The Realities Behind Dictators and Nuclear Weapons

The Power to Order a Nuclear Strike

Dictators may have the authority to order a nuclear strike, but the actual execution of such an order depends on several layers of command. The individuals who physically push the button play a crucial role in determining whether the order is carried out. These individuals, often high-ranking military officials, must weigh the consequences of their actions, knowing that their decision could trigger catastrophic global repercussions.

In many cases, these officials act as a buffer, providing a critical check on the dictator's power. Their loyalty is often conditional, shifting based on the perceived threat to their own lives and the survival of their country. This dynamic creates a complex web of decision-making that can prevent a nuclear catastrophe.

Mutually Assured Destruction as a Deterrent

The concept of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) has historically prevented nuclear warfare. World leaders understand that launching a nuclear weapon would likely result in their own destruction, as well as the annihilation of their country. This understanding has created a delicate balance, where nuclear weapons are more valuable as a deterrent rather than for actual use.

The USA remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, and the catastrophic consequences of those bombings have served as a stark reminder of the devastation that nuclear weapons can cause. Modern leaders are acutely aware of these repercussions, which influences their decision-making processes.

Strategic Thinking Among Dictators

Dictators often rise to power by outmaneuvering rivals, indicating a high level of strategic intelligence. They understand that using a nuclear weapon could lead to their downfall, making them more likely to use such weapons only if they feel extremely threatened or desperate. In many cases, nuclear weapons serve as a final act of defiance, a last resort if they believe their end is inevitable.

However, the loyalty of military officials in dictatorships is conditional. High-ranking officials will choose self-preservation, potentially opposing a nuclear strike if it threatens their survival. Historical examples, such as Japan's attempted coup at the end of WWII, show that high-ranking officials may resist extreme actions, prioritizing their own safety over blind loyalty.

The Role of Public and Media Influence

The public and media can significantly influence perceptions and decisions about war. Historical U.S. conflicts, such as the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, have shown that prolonged conflicts can lead to public dissent and pressure on leaders to change their strategies. The ongoing Ukraine war could become a prolonged conflict, leading to similar public dissent and influencing the decisions of those in power.

In dictatorships, the influence of public opinion may be less direct, but it still plays a role. Leaders who are seen as deities, such as North Korea's leaders, may have different decision-making processes influenced by their unique positions. However, even in these cases, the potential for internal dissent and the risk of losing power can act as a deterrent against extreme actions.

The Unpredictability of "Crazy" Leaders

The age of "crazy" leaders suggests that we can't always rely on rational decision-making to prevent nuclear war. While strategic thinking and the concept of mutually assured destruction provide some level of deterrence, the unpredictability of certain leaders adds a layer of uncertainty. This unpredictability makes it crucial for the international community to remain vigilant and for top officials within these regimes to act as a check on their leaders' power.

In some cases, internal corruption and oligarchy, such as in the Russian military, might lead to the removal of a leader like Putin if he decided to launch a nuclear weapon. The success of stopping a dictator from launching a nuclear weapon depends heavily on the context and the agreement among top officials, who must prioritize their own survival and the long-term stability of their country.

While the power to order a nuclear strike lies with dictators, the actual execution involves a complex interplay of strategic thinking, conditional loyalty, and the influence of public and media perceptions. The concept of mutually assured destruction and the strategic use of nuclear weapons as deterrents provide some level of protection, but the unpredictability of certain leaders adds an element of uncertainty that requires constant vigilance from the international community.