The Political Reckoning
in a Post-Nuclear Use
LandscapeRabia Akhtar
June 2024© 2024 Rabia Akhtar
This report is published under a 4.0 International Creative Commons License.

The research described in this paper was co-sponsored by the Research Center for Nuclear
Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University (RECNA), the Nautilus Institute for Security andSustainability, and the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation andDisarmament (APLN), with collaboration from the Panel on Peace and Security of Northeast Asia
(PSNA). MacArthur Foundation and New Land Foundation funding to Nautilus Institute supported
this project.
The views represented herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views ofaffiliated institution(s), nor that of APLN, its staff, board, or funders.
Please direct inquiries to:
Asia-Pacific Leadership Network
APLN Secretariat
4th floor, 116, Pirundae-ro
Jongno-gu, Seoul, ROK, 03035
Tel. +82-2-2135-2170
Fax. +82-70-4015-0708
Email. apln@apln.network
The full report can be accessed athttps://www.apln.network/projects/nuclear-weapon-use-risk-reduction/the-political-reckoningin-a-post-nuclear-use-landscape

Cover Photo: In the background, a Urakami Cathedral on a hill in Nagasaki. U.S. National Archives,
1945. 77-AEC-52-4459.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape2

Rabia Akhtar
Dean Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Lahore,
Lahore, Pakistan
Email: rabia.akhtar@csspr.uol.edu.pk
Rabia Akhtar is Dean Faculty of Social Sciences at University of Lahore. A
Professor of International Relations, she is also the founding Director of
the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Research and of the Schoolof Integrated Social Sciences at the University of Lahore, Pakistan. Dr.
Akhtar has a PhD in Security Studies from Kansas State University. She
holds Masters degrees in International Relations from Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad, and in Political Science from Eastern Illinois
University, USA. Her scholarly pursuits have revolved around key areas
such as South Asian nuclear security, deterrence dynamics, media in theage of deep fakes and disinformation, nuclear weapons, AI and emerging
technologies, Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security imperatives,
as well as regional and international security issues. She has authoreda book titled, ‘The Blind Eye: U.S. Non-proliferation Policy Towards
Pakistan from Ford to Clinton’, which showcases her expertise in thefield. Moreover, she serves as the Editor of Pakistan Politico, Pakistan’s
pioneering magazine on strategic and foreign affairs. Not only has Dr.
Akhtar made significant contributions to academia, but she has also
played a vital role in shaping foreign policy as a member of Prime Minister
Imran Khan’s Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs from 2018 to 2022.
She is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the South Asia Center, Atlantic
Council, Washington DC, and a Nonresident Fellow at BASIC, UK. Dr.
Akhtar serves as a visiting faculty at the NATO Defence College, Rome,
the NPIHP Nuclear Bootcamp, Rome and ISODARCO, Andalo, Italy. Dr.
Akhtar is a visiting scholar (2024-2025) at the Project on Managing theAtom, Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape3

The Political Reckoning in a
Post-Nuclear Use LandscapeRabia Akhtar

ABSTRACTThe international landscape, particularly in Northeast Asia, is portrayed as volatile due to thepresence of nuclear-armed states, territorial disputes, and escalating geopolitical tensions.
Considering this reality, this paper delves into the political ramifications of potential nuclear use in
the Northeast Asia . It scrutinizes conceivable power shifts, the evolving role of anti-nuclear groups,
and the broader impact on security policies. The exploration extends to scenarios post-nuclear
use, encompassing positive, negative, and complex outcomes. The paper concludes by offering
recommendations to policymakers, underscoring the imperative of substantive dialogues on arms
control and conflict resolution to avert catastrophic nuclear events. Overall, the paper provides acomprehensive analysis of the multifaceted challenges posed by nuclear weapons in Northeast Asiaand offers valuable insights for crafting a more secure global environment. Recent developments
point towards a disconcerting unraveling of arms control structures and a growing threat to thenonproliferation regime. The paper underscores the dynamic evolution of nuclear deterrence,highlighting the strategic use of emerging technologies by states to reshape the balance ofvulnerabilities.

