Is Nuclear Anarchy Sustainable? A Temporal Approach
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-olf3
Abstract
The article develops a novel temporal approach to the sustainability of nuclear anarchy. The extant 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 interstate anarchy are embedded in specific temporalities.
Taking this fact 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 form the concept of temporal contradiction. First, a realization of finite temporality should subvert the legitimacy of an anarchic world order and encourage limitations on national sovereignty. Second, international anarchy should ‘eternalize’ nuclear weapons, i.e., reinterpret them as compatible with the eternity of human civilization. Familiar events of 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 favor of the theoretical implications described above.
Thus, the concept of temporal contradiction provides another argument in favor of 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/project/22-28-01054/).
About the Authors
Ye. I. Uchaev
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yevgeny I. Uchaev – M.A. in International Relations, Lecturer and PhD student, World Politics Department
76 Prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 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 Prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
References
1.
2. Adamsky D. 2019. Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 354 p.
3. Allan B.B. 2018. Scientific Cosmology and International Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108241540.
4. Arnold B. 2003. Eschatological Imagination and the Program of Roman Imperial and Ecclesiastical Renewal at the End of the Tenth Century. In: Landes R., Gow A. and Van Meter D.C. (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.
5. Baratta J.P. 1985. Was the Baruch Plan a Proposal of World Government? The International History Review. 7(4): 592-621. DOI: 10.1080/07075332.1985.9640394.
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. and 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. 780–92. DOI: 10.1215/00382876-1275797.
15. 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/acpro f:oso/9780199591442.001.0001.
16. Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York. Basic Books. 470 p.
17. 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.
18. Hobson J.M. 2002. What's at Stake in 'Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International relations'? Transcending 'Chronofetishism' and 'Tempocentrism' in International Relations. Hobden S. and Hobson J.M. (eds) Historical Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 3-41.
19. Hom A.R. 2018. Silent Order: The Temporal Turn in Critical International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 46(3). P. 303–30. DOI: 10.1177/0305829818771349.
20. Hom A.R. 2020. International Relations and the Problem of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 297 p. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198850014.001.0001.
21. Hutchings K. 2008. Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 208 p. DOI: 10.7228/manchester/9780719073021.001.0001.
22. Hutchings K. 2018. Time and the Study of World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 46(3). P. 253–258. DOI: 10.1177/0305829818771343.
23. Jervis R. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 272 p.
24. Kahn H. 1960. On Thermonuclear War. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 688 p.
25. Kahn H. 1965. On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. New York: Frederick Praeger. 308 p.
26. 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.
27. 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:o so/9780190279363.001.0001.
28. Koselleck R. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. NY: Colombia University Press. 344 p.
29. Latour B. 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press. 300 p.
30. Lake D.A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 248 p.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Mandelbaum M. 1981. The Nuclear Revolution International Politics before and after Hiroshima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511572845.
34. Morgenthau H.J. 1964. The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy. American Political Science Review. 58(1). P. 23-35. DOI: 10.2307/1952752.
35. Nye J.S. 1988. Nuclear Ethics. New York. Free Press. 168 p.
36. Ord T. 2020. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York. Hachette Books. 480 p.
37. 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.
38. Ritchie N. 2013.Valuing and Devaluing Nuclear Weapons. Contemporary Security Policy. 34(1). P. 146-173. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2013.771040.
39. Robock A., Oman L. and 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.
40. 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.
41. Schell J. 1982. The Fate of the Earth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 244 p.
42. Schell J. 2004. The Abolition. Schell J. The Jonathan Schell Reader: On the United States at Wat, the Long Crisis of the American Republic, and the Fate of the Earth. New York. Nation Books. P. 143-172.
43. 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.
44. Shoemaker S.J. 2018. The Apocalypse of Empire: Imperial Eschatology in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 272 p.
45. 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.
46. Tannenwald N. 2018. How Strong Is the Nuclear Taboo Today? The Washington Quarterly. 41(3). P. 89-109. DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2018.1520553.
47. Teschke B. 2003. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. London. New York. Verso Books. 312 p.
48. Uchaev Ye.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.
49. Van Munster R. 2021. The Nuclear Origins of the Anthropocene. Chandler D., Muller F. and Rothe D. (eds) International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 59-75. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-03053014-3_4.
