We don't want to defend the rules-based international system while at the same time destroying everything that this system has been about for the last half century.
Radoslaw Sikorski, former Polish foreign minister and current member of the European Parliament, came up idea According to Sikorski, this would prevent the Russians from using nuclear weapons in the war. Note by Robert C. Castel.
Let's put aside for a moment the question of whether Mr. Sikorski really meant what he said. Let's also put aside the question of what kind of precedent such a move would create in the international system. And, of course, the question of whether this rapidly emerging multipolar world order would be safer if all the nuclear powers used nuclear weapons to wipe out their henchmen?
Let's put all that aside and think for a minute about the consequences of such a gift to Ukraine!
During the decades of the Cold War, we had just enough time to think carefully about the theory of nuclear war and nuclear deterrence.
One of the most striking lessons of the Cold War is the following:
The possibility of the so-called "first strike" makes the system unstable, because in a Wild West pistol duel everyone has only one cartridge, then the one who shoots first has the advantage.
On the other hand, the possibility of the so-called "second strike" makes the system stable, since the temptation inherent in the previous setup is eliminated. It makes little sense to shoot first if the other side still has the opportunity to shoot back even in the event of a fatal hit.
What does all this mean about Mr. Sikorski's idea?
It means that
handing over some nuclear warheads to the Ukrainians would not only prevent the Russians from using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, but quite the opposite.
Based on the logic of the "first strike", the rational step on Russia's part would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike to destroy the Ukrainian nuclear warheads and the infrastructure supporting them. In Hungarian, nuclear ice cream licks back.
In addition to rationality, it would also be completely morally justifiable to use a nuclear strike (counterforce) against weapons that threaten the other side's cities with nuclear charges (countervalue).
The only way to rationally apply Mr. Sikorski's idea is to hand over nuclear weapons to Ukraine while ensuring the possibility of a "second strike". In practice, this would mean handing over the entire nuclear "triad" (air, land and submarine assets).
This theoretically "rational" solution probably goes far beyond the limits of Sikorski's rationality.
We don't want to defend the rules-based international system while at the same time destroying everything that this system has been about for the last half century.
Featured image: MAKSIM BLINOV / SPUTNIK / SPUTNIK VIA AF