KEYWORDS
Nuclear weapons; Asia-Pacific; North Korea; arms control; deterrence

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape4

INTRODUCTION
The unraveling of the global arms control architecture and the ensuing risks of unrestrictedcompetition have brought us to a perilous juncture. The elimination of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 (Trenin 2020) was a particularly alarming shift, casting a shadow
over East Asia and beyond. This change compels us to face a deeply unsettling question: Whatwould be the consequences if nuclear weapons were used in this region? The potential
repercussions are nothing short of catastrophic. A nuclear conflict in East Asia would not only
devastate the immediate area but also send shockwaves across the entire world, disrupting lives andaltering the course of history. It is imperative that we grasp the full scope of these risks to safeguard
our collective future. That deterrence has not failed thus far does not guarantee its continued
effectiveness. The foundational assumptions that support the theory of the nuclear revolution1 arefacing greater challenges than ever before (Lieber and Press 2017).
The world is witnessing a shift in the traditional approaches to nuclear deterrence. In an effort totilt the balance of vulnerabilities2 in their favor, countries are increasingly focused on exploiting
emerging technologies that offer precision and remote sensing capabilities. This desire to leverage
new technologies to alter the offense-defense balance with a bilateral deterrence equation
is indicative of a failure to fully comprehend the significance of the nuclear revolution and thepotentially cataclysmic consequences of nuclear war. In other words, if nuclear possessors had
accepted that secure second-strike capabilities have indeed eliminated their security dilemmas,
they wouldn’t have embroiled themselves in nuclear and conventional arms racing.
The international climate is far from peaceful, as geopolitical tensions continue to simmer andescalate, creating additional triggers for crises, with potentially catastrophic nuclear implications.
The probability of intentional or inadvertent nuclear incidents escalates in periods of uncertainty
and crisis. This risk is exacerbated by inadequate crisis communication systems and potential
misjudgments arising from the chaos of warfare and misinformation.
One region where such crises could have devastating consequences is Northeast Asia. This region
has emerged as an area of significant concern due to the presence of nuclear-armed states China,
Russia, North Korea, and the United States, which exerts its considerable influence in the region.
It is imperative to approach the issue with both a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of theevolving dynamics between countries in the region. While the existence of nuclear weapons makes
the stakes incredibly high, other factors fuel tensions in the region, including territorial disputes,
hegemonic ambitions, and nationalist sentiments.

1 This theory argues that the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, combined with the possession of secure andsurvivable second –strike capabilities, has made mutual vulnerabilities an inescapable and stabilizing phenomenon. In otherwords, the theory argues that nuclear weapons eliminate or significantly reduce security dilemmas, make military victories
impossible to achieve, and, consequently, add to general stability.
2 Bilateral deterrence equations are strengthened when both countries achieve a degree of balance in terms ofvulnerabilities. However, one side feels a tad less vulnerable, this delicate balance is disturbed, incentivizing the state whichfeels less vulnerable to use force against the other.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape5

In 2021, the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament(APLN), the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University (RECNA), and the
Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability launched a project on Reducing the Risk of Nuclear
Weapon Use in Northeast Asia (NU-NEA). In an effort to assist policymakers in mitigating tensions
and preventing nuclear conflicts, the Project has primarily concentrated on illuminating the various
pathways to nuclear deployment and the resulting physical ramifications within the region (APLN).
Supported by the findings of years 1 and 2 of the project, this paper delves into the profound politicalramifications of nuclear use in Northeast Asia. Its aim is to grasp how the employment of nuclear
weapons could potentially change the equilibrium of power between states with nuclear weapons
and those without these weapons, within the region and beyond. Additionally, this paper criticallyevaluates the potential transformations in the role and significance of anti-nuclear groups that may
arise as a consequence of nuclear use. Moreover, it analyzes the far-reaching impacts of nuclear
use on the security policies of key stakeholders and allies, as well as its influence on the delicate
equilibrium between those advocating for war and those striving for peace. In a world after nuclear
weapons have been used, the international community would face substantial transformations andnew challenges. This paper examines those transformations through the good, the bad and the ugly
scenarios post-nuclear use and how nuclear weapons are perceived in the new normal. Lastly, thepaper gives recommendations to policymakers to prevent nuclear use, including the need to engage
in substantive dialogues on arms control and conflict resolution.

NUCLEAR USE AND THE PERMANENT ASCENDANCY OF ANTI-NUCLEARGROUPSThe 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) successfully achieved consensus on a final document, which marked a remarkable
milestone in its history. The document noted deep concerns by the state parties’ about “thecontinued risk for humanity represented by the possibility that these weapons could be used and thecatastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear
weapons” (Arms Control Association 2023). The inclusion of the humanitarian aspect in thediscussion on NPT’s Article VI was followed by a new wave of activities that focused on thedeleterious humanitarian repercussions of nuclear use. This paved the way for organizations like theInternational Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) to rally support for an international
treaty to stigmatize, prohibit, and eliminate nuclear weapons.
These efforts resulted in the negotiation, adoption, and entry into force of the Treaty on theProhibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). As of September 2023, 93 countries had signed the
TPNW, showing its wider international acceptability (ICAN 2024). Also known as the Ban Treaty,
TPNW is, unlike the NPT, a non-discriminatory Treaty requiring all signatories to give up their nuclear
weapons All state parties to the TPNW not only have to eliminate all their nuclear stockpiles but
also commit to not amassing them again.3 Its entry into force has strengthened the position of

