The erosion of global security: When nuclear deterrence becomes the last line of survival
The international system is currently witnessing one of its most perilous moments since the end of World War II. What was viewed for decades as an integrated framework for maintaining international peace and security is now suffering from a gradual erosion affecting its legal foundations, political institutions, and enforcement mechanisms. International crises are no longer managed according to the rules of international law; instead, the balance of power and the interests of major powers increasingly dictate them. This has plunged the world into a phase where confidence in the international system is waning, while the likelihood of chaos and armed conflict rises.
The collective security system established after 1945 was built on the premise that the United Nations and the Security Council could prevent major wars and contain conflicts before they escalated into all-out confrontations. However, practical experience over recent decades has revealed a vast gap between theoretical principles and political reality. Many international resolutions have remained mere ink on paper, while the Security Council has failed to take decisive action in numerous crises due to the use of the veto. Often, the veto has shifted from a tool for preserving the international balance of power to a means of obstructing international justice and paralyzing the collective will of the international community.
The veto is no longer merely a procedural mechanism within the Security Council; it has become a reflection of the divisions and geopolitical rivalries among major powers. Every major international crisis reveals that the interests of permanent members take precedence over the principles of international law, and that protecting allies or securing strategic gains often outweighs the imperative of safeguarding international peace and security. As this scenario repeats itself, confidence in the United Nations and its various institutions to fulfill the role for which they were established has waned.
Simultaneously, the world is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in conventional arms races and a clear return to 'hard power' politics. Military spending has soared to record levels, and concepts of military deterrence and security alliances have returned to the forefront of international relations—amid a proliferation of conflict zones, the widening scope of proxy wars, and escalating tensions between major powers across several strategic regions.
Amidst this turbulent environment, a fundamental question arises: what prevents the outbreak of a direct global war between nuclear powers?
The answer lies in the fact that nuclear deterrence remains, to this day, the most influential factor in preventing all-out military confrontation among nuclear-armed states. Since the end of World War II, no direct confrontation has occurred between major nuclear powers—not solely due to the effectiveness of the international system, but because the cost of nuclear war has come to outweigh any potential political or military gains.
This deterrence rests on the principle of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD), grounded in the conviction among all parties that the use of nuclear weapons would result in catastrophic losses for all belligerents, rendering victory itself meaningless. Consequently, despite their inherent danger, nuclear arsenals simultaneously serve as a crucial factor in preventing major wars between great powers.
However, this reality should not be viewed as a permanent guarantee of stability; the growing reliance on nuclear deterrence fundamentally reflects the international system's failure to generate more effective political and legal alternatives. When the nuclear bomb becomes the ultimate guarantor of global security, it implies that the tools of diplomacy, international law, mediation, and multilateral institutions have lost a significant portion of their crisis-management capacity.
This scenario is further compounded by the expanding circle of nuclear-armed states and the development of hypersonic missile technologies, military AI systems, and cyber weapons. These advancements risk triggering miscalculations or strategic errors, thereby heightening the likelihood of unintended escalation. The world now faces not only the danger of a deliberate political decision to use nuclear weapons but also the risks posed by technical malfunctions, cyberattacks, or the misinterpretation of military alerts.
Conversely, collective security institutions appear less capable than ever of keeping pace with these shifts. Proposed reforms within the United Nations remain stalled, while the gap widens between the post-World War II international order and the power dynamics of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the persistence of the permanent members' privileges in their current form raises growing questions regarding the fairness and effectiveness of the international system in addressing emerging challenges.
The world today stands on the precipice of a highly sensitive era, one where the principles of collective security are receding in favor of nuclear deterrence dynamics, and where stability is shifting from a product of international institutions to a direct result of mutual fear among major powers. While this equation may temporarily avert all-out war, it fails to secure lasting peace, as it rests more on a 'balance of terror' than on the cultivation of trust.
Preserving global security in the future cannot rely solely on nuclear deterrence- regardless of its effectiveness in preventing direct confrontation. Instead, it requires revitalizing the international cooperation system, upholding international law, developing more effective conflict-resolution mechanisms, and implementing institutional reforms that restore the United Nations' role as the overarching framework for managing collective security. As institutions weaken, the primacy of raw power grows; as the rule of law erodes, the likelihood of chaos rises.
