Ten years since the Syrian regime launched its atrocious chemical weapons attack on Douma, killing more than 1,400 people, the state of international affairs should be ringing major alarm bells in terms of the potential combat use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear.

At times, the world has come close. Nuclear-armed powers India and Pakistan have faced off against each other. As the years passed, previously closely guarded secrets about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis have revealed that the world was even closer than we thought to a nuclear disaster between the US and the Soviet Union. The success of the film “Oppenheimer” may just jolt the world’s leaderships and publics from the comfort blanket of complacency and inertia.

Firstly, global clashes and instability are thriving. The standout issue is Ukraine and the Russian invasion, as tensions with NATO descended into near-direct confrontation. As the war has escalated, the US and its NATO allies have been sucked in further, with ever-increasing weapons supplies and training. For years, NATO members have, in theory, agreed to a 2 percent of gross domestic product target for defense spending. In 2014 ,only three members achieved this, while this year 11 are expected to do so.

Finland has joined NATO, with Sweden to follow, both for their own security, while at the same time escalating matters with Russia. Even Switzerland is reexamining its long-term neutrality status with NATO in mind. It has already declared that it wants to join the European Sky Shield Initiative, a German-led project to develop European air and missile defense systems. Military spending in Europe grew by 13 percent in 2022, the largest rise since the end of the Cold War.

One would hope that increased tensions will energize a renewed commitment to arms control mechanisms

Chris Doyle

In the longer run, the US-China relationship is arguably far more perilous. Russian power is on the wane — it is a mid-level economy with a rusting, aging military machine. China is the surging global force challenging the US at all levels. It is desperate to assert its predominance in the Asia-Pacific, but some fear farther afield too. Taiwan is just one of the hot button issues that have to be managed carefully.

Chinese posturing is alarming not just to Taiwan, but also other neighbors including India, Australia and Japan. Australia has invested heavily in its own long-range strike capabilities, purchasing US systems. Beijing has told India to keep calm after an official Chinese map appeared to lay claim to Indian territory in northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state and the disputed Aksai Chin plateau. On this map, China also continues to maintain its claim to most of the South China Sea. Keeping calm may not be so easy.

India has tensions with both Pakistan and China. If China expands its arsenal, New Delhi may follow suit, with a knock-on effect for Pakistan.

The more irrational and unpredictable actors include North Korea. Pyongyang’s provocative missile tests are commonplace. South Korea and others have been compelled to ramp up their defensive and offensive capabilities to counter this.

Iran is, of course, progressing ever closer to nuclear power status. Its rapprochement with key actors like Saudi Arabia could act as a brake and the reduction in tensions is welcome, yet who is convinced this will last?

New technologies also pose a threat. Could cyber weapons be deployed to take down an entire state infrastructure? How will artificial intelligence impact military doctrines and decision-making? Will hypersonic missiles render defensive systems obsolete? What about space weapons?

Major powers are wary of any alterations to the balance of power and threat that could weaken their response capabilities. Mutual assured destruction, the doctrine credited with staving off nuclear conflict during the Cold War, is dependent on the confidence of all nuclear-armed parties in their second-strike options. Strategic stability is dependent on all sides knowing there is no benefit to a first-strike option.

Proliferation also poses a danger in that it could facilitate nonstate actors in acquiring ever more powerful weapons

Chris Doyle

One would hope that increased tensions will energize a renewed commitment to arms control mechanisms. However, the opposite is happening, as the global architecture is crumbling away. In the European theater, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Treaty on Open Skies have all collapsed, with European powers and the US blaming Russian violations.

Most of these agreements were, in any event, not applicable to a non-bipolar world. We are now closer to a tripolar setup. Russia and the US may no longer be prepared to limit their arsenals to 5,000 to 6,000 weapons. China is no longer willing to have a minimal deterrent of a few hundred nuclear weapons, as in the past. The US believes China will possess about 1,500 warheads by 2035, but at what point will Beijing decide it has enough? Some in the US believe that the only response should be that America has to maintain parity in terms of the number of warheads with China and Russia combined.

Proliferation also poses a danger in that it could facilitate nonstate actors in acquiring ever more powerful weapons. One of the fears following the chemical weapons attack in Douma was that extremists would be successful in their zealous quest to steal such weapons from the Syrian regime’s arsenal. Who knows if instability in Pakistan or perhaps in North Korea could risk materials, even weapons, falling into other hands?

None of this is helped by the inertia at the UN Security Council. In theory, the major powers all agree that arms control matters, but they have wildly diverging positions on what this means. The Ukraine crisis has shredded any sense of shared decision-making in the global interest. The US and China are going through the motions of dialing down the temperature with mixed success. Confidence-building measures are a minimum requirement.

But diplomacy is the most secure, cost-effective and reliable exit from this dangerous escalation of tensions. At a time when the planet requires huge investments to tackle climate change, environmental damage and the impact of myriad conflicts, the last thing billions of citizens want to see is trillions splurged on unnecessary doomsday weapons nobody ever wants to see deployed. Medium-sized, non-nuclear powers may be the parties that can corral the big boys to bring their dangerous toys to the table and engage in the grown-up talks we all need.

  • Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding. He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first-class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Twitter: @Doylech