3 “United Nations Treaty Collection,” accessed November 16, 2023, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.
aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-9&chapter=26.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape6disarmament advocates who remind Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) recognized by the NPT of theirdisarmament commitments. However, the Treaty is often criticized for its ineffectiveness, as noneof the nuclear weapon states have signed it. While the likelihood of nuclear weapon use in Northeast
Asia is low (Gilholm 2022), any such occurrence would embolden anti-nuclear campaigners as theconsequences of using nuclear weapons, irrespective of other factors, would be too catastrophic todisregard, amplifying their arguments against them.
The second year of the NU-NEA project thoroughly dissects the short- and long-term impacts ofnuclear use. More specifically, the project’s report on Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Use in
Northeast Asia produces quantitative estimates of direct and delayed deaths that various nuclear
use cases could induce (APLN 2023). The findings of the report speak to the implications of nuclear
use. According to the report’s estimates, even in “the most limited of nuclear conflicts, deaths werein the tens or hundreds of thousands, with the more extensive conflicts resulting in millions ofdeaths and hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths” (APLN 2023, iv).
To provide a more thorough evaluation and forecast, the report examines various physical effects,
encompassing thermal radiation (fluence), firestorms, and fallout. This comprehensive analysis
enhances our understanding and enables us to make more accurate projections. Such are thegrotesque effects of nuclear use that even a DPRK initiated4 “demonstration nuclear attack on asmall ROK coastal community for the main purpose of driving the United States, the ROK, and theinternational community to the bargaining table” and limited conventional and nuclear responses by
the United States, will result in approximately 60,000 deaths, both direct and radiation-induced in
the short-to-long term (APLN 2023, 57-58).
The report examines other potential scenarios involving nuclear use, particularly those with multiple
nuclear attacks. These scenarios paint a grim picture of immense destruction and loss of life.
Alarmingly, a three-way nuclear exchange between the United States, North Korea, and China could
result in the death of nearly a million people. Similarly, if a terrorist organization were to detonate anuclear warhead in Central Tokyo, it is projected that around 600,000 lives could be lost in the longrun (APLN 2023, 69).
These various projections illustrate the chaos and devastation that would accompany any path
towards nuclear use. That nuclear weapons cause both immediate and long-term human casualties
provides ample justification for anti-nuclear campaigners, humanitarian organizations, and peace
activists to unite and oppose their existence. Encouraged by the extensive backing of the TPNW andthe humanitarian agenda within the NPT, organizations such as ICAN would amplify their advocacy
and campaigns against nuclear weapons. This surge in support would drive their efforts to newheights, as they strive to create a world free from the threat of nuclear arms. The dissemination ofgraphic images across mainstream and social media platforms serves not only to intensify publicabhorrence towards nuclear weapons and their wielders but also to rally support for organizations
dedicated to eradicating such weapons.

4 For a thorough analysis of a DPRK led first-strike see Quester (2006). For a comprehensive analysis of thestrategic and ethical considerations surrounding North Korean nuclear first use, see Erin and Scouras (2020); and fora detailed exploration of North Korea’s nuclear threat, see Fitzpatrick (2009).

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape

7

ICAN campaigners protest outside Australia’s permanent mission to the UN at Geneva, during the May session of the UN open-ended
working group on nuclear disarmament. Australia was among a handful of nations that voiced opposition to a ban on nuclear weapons.
Wikimedia Commons

Consequently, mounting pressure will be exerted on nuclear weapon states (NWS) to undertake
three crucial actions, both within the framework of the NPT review cycle and within the United
Nations.
First, the pressure to fulfill their disarmament commitments in Article VI of the NPT would intensify
even further. The existing divisions within the NPT framework would be further exacerbated,with most Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) asserting their authority against the retention
and modernization of nuclear forces. Even NNWS that benefit from the provision of extended
deterrence will also be pushed to reevaluate their positions on nuclear weapons. Political blocs
within the NPT, such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), will embark on a diplomatic offensive
against all NWS.
Second, NNWS would request the implementation of universal, verifiable, and non-discriminatory
negative security assurances (NSAs). NWS will have limited flexibility to remain noncommittal during
Preparatory Committee meetings (PrepComs) and Review Conferences (RevCons) following a
nuclear use incident. Consequently, intense pressure will be exerted on NWS to commit to no-firstuse (NFU) policies, both at the declarative and operational levels, as a significant confidence-building
measure.
Third, NWS will be urged to uphold their commitments in establishing nuclear-weapons free zones,
particularly in the Middle East. Moreover, nuclear possessors outside of the NPT will be pressured
to support the establishment of nuclear-weapons free zones, especially in Northeast Asia. Further,
the pressure on NWS to sign the Additional Protocol of the Treaty of Bangkok would only mountgoing forward. It would be difficult for NWS to avoid signing it by citing ambiguities in the Treaty’s
language. Although, it is highly improbable that NWS will adhere to these demands, even if nuclear
weapons have been employed. Consequently, the review process of the NPT may once again

