Could Germany and South Korea go nuclear?
Russia celebrates Victory Day with Nuclear threats; and More from our favourite Glaswegian, Jane Kinninmont
Hello Orderers,
May 9th is the day that Russians commemorate their victory in the ‘Great Patriotic War’ (i.e. WWII).
The holiday is always marked with a huge military parade in Red Square and bombastic and grandiloquent speeches about Mother Russia’s contribution to humanity, freedom, and the fight against Nazism. But for the last two years the parade has become an occasion for Putin to symbolically connect Russia’s aggressive and illegal war in Ukraine onto his perverse narrative of ‘fighting nazism’.
Sometimes little old patriotic Putin also likes to sprinkle into his Victory day remarks a little Nuclear Sabre rattling. Earlier in the week, Russia conducted nuclear readiness drills and in the speech he warned the West from ‘provoking’ Russia. What a hypocrite! Read more about the nuclear dimension, here from Bloomberg.
All of this is very apropos this week’s episode of the Disorder Pod in which we investigate the increased threats of nuclear proliferation and actual nuclear deployment in today’s world.
Ep38. Could Germany and South Korea go nuclear? Listen here.
Putin’s nuclear threats over Ukraine and the constant potential of an Iranian/Israeli escalation have brought concerns over nuclear proliferation back up the geopolitical agenda. Western-aligned Asian countries – like South Korea and Saudi Arabia – have begun talking openly about whether they might need their own nukes. Meanwhile, even Germany – one of the most avowedly anti-nuclear countries in Europe – is now having a new debate about whether there should be a “Eurobomb”.
In this episode of Disorder, Jason Pack talks to Jane Kinninmont (our favourite Glaswegian and returning Champion). Jane is a peace and security expert with two decades of experience covering the Middle East, at the Economist Intelligence Unit and Chatham House. She is now with the European Leadership Network, which brings together more than 400 current, former and future European leaders to reduce nuclear risks and prevent conflict. The duo discuss: what are the risks of countries like South Korea, Germany and Saudi Arabia going nuclear? Is the current non-proliferation treaty regime up to scratch? And does nuclear non-proliferation actually work? Are American allies being rational in thinking of nuclearizing as they have a growing fear that they might not be able to rely on the US if the chips are down? All of this talk leads us to wonder will nuclear weapons ever be used and are nuclear threats and discussions of nuclearizing important even if the weapons will never be used? Listen here.
Background Reading
German Atomwaffen and the Superweapon Trap: https://warontherocks.com/2024/05/german-atomwaffen-and-the-superweapon-trap/
It’s very relevant and also nice that it’s just been published.
Germany debates nuclear weapons, again. But now it’s different: https://thebulletin.org/2024/03/germany-debates-nuclear-weapons-again-but-now-its-different/
More on Germany’s independent deterrent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/uk-europe-nuclear-shield-donald-trump-germany-nato-deterrent
Read Keir Starmer: Labour commitment to nuclear weapons unshakeable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435
For more on Jane’s background and work: https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/person/jane-kinninmont/
I’ve mentioned about how we are gradually unfurling our Premium Substack for bonus content such as the below teaser from our episode prep:
Sometimes in the premium content i’ll share my own thoughts on something, sometimes a special letter from a guest on the programme, in this case these are the episode prep notes Jane and I compiled for our recent recording session and I feel they give some perspective on how we prepare for a podcast and how the nuclear/deterrence/non-proliferation issue has been framed of late… and also gives you some insights into how absurdly methodically we script our podcast recording sessions and how we also go off script.
Without further ado, I’ll present a bit for everyone and then cut off the rest to leave for our premium subscribers only.
· Until recently the only people seeking to challenge the norms of nuclear nonproliferation were the leaders of “rogue” states – North Korea is the only country that has tested a nuclear weapon in the 21st century. Iran may now be a nuclear threshold state but the US is still judging it has not decided to go for a weapon. Libya famously gave up its weapons programme in return for Gaddafi’s rapprochement with the West. Look at how that turned out :-<
· But now we also have pro-Western countries talking openly about whether they might need their own nukes: South Korea and Saudi Arabia in particular. Ultimately this is about the global disorder. It’s a symptom of their growing sense of insecurity – specifically their fear they might not be able to rely on the US if the chips are down.
· This idea is spreading to Europe given Trump’s comments about NATO which presents the alliance as a kind of protection racket - pay up or Putin will get you – at a time when Putin is invading and occupying a sovereign European country. Sir Keir Starmer has said recently in a Daily Mail article that his commitment to the UK's nuclear weapons is "unshakeable" and "absolute".
· Even Germany – one of the most anti-nuclear countries in Europe, conservative and largely pacifist – is now having a new debate about whether there should be a “Eurobomb” where France, Germany and the UK cooperate to ensure there’s a European nuclear deterrent.
· Obviously when one thinks about nuclear proliferation the first thing to worry about is the escalatory pressures in the Middle East - in fact, Iran has attacked the territory of two nuclear-armed states this year (Pakistan a few months ago and Israel last month). This has prompted some debate over how useful nuclear weapons really are. Do they really deter conflicts or do they lead to advisories just needing to catch up…?
· One might argue that whole debate about nuclear weapons is a debate about disorder vs order… do they cause a proliferation cycle of disorder or do they enable deterrence and hence stability and order…?
SETTING THE STAGE:
WELCOME TO the DISORDER show, JANE
Jane we share a lot in common.. and actually I think of you as the Scottish female version of myself in certain ways!
We both ended up studying mena based on our experiences of the 9/11 how did it all shake out in your case?
Jane was planning to be a music journalist until she randomly found herself as an eyewitness to 9/11 when interning with a book PR firm in New York during her summer holidays. Coming from Scotland, which has had its own share of sectarian tensions, but which has worked hard to rein them in, she grew up with a strong sense that sectarian hatreds were often based on a lot of misunderstanding and propaganda, and that getting to know people across divides could make those divides seem a lot less important.
And I think similarly to me you got into this field thinking that change was feasible and practicable to make a better world if only policymakers just got more expert advice. You and I both used to believe that more knowledge and effort would help order the disorder.
Jane tries to hold on to that optimism, to practice empathy and to make time to write poetry and if possible make people laugh, or failing that make herself laugh. One of her interests is in trying to get more people interested in nuclear issues by talking about the linkages with geopolitics, psychological warfare or even just human nature.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Ordering the Disorder to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.