logo
The age of American nuclear privilege is over

The age of American nuclear privilege is over

Russia Todaya day ago
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe.
The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore.
Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest.
But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's.
In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational.
Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path.
Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power.
Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation.
We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack.
This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China.
In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world.
Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity.
A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control.
Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil.
Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it.
The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced.
In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance.
But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger.
We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State Department accuses EU of ‘Orwellian censorship'
State Department accuses EU of ‘Orwellian censorship'

Russia Today

time4 hours ago

  • Russia Today

State Department accuses EU of ‘Orwellian censorship'

The EU's online content regulations are an affront to free speech, the US State Department has said in response to France's praise for the Digital Services Act (DSA). The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD). 'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom,' the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. 'All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.' Earlier this month, France's mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, 'In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.'Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove 'illegal and harmful' content and combat 'the spread of disinformation,' according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a bloc-wide 'ministry of truth.' Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk's platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as 'politically motivated.' In 2024, French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities. Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging 'a crusade' against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania's 2024 presidential election. France's foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had 'reminded' Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference.

Kremlin responds to Azerbaijan's position on Ukraine conflict
Kremlin responds to Azerbaijan's position on Ukraine conflict

Russia Today

time11 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Kremlin responds to Azerbaijan's position on Ukraine conflict

Russia disagrees with Azerbaijan's stance on the Ukraine conflict but hopes that this divergence in views will not hinder efforts to restore bilateral ties in light of a recent rift, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday. He added that Moscow wants to resolve the tensions in its relationship with Baku. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recently urged Ukraine to 'never agree to occupation.' Speaking at the Shusha Global Media Forum last week, Aliyev encouraged Kiev to consider Azerbaijan's approach to resolving its territorial dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The longstanding conflict between Baku and Yerevan over the breakaway region ended in 2023 after Azerbaijan retook it by force, prompting the departure of its remaining ethnic Armenian population. Peskov acknowledged the differences in the positions of Russia and Azerbaijan on the Ukraine conflict, but insisted that this has not been an obstacle in relations. He added that Moscow seeks 'to move past what we hope is a brief period of cooling in bilateral relations and avoid sacrificing mutually beneficial interests for the sake of a short-term situation.' Tensions between Moscow and Baku have been rising following the deaths of two Azerbaijani nationals suspected of being gang members during a Russian law enforcement operation in Ekaterinburg last month. The Azerbaijani authorities rejected the conclusions of the Russian investigation and accused the police of unlawful killings. In response, Azerbaijani police raided the local office of the Russian news network Sputnik, detaining two journalists along with several other Russian nationals. The government also suspended all Russia-related cultural events. Despite the strain, Moscow has emphasized the historically cooperative nature of its relationship with Baku and voiced hope for a de-escalation of tensions.

Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU
Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU

Russia Today

time13 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU

Moscow hopes the 'reasonable' position on the Ukrainian conflict displayed by US President Donald Trump will have an impact on the stance of the EU, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking during a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas, on Tuesday, Russia's top diplomat expressed hopes the EU will, at some point, show a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. 'I really hope that the reasonable approach that the Trump administration showed in this situation after it replaced the Biden administration, which spoke in unison with the unhinged Europeans, that this reasonable approach, which includes a willingness to dialogue and a willingness to listen and hear, will not go unnoticed by the Europeans, despite all the current discussions about the need to arm the Kiev regime again and again and again at the expense of… European taxpayers,' Lavrov stated. While the US president had repeatedly promised to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, he admitted last month, however, that the task had proven to be 'more difficult than people would have any idea.' Thus far, the direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, kick-started by the US administration, have failed to yield any tangible result, focusing primarily on humanitarian issues, including prisoner swaps and the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers. Trump has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin multiple times in recent months. He recently criticized the Russian leader for supposedly resisting a settlement and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and its trade partners unless the Ukraine conflict is ended by autumn. In response, the Kremlin stated it had a calm view of the criticism and expressed its intention to continue the dialogue with Washington. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the US administration to put pressure on Kiev instead, suggesting that it 'appears that the Ukrainian side takes all statements of support as signals to continue war, not as signals for peace.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store