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape8succumb to the complexities of politics, impeding progress. While NNWS are already concerned
about the aforementioned issues, they will intensify their efforts in response to any nuclear use
incident. In a post-nuclear-use world, they will find themselves in a much stronger bargaining
position vis-à-vis NWS, inside and outside of the NPT setting.
A nuclear use event will confirm a bevy of skepticisms against the possession of nuclear weapons.
During the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmamentand International Security, delegates from various countries argued against the continued andentrenched belief in nuclear deterrence, arguing that so long as it remains integral to states’
national security strategies, nuclear risks cannot be mitigated (United Nations 2023).
In addition to these efforts, organizations dedicated to the goal of nuclear abolition are likely togarner increased support from various entities, including the United Nations. By championing thiscause, they can foster greater unity and collaboration towards achieving our shared objective(UNODA 2023). The young activists, currently engaged in disarmament advocacy by recreating
images and reviving memories of the devastating nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, willundoubtedly garner sympathy, recognition, and widespread support. They will get another set of
nuclear use incidents to build a narrative against nuclear weapons. Therefore, many perceive theirefforts as a noble fight for a just cause.
Overall, regardless of the circumstances in which nuclear weapons may be employed, the resulting
devastation would amplify the influence of anti-nuclear activists. Proponents of disarmament andsupporters of the TPNW will be vindicated as they accumulate even greater moral and politicalauthority. They will rightfully reference the destructive consequences of nuclear utilization to
not only stigmatize these weapons, but also construct a compelling argument against nuclear
deterrence. They will contend that since the concept of nuclear deterrence relies on the threat ofnuclear use and annihilation, it is inherently dangerous and risky. Moreover, they will express theirstrong opposition to nuclear weapons and the concept of deterrence from a moral standpoint. Antinuclear advocacy groups would emphasize the immorality of safeguarding oneself by threatening
innocent civilians with catastrophic consequences. Should there be a nuclear incident in Northeast
Asia or elsewhere, the use of nuclear weapons would be widely condemned as abhorrent tohumanity.
Following the various analysis and simulation of nuclear use incidents researched in this Project,peace activists, civil society, and a majority of NNWS would attribute nuclear risks solely to thepossession of such weapons. These groups will continue to consider nuclear risk-reduction efforts
meaningless so long as NWS do not start the process of disarmament.

AN ELUSIVE GLOBAL UNITY?
The use of nuclear weapons represents a significant threat to international peace and security,with repercussions that are both immediate and long-lasting. In the event of such a catastrophic
event, the international community would undoubtedly respond with a great deal of attention andresources. Organizations such as the United Nations (UN) would be called upon to aid the millions ofvictims impacted by nuclear use. Furthermore, in the case of countries engaging in nuclear warfare,there would be an increased level of international scrutiny and tension.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape9The UN, through its subsidiary bodies such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), would lead the global effort to provide relief to victims of the nuclear
attack. One of the agencies that would play a central role in this humanitarian response is theInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC has significant experience in responding
to such crises and should, along with disaster relief organizations around the world, help mitigate
the immediate aftermath of a nuclear attack (Convoy of Hope 2024).
Responsible countries will undertake some kinds of disaster relief efforts. However, despite theexpectations of global actors, they may choose to engage in blame-shifting rather than participate
in meaningful dialogue to resolve disputes for a greater good of humanity. This will mar the abilityof the UN and its agencies to carry out rescue, relief, and rehabilitation operations. Additionally,
fulfilling the critical expectations of the international community in a time of such dire need is far
from certain. The complex and multi-faceted nature of the humanitarian crisis caused by a nuclear
attack makes it an incredibly challenging situation, further complicated by political, social, and legal
strains.

Rescue Team searching operation on debris and mud covered at Tsunami hit Destroyed city in Rikuzentakata on March 20, 2011,
Japan. iStock/RyuSeungil

In the wake of such an attack, the engagement of great powers - the five NWS - in humanitarianrelief efforts would be influenced by a range of political and strategic considerations. A key
determinant of their level of involvement would be the question of which state was responsiblefor initiating the use of nuclear weapons. This is not surprising because geopolitics often trumps
humanitarian concerns.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape10The scenario of nuclear use by a great power is one that must be approached with great caution,
both in terms of the immediate consequences for the victims and in terms of the long-term
implications for alliances and security policies going forward. The United States, as a leadingworld power, must respond to such situations with a level of responsibility and accountability thatrecognizes the gravity of nuclear use and the need to mitigate harm for all those affected.
The year-1 report of this project adeptly outlined plausible scenarios involving nuclear use simulating
China as the first user in Taiwan (RECNA-Nagasaki University, Asia Pacific Leadership Network, andNautilus Institute 2022). Should this scenario occur, it is expected that the United States would takea leading role in rallying support both domestically and internationally against China and in support ofthe innocent victims of Chinese nuclear-led aggression. In order to facilitate such efforts, the WhiteHouse would work closely with Congress and US government agencies to prepare a comprehensive
relief package for those affected by the attack.
However, it is important to note that if the United States were to be the first user of nuclear weapons
in a conflict, relief efforts could be hindered by both the inability and refusal to take responsibility forthe initial use of such weapons. This may impede rescue, relief, and rehabilitation work, leaving these
efforts vulnerable to the various exigencies and geopolitical rivalries that are present in the postnuclear use world. In such a situation, the way that great powers, particularly the United States,
deals with these challenges in providing relief activities will have a considerable impact on alliances
going forward.
After the use of nuclear weapon(s), it is reasonable to assume that allies will alter their security
policies as they assess how their nuclear umbrella-providers acted in the aftermath of a nuclear
crisis. In the event that the United States were to fulfill its commitments and act in good faith during
a major nuclear crisis between North Korea and South Korea, for instance, the latter might still not
be confident in retaining its non-nuclear status in a hostile environment. Further, it is possible thatboth Seoul and Tokyo will start questioning the reliability of Washington’s ability to offer extended
deterrence. This concern is already a valid one, owing to greater public support for South Korea
having an independent nuclear deterrent (Friedhoff, Dalton, and Kim 2022). While, for now, South
Koreans are confident about the United States coming good on its commitments, scholars areworried about the weakening of Washington-Seoul relations (Council on Foreign Relations 2023).
As the year-1 report insightfully points out, the United States might assess that the risk of a nuclear
attack on the US homeland will increase if any crisis were to escalate to nuclear levels in Northeast
Asia. Given these considerations, allies may be inclined to at least modify their conventional
force deployments, even in a post-nuclear use world. Voices that speak to the need for having
independent nuclear forces will likely get louder (Gallo 2023).

