A Professor of Political Science, Femi Otubanjo, has warned that nuclear weapons have evolved from being mere instruments of warfare to becoming major causes of international conflicts and crises.
Otubanjo, a Research Professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), gave the warning while delivering a foreign policy lecture organised by the institute on Tuesday, in Lagos.
The lecture was entitled, “Nuclear Weapons: From Instrumenta Belli to Causae Bellorum.”
The professor listed the consequences of nuclear war to include immediate mass casualties, nuclear winter, environmental devastation and psychological trauma.
He added that the consequences would include economic collapse, political disorder and a potential threat to the survival of organised human civilisation.
Otubanjo said that although discussions on nuclear weapons often appeared distant to many Africans, the reality was that such weapons posed an existential threat to all humanity.
According to him, no region of the world would be spared the devastating consequences of a total nuclear war.
He urged greater public awareness and international commitment toward nuclear restraint, warning that humanity could not afford complacency in the face of such a grave threat.
He examined the historical evolution of nuclear weapons, tracing their development from the Manhattan Project and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Cold War arms race and contemporary nuclear rivalries.
Otubanjo noted that since 1945, nuclear weapons had occupied a unique position in international politics because of their unparalleled capacity for destruction, deterrence and political influence.
“The emergence of nuclear weapons transformed the strategic environment of the 20th Century and continues to shape the international system in the 21st Century.
“Their existence altered the distribution of power, encouraged doctrines of deterrence and generated unprecedented fears regarding the survival of humanity,” he said.
The professor argued that while nuclear deterrence had helped to prevent direct military confrontation among major nuclear powers, controversies surrounding the acquisition, deployment and prevention of nuclear capabilities had increasingly become sources of conventional wars.
He added that the controversies had become sources of diplomatic crises, sanctions and preventive military actions.
According to him, nuclear weapons have moved from being mere instruments of war (instrumenta belli) to becoming causes of war (causae bellorum).
Otubanjo cited the longstanding tension between the U.S and Iran as an example of how nuclear issues had become sources of international friction and conflict.
According to him, relations between the two countries have remained turbulent since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, with Iran’s nuclear development programme constituting a major point of contention.
“U.S. policy has consistently been directed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while seeking to limit its regional influence,” he said.
Otubanjo noted that disputes over Iran’s nuclear ambitions had triggered diplomatic crises, economic sanctions, international negotiations and recurring security concerns.
He said that these demonstrated how nuclear issues had increasingly become causes of conflict rather than mere instruments of warfare.
The professor said that nuclear strategy and international nuclear politics could be understood through deterrence theory, balance of power theory and national interest theory.
Otubanjo said deterrence theory suggested that states refrained from aggression when the costs outweighed potential gains, adding that the concept became especially influential during the Cold War.
This, he said, was due to the “second-strike capability” and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
“Balance of power theory explains why states seek military capabilities to prevent domination by rivals, while national interest theory emphasises state survival, security and prosperity as the principal objectives of foreign policy.”
The professor described a nuclear weapon as an explosive device that released enormous amounts of energy from reactions within the nucleus of atoms, making it far more destructive than conventional explosives.
He identified two major categories of nuclear weapons as fission bombs, also known as atomic bombs, and fusion bombs commonly called hydrogen bombs.
According to him, fission bombs derive their destructive force from the splitting of heavy atomic nuclei such as uranium-235 or plutonium-239, while fusion bombs are significantly more powerful and rely on the fusion of light atomic nuclei.
Otubanjo attributed the absence of nuclear war since 1945 to three major factors –deterrence and Mutual Assured Destruction, hierarchy of national interests and catastrophic consequences associated with nuclear conflict.
According to him, nuclear-armed states understand that a nuclear war would destroy all parties involved and therefore cannot be considered a rational policy option.
“Modern nuclear warheads possessed destructive capacities ranging from 100 to 800 kilotons, while the Soviet Union’s Tsar Bomba reached 50 megatons, approximately 3,300 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb.”
Quoting military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, he said war remained politics pursued by other means, warning that a war that destroyed everything would achieve no political objective.
Otubanjo also highlighted the hierarchy of national interests, explaining that leaders generally prioritised state survival above all other interests and had therefore exercised restraint in nuclear decision-making.
He warned that even a limited nuclear exchange could result in the death of millions of people, while a full-scale nuclear conflict could trigger global famine, societal collapse and destruction of modern infrastructure.
“The survivors of a nuclear war, if any, would envy the dead,” he quoted former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev as saying. (NAN)
