"Nuclear deterrence keeps us safe"
"Nuclear deterrence keeps the peace "
"Nuclear deterrence is purely defensive"
"Nuclear deterrence is normal"
"Everyone believes in nuclear deterrence"

These five pervasive myths help prop up the fundamentally flawed and dangerous theory that keeps us all under the nuclear threat. So we've put together five quick explainers on how to challenge them. 

Download as PDF

Myth one: Nuclear deterrence keeps us safe

Nuclear deterrence does not keep anyone safe, it is a threat to all of us.

Nuclear deterrence doctrine relies on the constant and credible threat to use nuclear weapons against potential opponents, so more than a thousand weapons are ready to be used all the time. That is enough to devastate the entire planet. 

The fact that nuclear deterrence could fail is undeniable, and when the probability of failure is more than zero, it puts everything at risk. When deterrence fails, studies and simulations show that the use of nuclear weapons would quickly escalate into a nuclear war killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people outright. Countless more would be injured, maimed or suffer a lingering death from radiation sickness. Studies also show the explosions and fires caused by nuclear weapons would throw ash and debris into the atmosphere that would block out the light of the sun in what is called a nuclear winter causing crops to fail on a massive scale leading to global famine, killing billions.

Myth two: Nuclear deterrence keeps the peace

There is no evidence that nuclear weapons deter war beyond the correlation of their existence with the fact they have not been used in warfare again since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

During the Cold War, we now know it was a combination of luck and the decisions of individuals prepared to defy established procedures that prevented nuclear war, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and in Europe in the early 1980s. Assertions that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace fail to consider other contributing factors.

History also shows that having nuclear weapons does not deter conventional attacks. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel despite knowing it had got nuclear weapons by that time. Argentina went to war with Britain in 1982 by invading the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Pakistan attacked India in what became known as the Kargil War in 1999 when both already had nuclear weapons. The US nuclear arsenal did not deter Al Qaida from mounting the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Myth three:  Nuclear deterrence is purely defensive

Deterrence doctrine is inherently aggressive. It requires being ready at all times to use nuclear weapons if or when an incoming attack is detected and it would do massive, indiscriminate harm to millions of people, including people and countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. A nuclear exchange anywhere would have impacts everywhere, directly or indirectly through forced migration, economic, telecommunication, and other significant disruptions, as well as the unpredictable impact of radioactive fallout which is weather dependent, not to mention causing nuclear winter that would affect the planet. 

Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons to try to deter other countries from supporting Ukraine following its full-scale invasion of the country show that the practice of nuclear deterrence also enables acts of aggression with conventional weapons.

The supporters of nuclear deterrence say that deterrence isn’t the same as coercion or  blackmail, but those activities rely on the threat to use nuclear weapons with all the potential consequences that implies, so from the point of view of the rest of the world, the risks and consequences are the same.

Myth four: Nuclear deterrence is normal

It is not normal for nine countries to assert the right to cause catastrophic harm to every living thing on earth at a moment’s notice. Nuclear deterrence cannot be compared with people carrying knives or guns or threatening retaliation to scare potential assailants. If  - or more likely when - nuclear weapons are used, it will have a devastating impact on the whole world, not just a few individuals.

Deterrence doctrine also relies on the belief that leaders will act rationally 100% of the time, especially in highly-stressful crisis situations. This is a naïve assumption that flies in the face of how we know human beings behave.

Deterrence requires you know what your enemy is thinking, while at the same time making sure your enemy has no idea of what you are thinking. This is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of deterrence, and sets the doctrine up for failure

Nuclear weapons advocates, including politicians, military personnel, think tankers and many journalists - particularly in pro-nuclear weapons states - live in an echo chamber where they have convinced each other and many among the public that nuclear deterrence is normal and makes sense. But the more you examine it, the weirder it is, and the quicker the apparent logic falls apart.  

Myth five: Everyone believes in nuclear deterrence

Devotion to deterrence doctrine is a minority pursuit.

122 countries voted to adopt the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), in 2017, because they reject deterrence doctrine and believe the only way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to ban them outright.  

The countries that have signed or ratified the TPNW or support it in votes at the UN number around 140 out of the 193 represented there. The states that continue to believe in nuclear deterrence are a minority. 

In the view of the states that have joined the TPNW, deterrence  threatens the legitimate security interests of humanity as a whole because it is based on the implicit or explicit threat of global mass destruction. So, for the majority of countries, nuclear deterrence theory is a dangerous, misguided, unsustainable and unacceptable approach to security.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has more than 700 partner organisations in 110 countries and they all reject nuclear deterrence doctrine. Furthermore, opinion polling in many countries that have nuclear weapons or support their use, consistently shows widespread public support for eliminating them.