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY IN A POST-NUCLEAR WORLDIn the post-nuclear world, there are three potential outcomes that may come to fruition as a result of
nuclear use: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The first scenario is “the good scenario,” which involves
the successful implementation of comprehensive arms control and disarmament measures that
effectively mitigate the risks of further nuclear use and proliferation. The second scenario, referred
to as “the bad scenario,” involves the disillusionment and loss of faith in the efficacy of nuclear
deterrence as a viable means of preventing global nuclear war. Finally, the third and most concerning
scenario, is “the ugly scenario,” which involves the embrace of destructive ideologies and beliefs
that normalizes nuclear conflict.
The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape111. The Good Scenario: The Post-nuclear Future will Belong to Arms Control and Disarmament
The year-1 report of this project presents plausible scenarios for nuclear use. However, the stateof political interactions between the hostile nuclear dyads do not instill confidence in their ability
to resolve conflicts effectively. Nonetheless, there remains a glimmer of hope that rational minds
will unite in their commitment to preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Cuban Missile Crisisof 1962 brought the United States and the former Soviet Union perilously close to a catastrophic
nuclear confrontation. However, through a fortuitous blend of luck and astute leadership, the world
was spared an immense calamity (Vaughan 2022). The close call in Cuba led to advancements
in arms control and nonproliferation. The Partial Test-Ban Treaty was signed just a year after theincident, followed by the commencement of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT-1) in 1969.
While a dangerous crisis in its own right, the Cuban Missile Crisis would be dwarfed by even a limited
use of nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia. The potential aftermath of any nuclear use in Northeast
Asia would be an undeniable realization that the living would envy the dead. This could force world
leaders to think about their collective futures, and take concrete steps towards arms control,
confidence-building, and multi-pronged cooperation on key regional and global issues. Should
Moscow, Washington, and Beijing come to realize the potentially catastrophic consequences ofanother nuclear confrontation, it is conceivable that they would convene in a trilateral setting toengage in a comprehensive dialogue on various arms control strategies. The overall effort tobuttress arms control would most likely be different to the one made during the Cold War, mainly
because the pressure to get things right will be greater in a post-nuclear use world. Therefore, they
could, for example, agree on adopting more stringent transparency and verification mechanisms,
remaining fully committed to New START, and establishing better crisis communication frameworks.

KN-C30095 07 October 1963 President Kennedy the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. L-R: William Hopkins, Sen. Mike Mansfield, John
J. McCloy, Adrian S. Fisher, Sen. John Pastore, W. Averell Harriman, Sen. George Smathers, Sen. J.W. Fulbright, Sec. of State Dean Rusk,

When it comes to North Korea, it would be most beneficial for the United States to approach it asSen. George Aiken, President Kennedy, Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, Sen. Everett Dirksen, William C. Foster, Sen. Howard W. Cannon, Sen.
Leverett Saltonstall, Sen. Thomas H. Kuchel, Vice President Johnson. White House, Treaty Room. Wikimedia Commons

