Blog #1 - FEB 3

 “The Nuclear Taboo”

The world has not seen the use of a Nuclear Weapon in armed conflict, when the United States dropped two bombs on the Japanese Cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Since then, there has not been another weapon used, however that does not mean states are actively preparing for when a situation may occur where the use of nuclear power becomes necessary. Scholar Nina Tannenwald refers to the “Nuclear Taboo” as the main reason why there has been a pause on nuclear force. This “de facto prohibition” against the use of nuclear power is by no means a formal one. It is actually only a taboo because people believe it to be. The vast majority of states who support this taboo are states with no nuclear capabilities whatsoever. In fact, there are only 5 NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) states- USA, Britain, China, France, Russia. These 5 states are the only ones recognized to have sanctioned nuclear capabilities. Most recently, the United Nations has pushed for the complete Prohibition of nuclear weapons. However, the United States has made it very clear that they will not be signing this treaty. When interviewed, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “Seeking to ban nuclear weapons through a treaty that does not include any of the countries that actually possess nuclear weapons is not likely to produce any results.” There have been similar comments from other states with possession of nuclear weapons. The entire purpose of the taboo is to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, yet there are countries who are willing to violate it for their own protection. 

As previously stated, the purpose of this nuclear taboo is the prohibition of nuclear force. What the United States is actively doing does not reflect the goals of this taboo. Therefore, how can we even call this a “taboo”? It only is considered that because we the people believe it to be. There is plenty of coercion going on. The United States, along with the 4 other NFP states, are saying this: “we are not going to join your treaty because we have nuclear capabilities and you do not. Therefore an arrangement (the treaty formed by the UN) created by states with no nuclear power seems utterly useless.”

As a reader, I challenge the legitimacy of the  “nuclear taboo” that Tannenwald expresses. There is plenty of legitimacy to her claims, but I do not think that this is a prohibition of nuclear power when the 5 NFP states will not endorse any action to eradicate nukes. Tannenwald says, “(prohibitive norms) rarely render violations impossible but instead ‘make them unlikely by raising the threshold of what counts as a legitimate exception to the rule.’” I disagree. What’s the point of a prohibitive norm if the end goal is not complete? At the end of the day, human nature is human nature. The only constant in an international relation like this one is change. However, there should be a way for states as civilized as the ones in this case to figure something out. Whether it be in a way where this norm changes or these states can agree to put down their weapons. But right now, we just can not call it a “taboo” (de facto prohibition) when we have so many states ready to violate it.