On November 10, our Mershon Monday panel examined how ideas about war and nuclear weapons shape state behavior, institutions, and public opinion. Speakers traced a long historical arc, from early-twentieth century celebrations of war to today’s nonproliferation regime. They debated: have nuclear arsenals truly fostered peace, or have they been largely incidental to deeper political challenges?
John Mueller (Political Science) opened the discussion by situating contemporary views of war in the long durée of history. Before 1914, he pointed out, it was easy to find prominent writers and politicians who described war as ennobling, honorable, and even beautiful; he likewise cited authors who dismissed peace as degrading. Mueller argued that World War I shattered this notion. An organized antiwar movement gained moral force, and proposals like the League of Nations gained urgency. Drawing on the insights of military historian John Keegan and Yuval Noah Harari, Mueller noted that war diminished in its legitimacy over the course of the 20th century. Against this historical backdrop, he advanced the provocative idea of the "essential irrelevance” of nuclear weapons, given this broader diminished worldwide appetite for war. According to Mueller, the Cold War peace was not the result of nuclear deterrence, as commonly claimed, but rather, the result of an increasingly war-averse global populace. For Mueller, nuclear weapons have had one important implication: significantly inflated defense budgets. Meanwhile, their practical value to taxpayers has been limited, he argued.
Christy Oh (Political Science) shared insights from her experiences working at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations. Through working as part of the Security Council Team, she was able to provide an insider perspective into how issues pertaining to nuclear politics were negotiated within international institutions. To demonstrate how legitimacy and legality are contested in these spaces, she provided the example of the United States seeking to restore sanctions on Iran after withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) using the “snapback” mechanism. She pointed out that this action received widespread pushback even from the United States’ allies based on the legality of the United States attempting to activate aspects of an agreement that it had withdrawn from. She also discussed how international nuclear diplomacy was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, where changes in modalities often led to concerns about the ability of delegations to participate in an equitable manner.
Christopher Gelpi (Political Science) presented his research on how aspects of American foreign policy and grand strategy are perceived by the public. He noted that there are two central aspects of American grand strategy concerning the use of nuclear weapons: support for non-proliferation, and a no first use principle. However, he noted that during the Trump campaign in 2016, these norms were called into question, as Trump pondered the possibility of a first strike on the Islamic State and suggested that nations like South Korea could acquire nuclear weapons. Drawing on results from a survey experiment conducted in 2016, he explored how elite cues from either Trump, or a more traditional Republican figure impacted public opinion on these issues. He found that there was not a persuasive effect concerning a first use of nuclear weapons against ISIS or for relaxing the non-proliferation principle. These results suggest that despite some elite-level adaptations, the public remains largely committed to the traditional principles of American grand strategy on nuclear policies.
Throughout the discussion, panelists traced how international norms, institutions, and public attitudes have evolved in the shadow of the Bomb. The Q&A underscored that today’s regional conflicts, nonstate actors, and great power rivalries make the study of nuclear politics ever-urgent. With detailed historical analysis, insider perspectives on international institutions, and a firm grounding in public opinion, the panelists offered a rigorous approach to nuclear weapons and their role in shaping the future global order.
By Helen Murphey, Julia Marino and Nicholas Nyachega.