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape12

When it comes to North Korea, it would be most beneficial for the United States to approach it as
an arms control matter, rather than as a nonproliferation one (CSSPR 2020). All variants of North
Korea-specific nuclear use cases identified in the year-1 report speak to the reality and severityof Pyongyang’s nuclear challenge. A valuable lesson that can be gleaned from a potential nuclear
exchange with North Korea is that coercive measures cannot disarm the country. However, if theUnited States were to engage in arms control negotiations with North Korea, there is a possibilityof a favorable outcome as far as nuclear risk-reduction is concerned. In other words, Pyongyang
would be more open to negotiating an arms control agreement than giving up its bomb. This is
primarily because entering into arms control arrangements with the United States will increase
North Korea’s prestige and security. It will stand to lose both counts if they commit to disarmament.
Furthermore, it will be imperative for NWS to embark on a fresh start and reaffirm their dedication to
nuclear disarmament. Such a step would play a crucial role in halting the erosion of trust among thestate parties of the NPT. In addition, bolstering disarmament and nonproliferation education, which
has recently become a focal point of the NPT review process, would be a valuable complement tothis endeavor. This can foster lively debates and nuanced discussions on the humanitarian impactof nuclear use. Future generations can leverage these platforms to promote lasting peace by
advocating for nuclear disarmament.
Leveraging technological advancements in disarmament will also present a promising avenue foraddressing the security challenges of a post-nuclear use world. One possible interest of NWS would
be investment in the use of AI and other emerging technologies that could help streamline andimprove global arms control and disarmament.
The advancement of AI-enabled tools for identifying, tracking, and monitoring nuclear weaponsand materials has the potential to greatly enhance existing systems, preventing their proliferation.
Concomitantly, NWS must address the vulnerabilities of these AI-driven systems. One of thebiggest challenges that AI-based systems bring to the table is an increase in the number of cyberattacks (Malwarebytes n.d.). Therefore, NWS should work towards establishing joint mechanisms
to enhance the security of these systems. In fact, it should become an important arms control
measure going forward. In a world scarred by the shared experience of nuclear devastation, there
will be a need for interconnected disarmament mechanisms that would effectively address thediverse requirements of different states. Such mechanisms would be a valuable asset in promoting
peace and security on a global scale. By embedding emerging technologies in such a shared system,a framework can be established that fosters trust, transparency, and cooperation among states,
ultimately contributing to a more secure global order which would ensure nuclear weapons are neverused again.
2. The Bad Scenario: Embracing the Unthinkable
The potential use of nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia would have catastrophic consequencesfor global security. It would signify a failure of deterrence and break the long-held nuclear taboo(Tannenwald 2021), endangering the current framework of international norms and regulations
which govern the responsible use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it may embolden NWS, such as
the United States, Russia, and China as they could draw some wrong lessons from the instancesof nuclear use. The illusion of emerging relatively unscathed from a nuclear conflict may induce a
dangerous sense of confidence that a nuclear war is indeed winnable.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape13Such erroneous views, if propagated, could be fatal and instigate another nuclear weapon use.
NWS may perceive the use of nuclear weapons as legitimate and feasible means to attain strategic
objectives on the battlefield, thereby advancing the reckless view that they can be employed,
despite severe consequences. This notion is inherently destabilizing, particularly in times of crisis,
as it encourages risk-taking behaviors prone to miscalculation that would trigger accidental ordeliberate use. For example, decapitation strikes by the United States, which are military operations
targeting an adversary’s leadership or strategic assets, could be viewed as a means of disarming a
nuclear-armed North Korea. However, the use of such weapons under these circumstances would
exacerbate the fragility of deterrence and crisis stability, further heightening the risk of conflict
escalation.
Conversely, if the United States were to find itself in a world where Russia or China employed nuclear
weapons first, it may perceive a heightened need for nuclear modernization. Such an approach
could result in the development of destabilizing technologies (Hersman 2020), increasing the risk of
nuclear weapon use. Aegis missile defense systems and hypersonic glide vehicles offer examples
of such technologies, which could be deployed by the United States to counter any perceived
imbalances in nuclear capabilities. The use of such disruptive technologies could lead to escalating
tensions between states. This situation may further aggravate the risks of deliberate or unintentional
nuclear weapon use even in a world which has seen nuclear devastation.
3. The Ugly Scenario: Losing Faith in the Religion of Nuclear Deterrence
The year-1 report brings attention to a worrisome reality that the aggressors initiated the useof nuclear weapons without being deterred by the possibility of nuclear retaliation from theiradversaries. In a post-nuclear world, this could establish an unfavorable precedent. Observing the
failure of deterrence and the actual use of nuclear weapons, both participating states and observers
may begin to question the significance and effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.
There are two unsettling consequences that will arise from this. First, states may once again choose
to allocate resources towards conventional forces, incentivizing increased internal conflicts andclashes.
Second, states will be motivated to elude and bypass nuclear deterrence measures that will remain
at their disposal in a post-nuclear use world. The prevalence of emerging technologies has createda more conducive environment for such actions. The repercussions of this phenomenon would
manifest as heightened uncertainty, an escalation in arms competition, and a deepening sense of
distrust.
The nuclear use scenarios presented in the year-1 report depict a world fraught with instability andchaos, where the risk of armed conflict, both conventional and nuclear, looms large. A world where
the concept of deterrence will become increasingly fragile with states leaning towards employing
force as a tool of policy. As a result, the nuclear order will find itself in a state of disarray, with nonnuclear weapon states feeling more vulnerable while nuclear weapon states remaining steadfast in
their refusal to disarm.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape14CONCLUSION
The potential use of nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia is undoubtedly one of the gravest threats
to human existence today. The region, with its strategic importance and significant players, has thepotential to become the epicenter of a catastrophic nuclear battlefield, triggering mass destruction
and loss of life. The global repercussions of any such event would be far-reaching, creating a worldthat is unpredictable, unstable, and dangerous.
As argued in this paper, the aftermath of any nuclear event in Northeast Asia would be shapedby the actions of the major players. In such a scenario, it is imperative that global leaders takeresponsibility for their inaction and make concerted efforts towards building confidence and trust,
implementing arms control measures, and establishing substantive cooperation. The stakes are
high, and the future of our planet is on the line.
The first step in preventing nuclear use in Northeast Asia is to acknowledge the gravity of thesituation and the need for action. This acknowledgment should come from all nuclear possessors
and their allies, not least because political ownership will be absolutely critical to addressing nuclear
use-related concerns. This requires a widespread understanding of the threat and a willingness tocollaborate on solutions. A crucial factor in achieving this is the willingness of major powers like theUnited States, China, and Russia to engage in meaningful dialogue and negotiations. Efforts topave the way for peaceful resolutions must be pursued vigorously, even if the prospect of successseems slim. Members of the civil society, peace activists, and global multilateral fora must pressure
great powers into engaging with one another.
The establishment of mechanisms for arms control and reduction is another key component
in preventing nuclear use in Northeast Asia. As outlined in the year-1 report, one possible scenario
involves China as the first user in Taiwan, which would require the United States to mobilize support
against Chinese aggression. However, in the event of US first use, the situation could be quite
different, complicating relief efforts and falling prey to geopolitical rivalries. In either scenario, it
is essential to have arms control mechanisms and policies in place that prevent the escalation of
nuclear use.
In addition to arms control measures, substantive cooperation between regional powers is
crucial in preventing nuclear use. The ability to collaborate on non-nuclear issues such as trade,climate change concerns, and counterterrorism can help build relationships, trust, and confidence
between nations. Such efforts may seem secondary to the issue of nuclear use, but they can play apivotal role in overall regional stability.
Looking forward, it is imperative that global leaders work together to prevent nuclear use in
Northeast Asia. The potential consequences of inaction are too catastrophic to ignore. There areno guarantees of success, but concerted efforts towards confidence-building measures, arms
control mechanisms, and substantive cooperation can create a more stable and secure region andworld. The lesson from any such crisis would be that we should never forget the enormity of our
responsibilities as global citizens, especially when the stakes are so high.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape

