Spectre of the Cold War returns: Are we back in a MAD world?

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

Donald Trump’s order to resume testing nuclear weapons after a 33-year gap may come as a shock, especially given his efforts to stop conflicts around the world. As contradictory as it may sound, there is logic attached to it.

Strategists and political scientists have long argued that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has contributed to peace through the policy of nuclear deterrence. While the argument may seem to be counterintuitive or even paradoxical, there may be some truth to it. After all, the destructive power of nuclear weapons, as well as the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), means that continued escalation between nuclear powers could lead to devastating consequences, triggering continued nuclear exchanges until both sides face total annihilation.

From this point of view, grounded in principles of political realism, President Trump’s order makes perfect sense. The foreign policy of the U.S. has been rooted in the country’s ability to achieve its objectives via power projection.

After World War II, American foreign policy revolved around containing the growth of Soviet influence in Europe and other parts of the world. Several times, the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war, with the Cuban Missile Crisis being one of the most well-known examples.

Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed, and other rivals were far from posing a significant threat to the U.S. Consequently, the last nuclear test was carried out in 1992.

More than three decades later, the spectre of the Cold War rivalry is back.

Return to the MAD logic
On 29 October, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia has successfully tested a nuclear capable super torpedo Poseidon. Furthermore, last week Russia carried out the test of a Burevestnik missile, further amplifying Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Prior to the tests Putin warned that Russia would never bow to pressure from the United States or any other foreign power.

China does not remain idle. China continues expanding its nuclear modernisation program, with some estimates suggesting that Beijing has produced a stockpile of approximately 600 nuclear warheads.

With the war in Ukraine continuing, and the potential for the escalation of U.S.-China tensions due to Taiwan, the U.S. needs to highlight that it remains the dominant military power.

The new generation of nuclear weapons adds another layer of complexity. New weapons are devised to achieve a wide array of strategic and tactical goals with lower yields and increased precision.

The MAD logic is not only physical. It also has a strong psychological impact, making decision-makers more risk-averse, unwilling to take risks due to potentially irreparable damage.

Yet, the mutually assured destruction has proven to be a credible deterrence. Evidence suggests that big powers have not engaged in direct conflicts since 1945, which coincides with the emergence of nuclear proliferation.

Strong bargaining position hypothesis
Beyond deterrence, military strength may offer a diplomatic advantage to the U.S.

President Trump attaches significant importance to the ability to make deals. For dealmakers, leverage is key, and military power provides the best geopolitical and geoeconomic advantage.

Perhaps President Trump deliberately chose the timing of his announcement to resume nuclear testing, as the war in Ukraine remains unresolved and U.S.-China ties retain potential for escalation.

For dealmaker Trump, it is essential to demonstrate strength at a moment of uncertainty, reinforcing the bargaining position of the United States.

However, renewed security competition and strategic posturing come with a price. Power projection and nuclear deterrence risk sparking a new round of arms race rooted in the security dilemma. The issue for policymakers lies in the interpretation — or rather, misinterpretation — of other states’ actions. Increasing military power can cause other states to fear for their own security, prompting a similar response. Thus, neither party will be safer in this scenario.

Peace through fear
The return to a world governed by the logic of mutually assured destruction presents a set of requirements for the decision-makers. Rationality, restraint and effective channels for communication are essential to ensure that the world does not spiral into chaos.

Yet, peace governed by fear is not sustainable. MAD logic has been successful in preventing direct conflicts between big powers. Despite this, past successes do not guarantee future outcomes. Advancements in military technology may reshape how political leaders and strategists perceive nuclear warfare, and it is essential to understand the risks associated with maintaining peace through deterrence.

Copied