Is Nuclear Anarchy Sustainable? A Temporal Approach
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-2-14-32
Abstract
This article develops a novel temporal approach to the sustainability of nuclear anarchy. The existing literature offers two opposite perspectives on the topic: some scholars argue that nuclear anarchy is unsustainable, since it will inevitably either lead to a catastrophic nuclear war or evolve into a hierarchical world order. Their opponents doubt the inevitability of nuclear war in a system of sovereign states and/or its catastrophic nature. However, the debate, as it stands now, ignores the fact that both technology and social structures are embedded in – and mediated by – cultures and worldviews. In particular, both nuclear weapons and inter-state anarchy are embedded in specific temporalities.
Taking this embeddedness into account, we identify and compare perceptions of time that are interrelated with nuclear weapons, on one hand, and international anarchy, on the other. The article reveals a temporal contradiction of nuclear anarchy: while nuclear weapons imply a potential finitude of humanity, the system of sovereign states is intrinsically connected with an indefinite temporality. We derive two theoretical implications from the concept of temporal contradiction. First, the realization of finite temporality will subvert the legitimacy of an anarchic world order and encourage limitations on national sovereignty. Second, international anarchy will “eternalize” nuclear weapons, i.e., reinterpret them as compatible with the eternity of human civilization. Familiar events in nuclear history, including early attempts to establish international control of nuclear energy, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the evolution of the anti-nuclear movement are interpreted here as empirical evidence in favour of the theoretical implications described above.
Thus, the concept of temporal contradiction provides another argument for the idea that nuclear anarchy is unsustainable in the long run, since the proliferation of the finite temporality leads to international hierarchy, whereas persistent indefinite temporality masks the severity of the nuclear threat, making nuclear war more conceivable and probable.
Keywords
temporality,
nuclear weapons,
international anarchy,
sovereign state,
nuclear war,
global threats,
temporal contradiction
Supporting agencies: This research was supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation, Project No. 22-28-01054 (https:// www.rscf.ru/en/project/22-28-01054/). The authors want to thank two anonymous reviewers and Alexander I. Nikitin, whose comments and suggestions helped to improve the paper.
About the Authors
Y. I. Uchaev
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yevgeny I. Uchaev – M.A. in International Relations, Lecturer and Ph.D. student, Department of World Politics
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454
A. A. Kvartalnov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Artem A. Kvartalnov – M.A. in International Relations, member of the research team, research project “Temporality of international relations in the context of global threats of nuclear war and climate change
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Adamsky D. 2019. Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 354 p. Allan B. B. 2018. Scientific Cosmology and International Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108241540
2. Arbatov A. G. 2021. The Ten Aporias of Our Time. The Theory and Practice of Nuclear Deterrence. Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 88–111. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.08 (In English and in Russian)
3. Arnold B. 2003. Eschatological Imagination and the Program of Roman Imperial and Ecclesiastical Renewal at the End of the Tenth Century. In R. Landes, A. Gow,D. C. Van Meter, eds. The Apocalyptic Year 1000: Religious Expectation and Social Change 950–1050. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 271–288. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161625.003.0014
4. Baratta J. P. 1985. Was the Baruch Plan a Proposal of World Government? The International History Review. 7(4). P. 592–621. DOI: 10.1080/07075332.1985.9640394
5. Bogdanov K. V. 2022. Signal'nyi komponent v strategiiakh ogranichennogo primeneniya yadernogo oruzhia [The Signal Component in Strategies of Limited Nuclear Employment]. Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia [World Economy and International Relations]. 66(5). P. 5–13. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-5-5-13 (In Russian).
6. Burke A. 2016. Nuclear Time: Temporal Metaphors of the Nuclear Present. Critical Studies on Security. 4(1). P. 73–90. DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2016.1162394
7. Buzan B., Lawson G. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 421 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139565073
8. Clark C. 2019. Time and Power: Visions of History in German Politics, from the Thirty Years’ War to the Third Reich. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 293 p.
