Written by Liubov Korina

The interplay between international security, violations of humanitarian law and power politics has given way to a landscape that supports nuclearism. As such, the world still seems in the midst of a nuclear arms race, with ongoing global conflicts imbedding the ‘state of security’ to coexist with weapons of mass destruction.

Marianne Hanson is the co-chair of ICAN Australia and Honorary Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland. (Image supplied)

To trace the ways which have given rise to nuclearism, the Australian Institute of International Affairs Queensland welcomed Honorary Associate Professor Marianne Hanson, a renowned expert in nuclear disarmament and international security. Professor Hanson presented the daunting reality of the possibility of a nuclear war – either by a conscious decision or by a mere accident. Her discussion gave insight into the looming threat of world leaders using nuclear weapons as a legitimate geopolitical strategy, underscoring Professor Hanson’s central message: to prevent world-scale calamities we must act toward the disarmament of all nuclear weapons.

Professor Hanson began with a vivid illustration of the intensity of today’s nuclear modernisation program. Since the post-Cold war period, Professor Hanson indicated that there has been an evident shift of trust amid world leaders. Stressing that nearly every significant arms control agreement -including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as well as the Open Skies Treaty – no longer exist, Professor Hanson made it clear that today, we are closer to nuclear war than we have been since the Cold War.

Her concern for international security was imbedded in the expansion of nuclear weapons: nine nuclear-armed states, 13,000 nuclear arsenals, $387 billion spent on the development and maintenance in the last five years, countless missiles are on a high-alert status ready to be deployed on short notice, all central to the nuclear-armed states defence strategies. Further, Professor Hanson highlighted that the last decade has been driven by a renewed arms race and nuclear proliferation, describing that the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has increased due to the ongoing development of smaller, more “usable” arsenals.

Yet, the Professor’s concern didn’t end at the modernisation of nuclear weapons. Professor Hanson defined that such weapons fundamentally violate the core principle of international humanitarian law (IHR), which in its legal framework prohibits weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. Professor Hanson emphasised the catastrophic human costs associated with the use of these weapons, arguing the impracticality of their use on the battlefield due to the scale of destruction that they cause.

Tactical or ‘limited’ nuclear strikes would still trigger catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences.

Analysing data from a recent study, Professor Hanson outlined that it is estimated that even 1% of the world’s nuclear arsenal could instantly kill 25 million people whilst subsequently placing 2 billion people into starvation due to crop failure. Likewise, a limited nuclear conflict would trigger a nuclear winter – something that Professor Hanson believed we need to focus more attention to – causing a decrease in global temperatures due the soot from the explosion blocking the sunlight.

The discussion progressed onto the subject of nuclear weapons as tools of power politics. Professor Hanson examined how the post-Cold War disarmament efforts have been dissolved in today’s world. We have seen a return to nuclear threats as a tool of political leverage – evident by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons in the context of the war in Ukraine. Likewise, the public discussion of the Israeli government on using nuclear arsenals in Gaza.

How did we endorse a landscape in which owning weapons of mass destruction is seen as a symbol of strength and power? The nuclear-armed states justify their existence under the guise of maintaining a balance of power and security, however Professor Hanson pointed out that ultimately the existence of nuclear weapons in deterring rivals is not realistic, rather idealistic. As described by Professor Hanson, the idea of nuclear deterrence – the threat of mutually assured destruction – is inherently unstable and unproven.

We cannot rely on an unproved theory. Nuclear deterrence is not realistic.

Drawing on examples from the geopolitical escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Professor Hanson reiterated the extremely pressing nature of rising nuclear threats in geopolitical conflicts. Reflecting on the U.S. response to the Cuban Missile Crisis being driven by fears of foreign military alliances encroaching on its borders, Professor Hanson suggested that Russia’s nuclear rhetoric is heightened by a similar perception – NATO being seen as a military block directly aimed at undermining the country’s security. She indicated that NATO’s recent provision of long-range missiles and fighter jets to Ukraine is seen as a direct threat to Russia’s security. Professor Hanson further advanced that if NATO-backed Ukrainian forces launch an attack on Russian soil, the nation could justify a nuclear retaliation based on its security doctrine.

Professor Hanson gave her personal insights about the ongoing conflict, suggesting that the reality is that spheres of influence, particularly between Russia, the U.S. and NATO, still play a significant role in global conflict and nuclear threats. Through her discussion, it was evident that the expansion of geopolitical blocs plays a substantial role in nuclearism, expressing that “power politics dictate that Russia was not going to be happy having NATO come near the border.” Whilst condemning President Putin of violating international law, Professor Hanson believed that the war could have, and should have been prevented.

Conclusively, Professor Hanson provided a practical pathway to nuclear disarmament. She touched on the global importance of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which aims to provide a legal framework to see a world free of nuclear weapons. She indicated that currently the TPNW has 94 signatories – none of which are a nuclear-armed state. While understanding that there won’t be an elimination of nuclear weapons overnight, Professor Hanson remained optimistic that over time, the TPNW will exert both legal and moral pressure onto the nuclear-armed states. Professor Hanson articulated that when it comes to limiting or eliminating weapons, there is a pattern that has worked in the past: the first step is to draw attention to the impact of the weapons, the second is to de-legitimise the use of the weapons by getting a ruling in place, and the last step is their actual elimination.

Professor Hanson observed Australia’s position and public opinion to show that 79% of Australians support signing the TPNW, but due to the pressure from the United States, the Australian government remains hesitant. When asked a question from the audience regarding the possibility of Australia signing the TPNW, she responded that “they’ll be annoyed but they’ll get over it,” drawing a parallel to the U.S. eventually coming to terms with New Zealand’s signatory of the treaty in 2017.

Looking ahead, Professor Hanson stressed the importance of international diplomacy. Summits, declarations and meeting are practical steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Noting the significant progress that was made post-Cold War period from world leaders, comprising Gorbachev and Reagan, Professor Hanson symbolised the influence of dialogue in shaping world politics. Ultimately, Associate Professor Hanson’s presentation was a powerful discussion on the urgent need to reshape our entrenched views on international security and weapons of mass destruction.

Edited by Deborah Bouchez

Currently in her final year of studies, Liubov Korina is pursuing a double degree in Economics and Arts, with majors in International Relations and Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Queensland. With particular interest in the intersection between economics and politics, Liubov is aspiring to be part of bringing about sustainable peace around the world through diplomatic and peace-building efforts.