50. Waltz K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 251 p.
51. Waltz K.N. 1990. Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. American Political Science Review. 84(3). P. 730–745. DOI: 10.2307/1962764.
52. Wendt A. 1995. Constructing International Politics. International Security. 20(1). P. 71-81. DOI: 10.2307/2539217.
53. Wendt A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 432 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511612183.
54. Wendt A. 2003. Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations. 9(4). P. 491–542. DOI: 10.1177/135406610394001.
55. 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.
56. Arbatov A.G. 2021. Desiat' aporii nashego vremeni. Teoriia i praktika iadernogo sderzhivaniia [The Ten Aporias of Our Time. The Theory and Practice of Nuclear Deterrence]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia [Polis. Political Studies]. No4. P. 88-111. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.08. (In Russian).
57. Bogdanov K.V. 2022. Signal'nyi komponent v strategiiakh ogranichennogo primeneniia iadernogo oruzhiia [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).
58. 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).
59. Douglas M. 2020. Kak mysliat instituty [How Institutions Think]. Moscow: Elementarnye formy. 250 p. (In Russian).
60. Fenenko A.V. 2018. «Dolgii mir» i iadernoe oruzhie [‘Long Peace’ and Nuclear Weapons]. Rossiia v global'noi politike. 16(6). P. 99-123. (In Russian).
61. Ferro M. 2010. Kak rasskazyvaiut istoriiu detiam v raznykh stranakh mira [Comment on raconte l'Histoire aux enfants: À travers le monde entier]. Moscow: Knizhnyi klub 36.6. 480 p. (In Russian).
62. Foucault M. 2011. Bezopasnost', territoriia, naselenie. Kurs lektsii, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1977-1978 uchebnom godu [Sécurité, Territoire, Population: Cours au Collège de France (1977-1978)]. Saint Petersburg. Nauka. 544 p. (In Russian).
63. 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 issledovanii. 320 p. (In Russian).
64. Makhukova A.V. 2016. Gumanitarnaia initsiativa: kriticheskaia massa antiiadernykh aktivistov [Humanitarian Initiative: A Critical Mass of Anti-Nuclear Activists]. Indeks bezopasnosti [Security Index]. 22(1). P. 107-120. (In Russian).
65. Safranchuk I.A., Lukyanov F.A. 2021. Sovremennyi mirovoi poriadok: strukturnye realii i sopernichestvo velikikh derzhav [The Modern World Order: Structural Realities and Great Power Rivalries]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia [Polis. Political Studies]. No3. P. 57-76. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.03.05. (In Russian).
66. Safranchuk I., Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A. 2021. Gegemoniia i mirovoi poriadok: obzor kontseptsii «slozhnoi 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).
67. Skinner Q. 2018. Istoki sovremennoi politicheskoi mysli: v 2 t. T. 2: Epokha Reformatsii [The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation]. Moscow: ID «Delo» RANEPA. 568 p. (In Russian).
68. Tuzmukhamedov B.R. 2021. Pravovaia skorlupa dlia bez"iadernoi illiuzii [A Legal Shell for a Nuclear-Free Illusion]. Rossiia v global'noi politike. 19(2). P. 120-130. DOI: 10.31278/18106439-2021-19-2-120-130. (In Russian).
69. Uchaev Ye.I., Kharkevich M.V. 2023. Nemyslimost' total'noi katastrofy: postapokalipticheskaia priroda modernogo politicheskogo realizma [Unthinkable Doomsday: Postapocalyptic Nature of Modern Political Realism]. Politiia: Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz (Zhurnal politicheskoi filosofii i sotsiologii politiki) [Politeia – Journal of Political Theory, Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics]. No1. (In Print). (In Russian).
70. Van Creveld M. 2019. Rastsvet i upadok gosudarstva [The Rise and Decline of the State]. Moscow, Chelyabinsk: IRISEN, Sotsium. 544 p. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Uchaev Ye.I., Kvartalnov A.A. Is Nuclear Anarchy Sustainable? A Temporal Approach. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2022;15(6):112-134. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-olf3
Views:
909
Email this article 