15

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work was supported by the Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition, Nagasaki University(RECNA; Japan).

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Rabia Akhtar is Dean Faculty of Social Sciences at University of Lahore. A Professor of International
Relations, she is also the founding Director of the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Researchand of the School of Integrated Social Sciences at the University of Lahore, Pakistan. Dr. Akhtar has
a PhD in Security Studies from Kansas State University. She holds Masters degrees in International
Relations from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, and in Political Science from Eastern Illinois
University, USA. Her scholarly pursuits have revolved around key areas such as South Asian nuclear
security, deterrence dynamics, media in the age of deep fakes and disinformation, nuclear weapons,
AI and emerging technologies, Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security imperatives, as well
as regional and international security issues. She has authored a book titled, ‘The Blind Eye: U.S.
Non-proliferation Policy Towards Pakistan from Ford to Clinton’, which showcases her expertise in
the field. Moreover, she serves as the Editor of Pakistan Politico, Pakistan’s pioneering magazine on
strategic and foreign affairs. Not only has Dr. Akhtar made significant contributions to academia,
but she has also played a vital role in shaping foreign policy as a member of Prime Minister Imran
Khan’s Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs from 2018 to 2022. She is a Nonresident Senior Fellow
at the South Asia Center, Atlantic Council, Washington DC, and a Nonresident Fellow at BASIC,
UK. Dr. Akhtar serves as a visiting faculty at the NATO Defence College, Rome, the NPIHP Nuclear
Bootcamp, Rome and ISODARCO, Andalo, Italy. Dr. Akhtar is a visiting scholar (2024-2025) at the
Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School.

REFERENCES•

APLN. 2022. “APLN Joint Project on Nuclear Weapon Use Risk Reduction,” APLN, June 21, 2022.
https://apln.network/projects/nuclear-weapon-use-risk-reduction/apln-joint-project-onnuclear-weapon-use-risk-reduction.

•

APLN. 2023. “Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Use in Northeast Asia: Implications
for Reducing Nuclear Risk,” APLN, March 31, 2023. https://www.apln.network/projects/nuclearweapon-use-risk-reduction/humanitarian-impacts-of-nuclear-weapons-use-in-northeastasia-implications-for-reducing-nuclear-risk.

•Arms Control Association. 2023. “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
At A Glance,” Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/
nuclearprohibition.

•Council on Foreign Relations. 2023. “U.S.-South Korea Alliance Must Not Fail, Warns Scott
Snyder in New Book,” Council on Foreign Relations, December 6, 2023. https://www.cfr.org/
news-releases/us-south-korea-alliance-must-not-fail-warns-scott-snyder-new-book.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape16•Convoy of Hope. 2024. “Disaster Relief Organizations: Which Are the Best?,” Convoy of Hope,January 2, 2024. https://convoyofhope.org/articles/disaster-relief-organizations/.

•

CSSPR. 2020. “SISS Faculty Conversation Series: Book Talk with Ankit Panda on His Book ‘Kim
Jong Un and the Bomb’,” Center for Security, Strategy and Policy Research (CSSPR), Universityof Lahore, October 23, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OhK2H6f2T0.

•

Fitzpatrick, Mark. 2009. “Stopping Nuclear North Korea,” Survival 51 (4): 5-12. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00396330903168782.

•

Friedhoff, Karl, Toby Dalton, and Lami Kim. 2022. “Thinking Nuclear: South Korean Attitudes on
Nuclear Weapons,” The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. https://globalaffairs.org/research/
public-opinion-survey/thinking-nuclear-south-korean-attitudes-nuclear-weapons.

•

Gilholm, Andrew. 2022. “Planning for Geopolitical Flashpoints: A Northeast Asia Perspective,”
Control Risks, April 4, 2022. https://www.controlrisks.com/our-thinking/insights/planning-forgeopolitical-flashpoints-a-northeast-asia-perspective.

•

Gallo, William. 2023. “Why South Korea’s President Is Talking About Nuclear Weapons,” Voiceof America, January 16, 2023. https://www.voanews.com/a/why-south-korea-s-president-istalking-about-nuclear-weapons/6919962.html.

