Diplomacy After Nuclear Launch: Is There Time?

The use of nuclear weapons in conflict has been a concern since World War II, when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, marking the birth of atomic diplomacy. The threat of nuclear warfare has been used as a diplomatic tool ever since, with the Cold War seeing both the US and the Soviet Union employ atomic diplomacy on several occasions. However, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the principle of mutually assured destruction, the benefits of using nuclear weapons in conflict have diminished. Despite this, the threat of nuclear war remains, and the question of whether there is time for diplomacy after nukes are launched is a critical one.

Explore related products

Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy

$30.7 $37

Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War (Modern War Studies)

$44.96 $59.99

Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War: Diplomacy, Battle and Lessons

$11.88 $39.95

Dreams for a Decade: International Nuclear Abolitionism and the End of the Cold War (Power, Politics, and the World)

$45 $45

The Future of War: A History

$14.7 $14.95

Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945

$172.99 $230

The threat of nuclear war

During the Cold War, there were several occasions when atomic diplomacy was employed by both sides of the conflict. For example, during the Berlin Blockade of 1948-1949, President Truman transferred several B-29 bombers capable of delivering nuclear bombs to the region, signalling to the Soviet Union that the US was capable and willing to execute a nuclear attack if necessary.

The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was another example of atomic diplomacy, where the Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles to Cuba was an attempt to force US concessions on Europe. However, by the mid-1960s, the US and the Soviet Union had achieved approximate parity, and their security was based on the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD). This meant that the benefits of using nuclear weapons in a conflict were greatly diminished, as neither side could make a first strike without the threat of a counterstrike.

Despite efforts to reduce nuclear weapons and improve diplomatic relations, the threat of nuclear war remains a concern in the 21st century. In recent years, the political crisis with North Korea and the withdrawal of the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia have brought the issue of nuclear diplomacy back into focus.

The challenge now is to integrate the issue of nuclear disarmament into the vibrant mass movements of the current era, such as climate action or healthcare advocacy. It is clear that the threat of nuclear war cannot be eliminated through traditional means alone, and a nonpartisan approach is necessary to counter the allure of defense contracts and the development of offensive nuclear weapons.

The use of nuclear weapons

The United States became the first and only nuclear-capable power, a monopoly that granted it immense strategic leverage and influenced its diplomatic and military decisions. This monopoly was short-lived, however, as the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear arsenal, setting the stage for the Cold War and a delicate balance of mutual deterrence.

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in "atomic diplomacy," where the threat of nuclear warfare was used as a tool to achieve diplomatic goals. This included instances where nuclear capabilities were demonstrated or deployed to signal resolve or coerce the other side into concessions. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, for example, brought the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear conflict.

Despite numerous instances of atomic diplomacy and close calls, there has not been a nuclear weapon detonation in conflict since World War II. This can be attributed to the concept of mutually assured destruction, where a nuclear attack by one side would result in devastating retaliation by the other. This deterrence is a central pillar of nuclear diplomacy and has kept the peace between major powers, albeit uneasily, for decades.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan, has further complicated the diplomatic landscape. While the spread of nuclear capabilities has been relatively slow, with some nations voluntarily dismantling their programs, it nonetheless increases the risk of nuclear conflict or accidental detonation.

In recent years, there has been a renewed focus on nuclear diplomacy, with efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and improve relations between nuclear-armed states. However, the challenge of preventing nuclear conflict remains ever-present, and the resources devoted to nuclear buildups by nations continue to be staggering.

The potential for retaliation

The development of nuclear weapons and the ensuing arms race between global superpowers during the Cold War era heightened tensions and the potential for nuclear conflict. The United States and the Soviet Union, in particular, engaged in a delicate balance of atomic diplomacy, where the threat of nuclear warfare was used as a bargaining chip to achieve diplomatic goals. This delicate balance relied on the assumption that neither side wanted to face the consequences of a nuclear exchange and that both sides had the capability to inflict unacceptable damage on the other.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan, further complicates the potential for retaliation. While these nations may not possess the same number of nuclear warheads or delivery systems as the original nuclear powers, they still have the capability to inflict significant damage on their regional adversaries. This multipolar nuclear landscape increases the complexity of diplomatic relations and the potential for miscalculations or unintended escalations.

Additionally, the deployment of nuclear weapons on different platforms, such as land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic submarines, introduces further challenges. The varying speeds and response times associated with these delivery systems can impact decision-making during a crisis, potentially reducing the time available for diplomacy and increasing the risk of accidental launches or unauthorized strikes.

