Nuclear threats are back with, a hard-nosed, in-your-face rhetoric. The Cold War had crises, but it was primarily a bi-polar standoff. It is now known Russia and the United States similarly feared an existential war that neither wanted. On both sides, the costs involved were simply too unpalatable for leaders, most of whom had direct experience of major conflict during World War II.

Today is starkly different with proliferation of nuclear weapons to several more states such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and an aspirational atomic Iran to name a few. The leadership of many of these countries have an off-hand attitude to major conflicts and are seemingly unconcerned about the costs in blood and treasure involved. Indeed, some consider making nuclear threats as mere “politics by other means,” unheeding of the possible dire consequences of their rhetoric and suggesting nuclear warfighting as a viable, realistic option.

Please click here to read the full “Nuclear deterrence: Actions speak louder than words” article published at The Hill, written by Dr Brooke Taylor and Griffith Asia Institute Visiting Fellow, Dr Peter Layton.