Strategic stability, a concept that gained prominence in the 1980s, emphasizes a state in international relations where no nation feels incentivized to initiate a nuclear first strike. It broadly encapsulates the stability of the global environment in avoiding warfare. This idea emerged during the Cold War, a period marked by the recognition among nations, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, that a nuclear conflict would have catastrophic consequences, threatening the very existence of humanity.

While strategic stability remains relevant today, it faces new challenges in a multipolar world characterized by multiple powerful states exerting influence over international affairs. The evolving nuclear arms race in this multipolar world and the complexities of maintaining nuclear deterrence highlight the stark differences from the Cold War era.

The concept of nuclear deterrence began to take shape in the late 1950s, rooted in the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which deters adversaries from attacking by demonstrating devastating nuclear capabilities. During the Cold War, the bipolar structure defined by the rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union provided a relatively straightforward framework for nuclear deterrence. The global political landscape was shaped by bloc politics, with the Western bloc led by NATO and the Eastern bloc under the Warsaw Pact.

Beyond the two superpowers, nuclear capabilities were limited to a few states such as the United Kingdom and France, both aligned with the US. As allies, these nations did not pose significant threats at the regional level, which contributed to maintaining a nuclear equilibrium. Furthermore, the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, exemplified by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, instilled caution. These........

© The Spine Times