What You Need To Know About Russia’s Nuke Threat And How We’ve Avoided Disaster So Far

Vladimir Putin has declared that Russian nuclear deterrent forces are on “high alert”, marking the first serious threat of nuclear war from a major power since the end of the Cold War.

Putin made the announcement on Russian television, citing NATO’s response to the situation as his reasoning.

“Western countries aren’t only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country,” said Putin.

So what exactly does this mean, how likely are we to end up in all-out nuclear war and how have we gone so long with relative nuclear peace?

Who Has Nukes And Why Do So Few Countries Have Them?

Only nine countries in the world are known to have nuclear weapons: Russia, the US, China, France, the UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. Considering there are 195 countries recognised by the UN, this is an extremely small number — and Australia is obviously not included among them.

If you’re wondering why so few countries have nukes, it is because way back in 1968, the world sort of decided that a nuclear arms race was a really bad idea and collectively agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons.

On July 1, 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT) was written up — with countries basically agreeing that if they didn’t already have nuclear weapons, they would not pursue nuclear weapons programs.

Astonishingly, every country signed the treaty except India, Israel and Pakistan — all of which later pursued nuclear weapons.

South Sudan — which wasn’t a country at the time of the NPT’s signing — has not signed the treaty since becoming a country.

The only country to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty is North Korea.

Basically, if you signed the treaty and then proceed to pursue nuclear weapons programs, you will be hit with sanctions, harm your international relations and there is otherwise no real reason to develop nukes in a nuclear-peaceful world — which means its in everyone’s best interest not to pursue nukes.

Not to mention, purifying uranium-235 — the key ingredient in nukes — is super expensive, which is also a deterrent.

How Does Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal Stack Up?

While only nine countries have nukes (that we know of), not all of these nuclear arsenals are equal.

According to a 2021 estimate — which depends on countries telling the truth about their nuclear warheads — Russia currently possessed 6,257 nuclear warheads, the most of any country.

The US has 5,550 — so not too far behind and easily enough to pose a very real threat to Russia and the rest of the world, should it ever choose to use them.

These two nuclear superpowers hold 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, while the other seven countries hold less than 300 each.

While the US has invested in technology to shoot down ballistic missiles before they cause devastation, the success rate of this technology is mixed — and realistically, it is no match for Russia’s arsenal.

Both Russia and the US have enough nukes to kill — quite literally — billions of people, but that doesn’t mean either party will actually ever deploy one.

How Likely Is Russia To Nuke?

While it’s no secret that Russia could nuke Ukraine, or the rest of the world, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will. There has been lots of talk about nuclear warfare since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last week but — in the interest of not fear-mongering — it’s important to assess just how likely (or unlikely) that is.

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told Vox that the decision to place nuclear forces on high alert goes against Russia’s own nuclear doctrine.

“There is nothing in Russia’s stated public nuclear doctrine that justifies this,” he said. “Putin has now taken yet another step that unnecessarily escalates the situation to what appears to be a direct nuclear threat.” Kristensen also noted that he is more worried about the threat of nuclear war than he was a week ago.

“No one outside of Putin’s inner circle knows for sure why Putin has taken this action.”

However, Matthew Bunn — a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and former adviser to President Bill Clinton’s Office of Science and Technology Policy — sees the move as a deterrent to stop NATO from intervening in the situation.

“No one outside of Putin’s inner circle knows for sure why Putin has taken this action,” he told Vox. “My guess — and it’s only that — is that it is intended as further signalling to deter anyone in the West from even thinking about intervening militarily to help Ukraine.”

It’s worth noting that, last week, Bunn told Vox that “there is virtually no chance nuclear weapons are going to be used in the Ukraine situation” unless the US and NATO change their mind on sending troops to Ukraine.

A third expert speaking to Vox — Boston University’s Paul Hare — also quashed fears of nuclear war, noting that it appears Putin simply wants to “swallow Ukraine” and that nuclear war doesn’t fit with his objective.

In an email to Vox, Hare asserted that the nuclear escalation seems to be a reaction to sanctions, again stressing that deploying nukes wouldn’t really achieve anything for him at this point.

It’s also worth noting that both Ukraine and the US have interpreted the threat as nothing more than an intimidation tactic from Putin.

“We see this announcement, this order, as an attempt to raise the stakes and to put additional pressure on the Ukrainian delegation. But we will not give in to this pressure,”  said Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, noting that the threat came around the same time as Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky agreed to meet with Russian officials for peace talks.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki noted that the comments are similar to tactics used prior to the Ukraine invasion, which aim to “manufacture threats that don’t exist in order to justify further aggression”.’

“The global community and American people should look at it through that prism. We’ve seen him do this time and time again,” said Psaki.