In conclusion, the potential for retaliation after nuclear weapons are deployed remains a critical aspect of international relations and nuclear diplomacy. The concept of mutually assured destruction has served as a deterrent, but the proliferation of nuclear capabilities and the complexity of modern delivery systems introduce new challenges. To reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, nations must continually work towards arms control, disarmament, and the transformation of political relationships, as advocated by the Harvard Nuclear Study Group in their 1983 book, "Living with Nuclear Weapons."

Explore related products

Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam

$28.11 $37

The Kremlinologist: Llewellyn E Thompson, America's Man in Cold War Moscow (Johns Hopkins Nuclear History and Contemporary Affairs)

$42 $39.95

Norman Cousins: Peacemaker in the Atomic Age (Johns Hopkins Nuclear History and Contemporary Affairs)

$27.78 $35

John Foster Dulles and the Diplomacy of the Cold War

$43.33 $67

A Voice in Their Own Destiny: Reagan, Thatcher, and Public Diplomacy in the Nuclear 1980s (Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond)

$29.95

On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century

$20.27 $32

The impact on diplomatic relations

The use of nuclear weapons has had a profound impact on diplomatic relations throughout history, with nations employing atomic diplomacy to pursue their foreign policy goals. The very first use of nuclear weapons in warfare, by the United States against Japan in 1945, set a precedent for the role of nuclear weapons in diplomacy. Historians debate whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended solely to force Japan's surrender or also to gain leverage in postwar negotiations with the Soviet Union. This marked the beginning of the Cold War, where both the US and the Soviet Union engaged in atomic diplomacy, threatening nuclear attacks to achieve their diplomatic objectives.

During the Berlin Blockade and the Korean War, President Truman deployed B-29 bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons, signalling the US's willingness to use them if necessary. Similarly, the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba in 1962, attempting to force concessions from the US. These instances highlight how nuclear weapons became central to diplomatic strategies during the Cold War.

However, as the Cold War progressed, the concept of mutually assured destruction emerged, recognising that neither superpower could initiate a nuclear strike without facing devastating retaliation. This realisation led to a shift in diplomatic approaches. By the mid-1960s, the focus shifted towards arms control and nuclear disarmament, recognising that the proliferation of nuclear weapons heightened the risk of catastrophic global consequences. Treaties such as the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (1974) and SALT II (1979) were signed to limit nuclear arsenals and reduce the likelihood of nuclear war.

Despite these efforts, the threat of nuclear warfare continued to loom large in diplomatic relations. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear conflict, shaping the foreign policies of both the US and the Soviet Union. The realisation of the immense dangers associated with nuclear weapons prompted a reevaluation of diplomatic strategies, with movements advocating for nuclear freeze and disarmament gaining momentum.

In conclusion, the existence of nuclear weapons has had a profound and complex impact on diplomatic relations. While their use as a diplomatic tool, known as atomic diplomacy, has been a recurring strategy, the inherent dangers of nuclear warfare have also driven efforts towards arms control and disarmament. The delicate balance between these opposing forces continues to shape global diplomacy, influencing the strategies employed by nations to pursue their foreign policy objectives.

The possibility of nuclear disarmament

Nuclear disarmament refers to the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. The end goal of nuclear disarmament is a world free from nuclear weapons. While some argue that nuclear weapons have made the world safer by acting as a deterrent, others argue that the only way to eliminate nuclear risks is to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The number of nuclear warheads in global military stockpiles is increasing, with nine countries possessing roughly 12,331 warheads as of 2025. The United States and Russia possess approximately 88% of these warheads, with the remaining nuclear-armed states believing that they need only a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security. Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the overall pace of reduction has slowed, and nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future.

There have been some efforts towards nuclear disarmament, such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) in the United States, which has received bipartisan domestic support. Additionally, some U.S. elder statesmen, including Sam Nunn, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz, have advocated for nuclear disarmament and proposed urgent steps towards that goal. International non-partisan groups like Global Zero have also been established to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons.

To achieve nuclear disarmament, domestic policy changes and cooperation between nuclear-armed countries are necessary. Diplomacy has played a crucial role in reducing nuclear arsenals in the past, with multiple treaties and agreements helping to reduce US and Soviet arsenals significantly. However, international nuclear arms control efforts have faced challenges in recent years, with the New START Treaty between the US and Russia set to expire in 2026 with no replacement in sight.

While the possibility of nuclear disarmament remains uncertain, it is important to continue working towards reducing the risk of nuclear war through policy changes, cooperation, and verified agreements between nuclear-armed countries.

Frequently asked questions