9. Coupe J., Bardeen C. G., Robock A., Toon O. B. 2019. Nuclear winter responses to nuclear war between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 124(15). P. 8522–8543. DOI: 10.1029/2019JD030509
10. Cox R. W. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 10(2). P. 126–155. DOI: 10.1177/03058298810100020501
11. Craig C. 2019. Solving the Nuclear Dilemma: Is a World State Necessary? Journal of International Political Theory. 15(3). P. 349–366. DOI: 10.1177/1755088218795981
12. Deudney D. H. 2007. Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press. 391 p.
13. Deudney D. H. 2019. Going Critical: Toward a Modified Nuclear One Worldism. Journal of International Political Theory. 15(3). P. 367–385. DOI: 10.1177/175508821879668
14. Dillon M. 2011. Specters of Biopolitics: Finitude, Eschaton, and Katechon. South Atlantic Quarterly. 110(3). P. 780–792. DOI: 10.1215/00382876-1275797
15. Downing T. 2020. 1983-i. Mir na grani [1983. The World at the Brink]. Moscow: ROSSPEN; Prezidentskii tsentr B. N. El'tsina. 336 p. (In Russian).
16. Douglas M. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. 146 p.
17. Fenenko A. V. 2019. ‘Long Peace’ and Nuclear Weapons. Russia in Global Affairs. 17(1). P. 72– 99. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2019-17-1-72-99
18. Ferro M. 2003. The Use and Abuse of History. Or how the past is taught to children. London & New York: Routledge. 390 p.
19. Foucault M. 2009. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at The Collège de France, 1977–78. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 417 p.
20. Gabriele M. 2011. An Empire of Memory: The Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and Jerusalem before the First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 216 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591442.001.0001
21. Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. 470 p.
22. Hamilton S. 2018. Foucault’s End of History: The Temporality of Governmentality and Its End in the Anthropocene. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 46(3). P. 371–395. DOI: 10.1177/0305829818774892
23. Hobson J. M. 2002. What’s at Stake in ‘Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International relations’? Transcending ‘Chronofetishism’ and ‘Tempocentrism’ in International Relations. In S. Hobden, J. M. Hobson, eds. Historical Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 3–41.
24. Hom A. R. 2018. Silent Order: The Temporal Turn in Critical International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 46(3). P. 303–330. DOI: 10.1177/0305829818771349
25. Hom A. R. 2020. International Relations and the Problem of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 297 p. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198850014.001.0001
26. Hutchings K. 2008. Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 208 p. DOI: 10.7228/manchester/9780719073021.001.0001
27. Hutchings K. 2018. Time and the Study of World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 46(3). P. 253–258. DOI: 10.1177/0305829818771343
28. Jervis R. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 272 p.
29. Kahn H. 1960. On Thermonuclear War. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 688 p.
30. Kahn H. 1965. On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. New York: Frederick Praeger. 308 p.
31. Kaspe S. I. 2008. Tsentry i ierarkhii: prostranstvennye metafory vlasti i zapadnaia politicheskaia forma [Centers and Hierarchies: Spatial Metaphors of Authority and Western Political Form]. Moscow: Moskovskaia shkola politicheskikh issledovaniy. 320 p. (In Russian)
32. Kaspe S. I. 2021. Life, Death, and the State. Russia in Global Affairs. 19(3). P. 174–204. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-3-174-204
33. Kneupper F. C. 2016. The Empire at the End of Time: Identity and Reform in Late Medieval German Prophecy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 280 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190279363.001.0001
34. Koselleck R. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Colombia University Press. 344 p.
35. Latour B. 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press. 300 p.
36. Lake D. A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. 248 p.
37. Lieber K. A., Press D. G. 2017. The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence. International Security. 41(4). P. 9–49. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00273.
38. Lieber K. A., Press D. G. 2020. The Myth of the Nuclear Revolution: Power Politics in the Atomic Age. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.180 p.
39. Makhukova A. V. 2016. Gumanitarnaya initsiativa: kriticheskaya massa antiyadernykh aktivistov [Humanitarian Initiative: A Critical Mass of Anti-Nuclear Activists]. Indeks bezopasnosti [Security Index].22(1). P. 107–120. (In Russian)
40. Mandelbaum M. 1981. The Nuclear Revolution International Politics before and after Hiroshima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511572845.
41. Morgenthau H. J. 1964. The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy. American Political Science Review. 58(1). P. 23–35. DOI: 10.2307/1952752.