•

Hahn, Erin and James Scouras. 2020. Responding to North Korean Nuclear First Use: So Many
Imperatives, So Little Time. National Security Report. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory. https://www.jhuapl.edu/sites/default/files/2022-12/NorthKoreanNuclearFirstUse.
pdf.

•

Hersman, Rebecca. 2020. “Wormhole Escalation in the New Nuclear Age,” Texas National
Security Review, July 9, 2020. https://tnsr.org/2020/07/wormhole-escalation-in-the-newnuclear-age/.

•

ICAN. 2024. “TPNW Signature and Ratification Status,” ICAN. https://www.icanw.org/signature_
and_ratification_status.

•

Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press. 2017. “The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change
and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence,” International Security 41 (4): 9–49.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00273.

•

Malwarebytes. n.d. “AI in Cyber Security: Risks of AI,” Malwarebytes.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/cybersecurity/basics/risks-of-ai-in-cyber-security.

•

RECNA-Nagasaki University, Asia Pacific Leadership Network, and Nautilus Institute. 2022.
Possible Nuclear Use Cases in Northeast Asia: Implications for Reducing Nuclear Risk.
https://cms.apln.network/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Year-1-Report_Possible-Nuclear-UseCases-in-NEA.pdf.

•

Quester, George. 2006. Nuclear First Strike: Consequences of a Broken Taboo. Johns Hopkins
University Press•

Tannenwald, Nina. 2021. “23 Years of Nonuse,” Stimson Center (blog), February 22, 2021.
https://www.stimson.org/2021/23-years-of-nonuse/.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape17•Trenin, Dimitri. 2020. “Stability amid Strategic Deregulation: Managing the End of Nuclear
Arms Control,” The Washington Quarterly 43(3): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/016366
0X.2020.1813401.

•

United Nations. 2023. “Entrenched Belief in Nuclear Deterrence as Defence Keeps Fear of
Annihilation Alive, First Committee Hears in Thematic Debate | UN Press,” October 13, 2023.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/gadis3718.doc.htm.

•

UNODA. 2023. “UNODA and Japan reach agreement on the terms for a new programme “Youth
Leader Fund for a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” United Nations Office for Disarmament
Affairs, March 14, 2023. https://disarmament.unoda.org/update/unoda-and-japan-reachagreement-on-the-terms-for-a-new-programme-youth-leader-fund-for-a-world-withoutnuclear-weapons/.

•

Vaughan, Tom. 2022. “Nuclear War: Does It Take Luck or Reasoning to Avoid It? Lessons fromthe Cuban Missile Crisis, 60 Years On,” The Conversation, October 4, 2022.
http://theconversation.com/nuclear-war-does-it-take-luck-or-reasoning-to-avoid-it-lessonsfrom-the-cuban-missile-crisis-60-years-on-191239.

The Political Reckoning in a Post-Nuclear Use Landscape18

The Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (APLN) isa Seoul-based organisation and network of political, military, and diplomatic leaders and experts
from across the Asia-Pacific region working to address global security challenges, with a particularfocus on reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons risks.
The mission of APLN is to inform and stimulate debate, influence action, and propose policy
recommendations designed to address regional security threats, with an emphasis on nuclear andother WMD (weapon of mass destruction) threats, and to do everything possible to achieve a worldin which nuclear weapons and other WMDs are contained, diminished, and eventually eliminated.

apln.network@APLNofficial@APLNofficial@APLNofficial

Nagasaki University is the only university in the world that has inherited a medical college having
experienced the atomic bombing. Achieving a “world free from nuclear weapons” is thus a paramountconcern to the University. Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University (RECNA),
located in a city that was attacked by an atomic bomb, is an educational and research institute whichis the interdisciplinary center of local academia with a firsthand experience of the horror of nuclear
weapons. Founded in 2012, its objectives encompass a twofold mission: firstly, through rigorous
academic inquiry and analysis, to redefine the significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experiences in thelight of the current world trend, and disseminate information and make proposals from various aspects
towards abolishing nuclear weapons; secondly, to make best use of such a process and outcomes of its
research and analysis, and contribute to university education. RECNA, as a think tank open to the local
community longing for nuclear weapons abolition, operates in close cooperation with partners including
Nagasaki City and Nagasaki Prefecture.

RECNA

RECNA

@recna2012

recna_nu

Since its founding in 1992, the Nautilus Institute has evolved into a thriving public policy think-tank andcommunity resource. Along the way it has addressed critical security and sustainability issues such as
US nuclear policy, especially in Korea, energy insecurity in Northeast Asia, and the effect of the U.S.China relationship on environmental insecurity. The Institute has built a reputation not only for innovative
research and analysis of critical global problems, it also translates ideas into practical solutions, oftenwith high impact. Nautilus Institute holds that the key to reducing global insecurity-in short, to making
the world peaceful, equitable, and sustainable-lies in the creation of a global civil society committed
to joint problem-solving. The Nautilus community is a global network built around this strategy serving
thousands of people in over fifty countries and working with partners in every country in the region.

nautilus.org

The Nautilus
Political Reckoning
in a Post-Nuclear
Use LandscapeInstitute@Nautilus
Inst

Nautilus Institute19