The greatest challenge facing the international community remains the transition from an era of 'managing fear' to one of 'building trust.' The world cannot indefinitely gamble that nuclear deterrence will avert catastrophe; a single miscalculation or error in judgment could transform deterrence from a means of preventing war into the very spark that ignites it. In such an event, the loser would not be a single party, but humanity as a whole.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The international system is currently witnessing one of its most perilous moments since the end of World War II. What was viewed for decades as an integrated framework for maintaining international peace and security is now suffering from a gradual erosion affecting its legal foundations, political institutions, and enforcement mechanisms. International crises are no longer managed according to the rules of international law; instead, the balance of power and the interests of major powers increasingly dictate them. This has plunged the world into a phase where confidence in the international system is waning, while the likelihood of chaos and armed conflict rises.
The collective security system established after 1945 was built on the premise that the United Nations and the Security Council could prevent major wars and contain conflicts before they escalated into all-out confrontations. However, practical experience over recent decades has revealed a vast gap between theoretical principles and political reality. Many international resolutions have remained mere ink on paper, while the Security Council has failed to take decisive action in numerous crises due to the use of the veto. Often, the veto has shifted from a tool for preserving the international balance of power to a means of obstructing international justice and paralyzing the collective will of the international community.
The veto is no longer merely a procedural mechanism within the Security Council; it has become a reflection of the divisions and geopolitical rivalries among major powers. Every major international crisis reveals that the interests of permanent members take precedence over the principles of international law, and that protecting allies or securing strategic gains often outweighs the imperative of safeguarding international peace and security. As this scenario repeats itself, confidence in the United Nations and its various institutions to fulfill the role for which they were established has waned.
Simultaneously, the world is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in conventional arms races and a clear return to 'hard power' politics. Military spending has soared to record levels, and concepts of military deterrence and security alliances have returned to the forefront of international relations—amid a proliferation of conflict zones, the widening scope of proxy wars, and escalating tensions between major powers across several strategic regions.
Amidst this turbulent environment, a fundamental question arises: what prevents the outbreak of a direct global war between nuclear powers?
The answer lies in the fact that nuclear deterrence remains, to this day, the most influential factor in preventing all-out military confrontation among nuclear-armed states. Since the end of World War II, no direct confrontation has occurred between major nuclear powers—not solely due to the effectiveness of the international system, but because the cost of nuclear war has come to outweigh any potential political or military gains.
This deterrence rests on the principle of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD), grounded in the conviction among all parties that the use of nuclear weapons would result in catastrophic losses for all belligerents, rendering victory itself meaningless. Consequently, despite their inherent danger, nuclear arsenals simultaneously serve as a crucial factor in preventing major wars between great powers.
However, this reality should not be viewed as a permanent guarantee of stability; the growing reliance on nuclear deterrence fundamentally reflects the international system's failure to generate more effective political and legal alternatives. When the nuclear bomb becomes the ultimate guarantor of global security, it implies that the tools of diplomacy, international law, mediation, and multilateral institutions have lost a significant portion of their crisis-management capacity.
This scenario is further compounded by the expanding circle of nuclear-armed states and the development of hypersonic missile technologies, military AI systems, and cyber weapons. These advancements risk triggering miscalculations or strategic errors, thereby heightening the likelihood of unintended escalation. The world now faces not only the danger of a deliberate political decision to use nuclear weapons but also the risks posed by technical malfunctions, cyberattacks, or the misinterpretation of military alerts.
Conversely, collective security institutions appear less capable than ever of keeping pace with these shifts. Proposed reforms within the United Nations remain stalled, while the gap widens between the post-World War II international order and the power dynamics of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the persistence of the permanent members' privileges in their current form raises growing questions regarding the fairness and effectiveness of the international system in addressing emerging challenges.
The world today stands on the precipice of a highly sensitive era, one where the principles of collective security are receding in favor of nuclear deterrence dynamics, and where stability is shifting from a product of international institutions to a direct result of mutual fear among major powers. While this equation may temporarily avert all-out war, it fails to secure lasting peace, as it rests more on a 'balance of terror' than on the cultivation of trust.
Preserving global security in the future cannot rely solely on nuclear deterrence- regardless of its effectiveness in preventing direct confrontation. Instead, it requires revitalizing the international cooperation system, upholding international law, developing more effective conflict-resolution mechanisms, and implementing institutional reforms that restore the United Nations' role as the overarching framework for managing collective security. As institutions weaken, the primacy of raw power grows; as the rule of law erodes, the likelihood of chaos rises.