42. Nye J. S. 1988. Nuclear Ethics. New York: Free Press. 168 p.
43. Ord T. 2020. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York: Hachette Books. 480 p.
44. Reus-Smit C. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 208 p.
45. Ritchie N. 2013. Valuing and Devaluing Nuclear Weapons. Contemporary Security Policy. 34(1). P. 146–173. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2013.771040.
46. Robock, A., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2007). Nuclear Winter Revisited with a Modern Climate Model and Current Nuclear Arsenals: Still Catastrophic Consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112(D13). DOI: 10.1029/2006JD008235
47. Ruzicka J. 2019. The Next Great Hope: The Humanitarian Approach to Nuclear Weapons. Journal of International Political Theory. 15(3). P. 386–400. DOI: 10.1177/1755088218785922
48. Safranchuk I. A., Lukyanov F. A. 2021. The Modern World Order: Structural Realities and Great Power Rivalries. Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 57–76. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.03.05 (In Russian and in English).
49. Safranchuk I., Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A. 2021. Gegemoniya i mirovoy poryadok: obzor kontseptsii «slozhnoy gegemonii» [Hegemony and World Order: An Overview of the Concept “Hegemony as Complexity”]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii [International Organisations Research Journal]. 16(1). P. 172–183. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-01-09 (In Russian).
50. Schell J. 1982. The Fate of the Earth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 244 p.
51. Schell J. 2004. The Abolition. In J. Schell, ed. The Jonathan Schell Reader: On the United States at War, the Long Crisis of the American Republic, and the Fate of the Earth. New York: Nation Books. P. 143–172.
52. Scouras J. 2019. Nuclear War as a Global Catastrophic Risk. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 10(2). P. 274–295. DOI:10.1017/bca.2019.16
53. Shoemaker S. J. 2018. The Apocalypse of Empire: Imperial Eschatology in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 272 p.
54. Skinner Q. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 405 p.
55. Tannenwald N. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 472 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511491726
56. Tannenwald N. 2018. How Strong Is the Nuclear Taboo Today? The Washington Quarterly. 41(3). P. 89–109. DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2018.1520553
57. Teschke B. 2003. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. New York: Verso Books. 312 p.
58. Tuzmukhamedov B. R. 2021. Pravovaya skorlupa dlya bez"iadernoy illiuzii [A Legal Shell for a Nuclear-Free Illusion]. Rossiia v global'noy politike. 19(2). P. 120–130. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2021-19-2-120-130 (In Russian).
59. Uchaev Y. I. 2021. The Anthropocene Consensus: Transforming international politics in the age of global existential threats. Russia in Global Affairs. 19(3). P. 206–227. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-3-206-227
60. Uchaev Y. I., Kharkevich M. V. 2023. Nemyslimost' total'noy katastrofy: postapokalipticheskaya priroda modernogo politicheskogo realizma [Unthinkable Doomsday: Postapocalyptic Nature of Modern Political Realism]. Politiia: Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz (Zhurnal politicheskoy filosofii i sotsiologii politiki) [Politeia – Journal of Political Theory, Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics]. No. 1. P. 40–63. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2023-108-1-40-63 (In Russian)
61. Van Creveld M. 1999. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 439 p.
62. Van Munster R. 2021. The Nuclear Origins of the Anthropocene. In D. Chandler, F. Muller, D. Rothe, eds. International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 59–75. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-53014-3_4
63. Waltz K. N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 251 p.
64. Waltz K. N. 1990. Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. American Political Science Review. 84(3). P. 730–745. DOI: 10.2307/1962764
65. Wendt A. 1995. Constructing International Politics. International Security. 20(1). P. 71–81. DOI: 10.2307/2539217
66. Wendt A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 432 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511612183
67. Wendt A. 2003. Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations. 9(4). P. 491–542. DOI: 10.1177/135406610394001
68. Xia L., Robock A., Scherrer K. et al. 2022. Global Food Insecurity and Famine from Reduced Crop, Marine Fishery and Livestock Production due to Climate Disruption from Nuclear War Soot Injection. Nature Food. 3(8). P. 586–596. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-022-00573-0
Review
For citations:
Uchaev Y.I., Kvartalnov A.A. Is Nuclear Anarchy Sustainable? A Temporal Approach. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2023;2(2):14-32. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2023-2-14-32
Views:
90
Email this article 