If Nukes Win Wars, Why Is Russia Still Stuck in Ukraine?
Why Nuclear Weapons Remain Unused: The Lessons of Iran, Ukraine, and the Global Balance of Power
One question continues to puzzle many observers of global affairs: If the United States possesses the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal, why has it never used nuclear weapons against Iran? Likewise, if Russia continues to face a prolonged and costly war in Ukraine, why has Moscow not resorted to nuclear weapons?
The answer lies in the devastating consequences of nuclear warfare. Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear weapons have largely served as deterrents rather than battlefield tools. Any country that crosses the nuclear threshold risks triggering catastrophic retaliation, international isolation, and consequences that could extend far beyond the immediate conflict.
Ukraine's history provides another important perspective. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine inherited what was then the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. However, the weapons remained under a Soviet command structure, and Ukraine later agreed to relinquish them under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. In return, it received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom while joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. By 1996, all nuclear warheads had been transferred to Russia for dismantlement.
Many analysts have since questioned whether giving up those weapons weakened Ukraine's long-term security, especially following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in 2022. That debate continues to shape international discussions about nuclear deterrence and national security.
Iran presents a different but equally significant case. For decades, Iran's nuclear programme has been at the centre of international concern. The United States, Israel, and many Western governments argue that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is essential to maintaining stability in the Middle East. Their concern is that a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger a regional arms race, with neighbouring countries potentially seeking nuclear capabilities of their own, thereby increasing the risk of conflict.
Iran, however, has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful civilian purposes, although international inspectors and governments have raised concerns over uranium enrichment levels and compliance with international safeguards.
Another issue frequently raised in discussions about Iran is its relationship with armed groups across the Middle East. The United States and several other governments designate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations and have long accused Tehran of providing them with financial, military, and logistical support. Iran has also been accused of backing the Houthi movement in Yemen, allegations that have contributed to regional tensions and international sanctions.
Ultimately, the reason nuclear weapons remain unused in these conflicts is not because major powers lack military capability. Rather, it is because the consequences of nuclear war are almost universally regarded as unacceptable. The principle of mutual deterrence means that even the strongest military powers recognise that initiating nuclear conflict could produce consequences far beyond any potential battlefield advantage.
The experiences of Ukraine and the ongoing tensions surrounding Iran illustrate a broader geopolitical reality: nuclear weapons are no longer viewed simply as instruments of war. They are strategic assets whose existence shapes diplomacy, security calculations, and international power dynamics. In today's world, preventing nuclear conflict has become as important as winning conventional wars, making deterrence one of the defining features of modern international relations.
0 Comments