Why Some Nations Sleep Better at Night
How Atomic Weapons Shape Global Power Dynamics
Ever wonder why some countries seem to get away with almost anything while others face constant threats? The answer might be simpler than you think: nuclear weapons.
It's an uncomfortable truth that's playing out right before our eyes. While we'd love to believe in a world governed by international law and diplomatic solutions, reality paints a different picture.
The Tale of Two Strategies
Look at the stark contrast between Iran and North Korea. Both face hostile neighbors with superior conventional forces. Both have been targets of international sanctions. Yet their fates couldn't be more different.
Iran, despite its larger economy and population, finds itself under constant attack. Its military installations get bombed. Its officials are assassinated on foreign soil. Even when it retaliates, it feels compelled to send warnings to avoid "misunderstandings."
North Korea? Different story entirely. Despite being economically weaker and geographically smaller, it acts with impunity. It sinks ships, fires artillery, and launches missiles over Japan. The response? Strongly worded statements and diplomatic protests.
The difference isn't military might or economic power. It's nuclear capability.
The Ukrainian Lesson
Ukraine's experience drives this point home with devastating clarity. Back in 1994, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal after the Soviet collapse. Under international pressure and promises of security guarantees, they gave it all up.
Fast forward to 2022. When Russia invaded, those security guarantees proved worthless. Ukraine's conventional forces, while brave and skilled, couldn't establish the kind of deterrence that would have made Putin think twice.
Even when Ukrainian forces were pushing Russian troops back, Western support began to waver. Why? Because escalation might force Russia to use its nuclear weapons. Ukraine, having no such capability, couldn't establish mutual deterrence.
The Libyan Miscalculation
Muammar Gaddafi learned this lesson too late. In 2003, seeking to normalize relations with the West, he voluntarily dismantled Libya's nuclear program. He handed over weapons designs, shipped out uranium, and allowed international inspectors full access.
Eight years later, NATO bombs were falling on Tripoli. Gaddafi's fate was sealed not by his domestic policies or human rights record, but by his strategic vulnerability. Without nuclear deterrence, he became expendable.
Why Nuclear Powers Sleep Easier
Nuclear weapons create what strategists call "existential deterrence." It's not about winning wars—it's about making the cost of aggression potentially catastrophic for the aggressor.
This explains why established nuclear powers maintain their arsenals despite astronomical costs. It's why countries like Pakistan and India, despite their economic challenges, pour resources into nuclear programs. It's why Israel maintains its policy of nuclear ambiguity while keeping its capabilities sharp.
The mathematics is brutal but simple: conventional warfare has limits, but nuclear weapons raise the stakes to survival itself.
The Credibility Gap
International institutions, for all their noble intentions, lack enforcement mechanisms against major powers. The UN Security Council becomes paralyzed when permanent members are involved. International law depends on voluntary compliance.
Countries that bet their security on these institutions often find themselves defenseless when it matters most. The lesson isn't that international law is worthless—it's that it works best when backed by credible deterrence.
The Coming Nuclear Renaissance
Recent conflicts are accelerating a troubling trend: more countries are likely to pursue nuclear capabilities. If you're a mid-sized nation watching Ukraine's struggle or Iran's vulnerabilities, the strategic calculus becomes clear.
Saudi Arabia has already indicated it will develop nuclear weapons if Iran gets them. Turkey has made similar noises. Even traditionally neutral countries are reconsidering their positions as security environments deteriorate.
This isn't warmongering—it's strategic realism. In an anarchic international system, self-help remains the ultimate insurance policy.
The Uncomfortable Truth
We live in a world where nuclear weapons, paradoxically, may prevent more conflicts than they cause. The "balance of terror" that defined the Cold War kept major powers from confrontation for decades.
Today's regional conflicts often involve nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear states or nuclear powers using non-nuclear proxies. Direct nuclear-versus-nuclear confrontation remains rare—not because of moral restraint, but because of mutual deterrence.
What This Means for Global Security
The proliferation trend poses genuine risks: more nuclear materials, more potential for accidents, more complexity in crisis management. But trying to stop proliferation through sanctions and isolation may be counterproductive if it leaves countries feeling existentially threatened.
The challenge isn't to eliminate nuclear weapons—that genie left the bottle long ago. It's to manage a world where more countries feel they need nuclear deterrence to survive.
For ordinary citizens watching these developments, the implications are sobering. The international order we've relied on since 1945 is evolving, and not necessarily in directions that favor the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The nuclear shield isn't just about weapons—it's about the fundamental question of how nations ensure their survival in an uncertain world. Like it or not, for many countries, the answer increasingly involves atomic deterrence.
That's a reality we all have to live with, whether we find it comfortable or not.
If you’d like to show your appreciation, you can support me through:
✨ Patreon
✨ Ko-fi
✨ BuyMeACoffee
Every contribution, big or small, fuels my creativity and means the world to me. Thank you for being a part of this journey!