity of nuclear theory has become abundantly clear to me, yet I find myself enthralled by the ideas of nuclear identity and Western supremacy, which remind me of the power relations and winner’s justice present in the Nuremberg Trials. The conflict in Ukraine really does, as argued by Dr Ritchie, cement the return of geopolitics. However, I found it necessary to be reminded that this threatens to steal the limelight from global inequalities and the cooperative endeavour required to respond to existential ecological threats. With the UK’s economic and energy crisis, the rise of new nationalist state identities, migrant crises, COVID-19, and the existential threat of climate disaster looming, it will be fascinating to apply the lessons of this webinar as current affairs unfold.

Alexander Weatherstone is studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics in his final year at Loughborough University. His dissertation, framed as a political and pedagogical analysis, will analyse the presence of the British Empire in the National Curriculum, and he holds other interests in business ethics and 20th Century American political history. Leaving Loughborough, he is seeking out roles in public relations and business strategy.

Geopolitics & International Affairs

Geopolitics & international affairs webinar series

Scroll to Top