The greatest challenge facing the international community remains the transition from an era of 'managing fear' to one of 'building trust.' The world cannot indefinitely gamble that nuclear deterrence will avert catastrophe; a single miscalculation or error in judgment could transform deterrence from a means of preventing war into the very spark that ignites it. In such an event, the loser would not be a single party, but humanity as a whole.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The international system is currently witnessing one of its most perilous moments since the end of World War II. What was viewed for decades as an integrated framework for maintaining international peace and security is now suffering from a gradual erosion affecting its legal foundations, political institutions, and enforcement mechanisms. International crises are no longer managed according to the rules of international law; instead, the balance of power and the interests of major powers increasingly dictate them. This has plunged the world into a phase where confidence in the international system is waning, while the likelihood of chaos and armed conflict rises.
The collective security system established after 1945 was built on the premise that the United Nations and the Security Council could prevent major wars and contain conflicts before they escalated into all-out confrontations. However, practical experience over recent decades has revealed a vast gap between theoretical principles and political reality. Many international resolutions have remained mere ink on paper, while the Security Council has failed to take decisive action in numerous crises due to the use of the veto. Often, the veto has shifted from a tool for preserving the international balance of power to a means of obstructing international justice and paralyzing the collective will of the international community.
The veto is no longer merely a procedural mechanism within the Security Council; it has become a reflection of the divisions and geopolitical rivalries among major powers. Every major international crisis reveals that the interests of permanent members take precedence over the principles of international law, and that protecting allies or securing strategic gains often outweighs the imperative of safeguarding international peace and security. As this scenario repeats itself, confidence in the United Nations and its various institutions to fulfill the role for which they were established has waned.
Simultaneously, the world is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in conventional arms races and a clear return to 'hard power' politics. Military spending has soared to record levels, and concepts of military deterrence and security alliances have returned to the forefront of international relations—amid a proliferation of conflict zones, the widening scope of proxy wars, and escalating tensions between major powers across several strategic regions.
Amidst this turbulent environment, a fundamental question arises: what prevents the outbreak of a direct global war between nuclear powers?
The answer lies in the fact that nuclear deterrence remains, to this day, the most influential factor in preventing all-out military confrontation among nuclear-armed states. Since the end of World War II, no direct confrontation has occurred between major nuclear powers—not solely due to the effectiveness of the international system, but because the cost of nuclear war has come to outweigh any potential political or military gains.
This deterrence rests on the principle of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD), grounded in the conviction among all parties that the use of nuclear weapons would result in catastrophic losses for all belligerents, rendering victory itself meaningless. Consequently, despite their inherent danger, nuclear arsenals simultaneously serve as a crucial factor in preventing major wars between great powers.
However, this reality should not be viewed as a permanent guarantee of stability; the growing reliance on nuclear deterrence fundamentally reflects the international system's failure to generate more effective political and legal alternatives. When the nuclear bomb becomes the ultimate guarantor of global security, it implies that the tools of diplomacy, international law, mediation, and multilateral institutions have lost a significant portion of their crisis-management capacity.
This scenario is further compounded by the expanding circle of nuclear-armed states and the development of hypersonic missile technologies, military AI systems, and cyber weapons. These advancements risk triggering miscalculations or strategic errors, thereby heightening the likelihood of unintended escalation. The world now faces not only the danger of a deliberate political decision to use nuclear weapons but also the risks posed by technical malfunctions, cyberattacks, or the misinterpretation of military alerts.
Conversely, collective security institutions appear less capable than ever of keeping pace with these shifts. Proposed reforms within the United Nations remain stalled, while the gap widens between the post-World War II international order and the power dynamics of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the persistence of the permanent members' privileges in their current form raises growing questions regarding the fairness and effectiveness of the international system in addressing emerging challenges.
The world today stands on the precipice of a highly sensitive era, one where the principles of collective security are receding in favor of nuclear deterrence dynamics, and where stability is shifting from a product of international institutions to a direct result of mutual fear among major powers. While this equation may temporarily avert all-out war, it fails to secure lasting peace, as it rests more on a 'balance of terror' than on the cultivation of trust.
Preserving global security in the future cannot rely solely on nuclear deterrence- regardless of its effectiveness in preventing direct confrontation. Instead, it requires revitalizing the international cooperation system, upholding international law, developing more effective conflict-resolution mechanisms, and implementing institutional reforms that restore the United Nations' role as the overarching framework for managing collective security. As institutions weaken, the primacy of raw power grows; as the rule of law erodes, the likelihood of chaos rises.
The greatest challenge facing the international community remains the transition from an era of 'managing fear' to one of 'building trust.' The world cannot indefinitely gamble that nuclear deterrence will avert catastrophe; a single miscalculation or error in judgment could transform deterrence from a means of preventing war into the very spark that ignites it. In such an event, the loser would not be a single party, but humanity as a whole.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
comments
The erosion of global security: When nuclear deterrence becomes the last line of survival
comments