For over 70 years, nuclear weapons have played a significant role in shaping global dynamics, reflecting their evolution into a modern-day phenomenon. This transformation is evident in art, literature, and film worldwide. Today, nuclear weapons symbolize national power and international status, profoundly impacting global security. However, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and the numerous nuclear tests conducted globally remain tragic historical episodes that have raised serious ethical and philosophical concerns. Attitudes toward nuclear weapons have evolved significantly over time, reflecting the complexity and gravity of their impact.

At the dawn of the nuclear era, which began with the first nuclear test on July 16, 1945, nuclear weapons were seen as regular bombs, albeit more powerful. During the 1950s and 1960s, many advanced countries pursued nuclear weapons, perceiving no significant distinction between nuclear and conventional arms. Military strategies of this period did not differentiate between the two, viewing nuclear weapons as crucial tools on the battlefield. As a result, nuclear bombs were incorporated into military doctrines and employed during conflicts, emphasizing their tactical importance. The development and use of nuclear weapons during this period were driven by a belief in their strategic superiority. The devastation caused by conventional bombings in World War II underscored the potential efficiency of nuclear weapons in achieving swift, decisive victories.

As such, the early nuclear arms race saw countries like the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and France, among others, rapidly develop and test their own nuclear arsenals. The goal was to achieve a deterrent capability that would prevent adversaries from contemplating aggression.

The realization that nuclear weapons posed a threat to global security and human civilization’s advancement emerged gradually. The Korean War marked a pivotal moment, as it led to the transfer of the decision to use nuclear weapons from military to political leadership in the United States. This shift was significant as it recognized the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, demanding a higher level of prudence and political judgment in decision-making.

The Cuban Missile Crisis further underscored the dangers of nuclear conflict, bringing humanity to the brink of disaster. In October 1962, the world watched as the United States and Soviet Union faced off over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The crisis highlighted the precarious nature of nuclear brinkmanship and the potential for miscalculation. It became clear that the unregulated proliferation and use of nuclear weapons could lead to unparalleled destruction. This crisis highlighted the necessity for legal, ideally global, oversight on the use of nuclear weapons and technology for military purposes. The recognition of the catastrophic potential of an unregulated nuclear arms race compelled the USA and USSR to engage in negotiations. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world’s leading nuclear powers began discussions on both bilateral and multilateral agreements to regulate nuclear technology and weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was a significant milestone in these efforts. Signed in 1968 and coming into force in 1970, the NPT aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, and facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Since the 1960s, nuclear weapons have transitioned from battlefield tools to instruments of political strategy. In 1995, the NPT member states agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely, showcasing their commitment to upholding the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The establishment of the NPT represented a major shift in international relations, where the possession of nuclear weapons was no longer solely about military capability but also about international responsibility and cooperation. This shift reflected a broader understanding that nuclear weapons, if unchecked, could lead to mutual annihilation. As a result, nuclear weapons began to serve as deterrents rather than instruments of war, shaping national security policies based on the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

The 1990s saw major nuclear states, including France, the UK, the US, and Russia, significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals. These reductions, achieved through both unilateral and bilateral efforts, marked a crucial step toward ending the nuclear arms race. Treaties such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and its successors played key roles in formalizing these reductions and establishing verification mechanisms to ensure compliance. This period highlighted the evolving nature of public opinion and military doctrines concerning nuclear weapons. By the 1960s, nuclear weapons were no longer used on the battlefield, and the 1990s further bolstered disarmament and non-proliferation norms. Public awareness and activism, driven by the devastating long-term effects of nuclear weapons on human health and the environment, pressured governments to pursue disarmament initiatives.

The horror of potential nuclear winter scenarios, where widespread nuclear detonations could lead to global climatic disruptions, further fueled the disarmament movement.

Today, the state of nuclear deterrence faces new challenges due to rapid technological advancements and shifting global power dynamics. Efforts by nuclear-armed states like the United States, Russia, and China to modernize their nuclear capabilities have raised concerns about a potential new arms race. Recent political tensions, including those related to Ukraine and cybersecurity, have strained international relations and influenced nuclear strategies among these major powers. The current global situation, characterized by strategic competition between the U.S. and China and deteriorating U.S.-Russia relations, underscores the fragile balance of nuclear stability. The modernization of nuclear arsenals involves developing new delivery systems, warhead designs, and enhanced command-and-control infrastructures. These advancements aim to ensure the credibility and reliability of nuclear deterrents in the face of emerging threats, such as cyber-attacks on nuclear command systems and the proliferation of advanced missile defenses. However, these efforts also raise the specter of a renewed arms race, as nations seek to outmatch each other’s technological capabilities.

Despite the evolving landscape, the possibility of renewed battlefield use of nuclear weapons remains a concern. Technological advancements and global dynamics could alter the military strategies of nuclear-capable countries, potentially leading to a renewed emphasis on nuclear arms in conflict scenarios. While the likelihood of a large-scale nuclear conflict may seem remote, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has prompted Russia to issue nuclear threats against NATO. This development highlights the vulnerability of the existing nuclear equilibrium and the potential for escalation. Moreover, regional conflicts involving nuclear-armed states, such as the tensions between India and Pakistan, continue to pose significant risks.

The potential for miscalculation or inadvertent escalation in these regions remains high, underscoring the need for robust communication and confidence-building measures to prevent nuclear confrontations.

Eventually, the evolution of nuclear weapons from battlefield tools to political instruments reflects a complex interplay of technological, strategic, and ethical considerations. The ongoing modernization efforts by the United States and Russia signal a potential new arms race, while political developments, such as the Ukraine conflict, underscore the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons in global politics. The Biden administration’s concerns about the costs and strategic implications of the U.S. nuclear modernization program further illustrate the complexities of maintaining nuclear stability in a changing world. The outcome of the Ukraine conflict, with Russia using nuclear threats as a political strategy, may influence global nuclear relations for years to come, potentially legitimizing nuclear coercion and impacting international security.

The journey of nuclear weapons from their inception to the present day underscores the profound impact they have had on international relations and global security. As we navigate the challenges of the 21st century, it is imperative to continue striving for a world where nuclear weapons are relegated to history, ensuring a safer and more stable future for all.