A nuclear crisis or nuclear discourse?

Photo: commons.wikipedia.org

Element of discourse

Today one of those bunkers in Tirana hosts a cultural institution called Bunk’art. The museum offers visitors an opportunity to both expand their knowledge of Albania’s history and experience art. In its exhibition one can find, among other things, an installation by Ledia Konstandini, a Tirana-based artist. In it, Konstandini explores the topic of Albania’s social transformation and especially its inherited or lost culture. While analysing these issues she focuses on the fear that accompanied or continues to accompany them. Her works trace the remains of fear in Albanian architecture and urban spaces, including in the Bunk’art 2 space, which she uses as the theme for her work called “Incube”. The name suggests an artistic intervention – literally, to incubate. In other words, to grow small organisms or to allow germs to enter an organism and grow there until a sickness develops. Driven by this etymological inspiration, Konstandini analyses the moment when fear is born. But she also explores the paranoia, imagination and illusions that accompany this strong emotion.  

Through her work Konstandini shows that the nuclear threat is predominantly an element of discourse. The fear of a radioactive attack or explosion grows, albeit quietly, in societies that are slowly but surely powered by numerous suggestions regarding a potential catastrophe. This fear is then painstakingly cultivated and from time to time comes to the surface in the real world, where it shows its face in the form of different symptoms of illness.    

Today these symptoms are quite visible, especially in light of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. We constantly hear talk among politicians or media pundits that points to a real threat of nuclear war, which could be initiated by the Russian Federation if the West goes too far in its support towards Ukraine. At the national level, we can also find elements of the nuclear discourse, especially at times when the topic of nuclear power plants as an alternative to traditional energy sources emerges. In Poland, for example, we have an ongoing discussion about the planned construction of three nuclear plants.

The nuclear discourse also includes analyses regarding the risk of nuclear contamination. This was seen especially during the discussions which took place when Russian troops entered the Red Forest in the Chernobyl area, as well as those surrounding the possibility of the destruction of the Zaporizhzhia power plant, which was widely feared. A similar anxiety was sensed in Germany at the time of the leak at the Isar nuclear plant. All these cases and discussions that emerge show that the nuclear threat is something real and as such experienced by many societies, but also that it can be easily used to stir up fear of mass destruction. Narratives about the end of the world often present a nuclear explosion as the ultimate catastrophe. And since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine the apocalyptic vision of the world’s future, fuelled by the fear of a nuclear attack, has become mainstream in mass media discourse.

Essence of humanity

Jacques Derrida famously said that the use of American bombs in 1945 would put an end to “classical” conventional warfare. Yet, in fact since then, for nearly 80 years, there has not been a nuclear war, or the use of nuclear or atomic weapons during a conflict. Therefore, when the nuclear topic makes front page news, we need to bear in mind that as of now the threat of a nuclear attack remains in the realm of discourse. Indeed, a non-localised nuclear war has been relegated to the power of man’s imagination. Others might say its speculation is grounded in real possibility. Even though the threat of nuclear war is used through public discourse as an element generating fear, it can also be effectively applied to blackmail political and strategic opponents.

Yet, we should make no mistake; the nuclear threat cannot be belittled by any means. Even if for the moment it remains only in the sphere of discourse. Nuclear weapons do exist and their power of destruction is widely known. These weapons are on standby. What is more, as Derrida further argues, “the anticipation of nuclear war (dreaded as the fantasy, or phantasm, of a remainderless destruction) installs humanity – and through all sorts of relays even defines the essence of modern humanity – in its rhetorical condition.” In other words, Derrida sees a projection of an irreversible apocalypse, which could destroy the whole world and its culture and memory. The nuclear times, as Derrida claims, are times of destruction; the destruction of everything that has existed in our lives. But it is also the time to bring up the topics of threats and uncertainty in public discussions.

Konstandini’s incubator is thus a metaphor of the nuclear age, which we unfortunately happen to live in. The awareness of the nuclear threat is in a way what connects us also with the previous century and the apocalyptic vision of the end of the world that had begun back then, and which was first named as the nuclear age. Even though the global apocalypse has not yet taken place, the vision of the end of the world has permanently remained in the back of our minds.

The stories of catastrophes such as Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island or the Trinity Site are examples of how the emission of nuclear radiation can serve as a turning point for global public opinion and its sense of threat and thinking about the future. The Belarusian Nobel Prize writer Svetlana Alexievich argues that just like with everything, human beings can adjust also to the consequences of a nuclear catastrophe, and this process shows certain dynamics as well. Yet, when the threat of such an explosion seems real, as it does right now, it for sure leads to a panic concerning the oncoming end. Traces of the past in the form of radioactive waste, but also various diseases, explain why the current Russian aggression in Ukraine, but also other events, can so quickly and effectively reactivate the vision of a global destruction of mankind and the world as we know it.

Joseph S. Nye argues that the short and long-term consequences of radioactivity can serve as a force which, although disproportional and irrational, can lead to the destruction of the world. That is why, in his view “deterrence” is the main strategy of the nuclear race, which uses fear to discourage unfavourable activities and results in the emergence of a system based on extreme carefulness. At times of nuclear threat even the slight thought of a possible attack can serve as the perfect bogeyman. Vladimir Putin knows this all too well. Thus, he uses it to generate hysteria among western societies. As of now, he is at least partially successful. Just think how many discussions there have been about the potential use of a nuclear bomb by Russia and the response that would come from the United States.

Nuclear terrorism

In this way, the nuclear discourse has become a tool in international relations which has been applied in the security strategies of the constantly competing world powers. Its purpose is to cement the position of some states or alliances, which actively participate in what we can call a nuclear game. Nonetheless, when assessing Russia’s activities in this realm, we can even use such strong concepts as that of nuclear terrorism. Indeed, this term is most used with regards to the use of a so-called dirty bomb or an attack on a nuclear power plant, which have already been mentioned in Russian rhetoric at the UN level. Not surprisingly, the accusation of playing with such a weapon was directed against the Ukrainian side, however, it is all too clear that Russia uses it as a potential cover-up for its own possible future deeds. For the moment, thankfully, the crime of using a dirty bomb remains in the realm of public discourse and as of now has not been used on Ukraine’s territory. However, in some ways it reminds us of the reality from the Cold War period, serving as a lesson from the past, when such threats were used to manipulate public opinion as well as opponents. A dirty bomb is thus both a bogeyman and a tool to completely freeze the activity of the other side. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, talk about the use of such a bomb can indeed paralyse an opponent.

All told, the threat of nuclear war is an effective tool that has dominated international public discourse since February 24th 2022. As such, it plays an essential, but at the same time also paradoxical, role. It is clearly a foreign and defence policy instrument. However, the extent of its effectiveness is decided by public opinion and people’s willingness to live in a bunker, where pre-existing nuclear phobias will only grow stronger.

Kinga Anna Gajda is an associate professor at the Institute of European Studies of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

nuclear threat, Putin, Russia, Russian war against Ukraine