Nuclear Dialectics: Modernity, Resilience, and the Paradigm of Power in the Atomic Age

A World in Permanent Peril

The advent of the atomic bomb marked a historic rupture in global power dynamics, establishing the capacity for total destruction as one of the main structuring elements of international relations in the 20th century. After the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was believed that nuclear devastation would serve as a definitive brake on armed conflicts between great powers. However, the subsequent years demonstrated that war did not cease to exist, but rather took on new forms, in which nuclear power became central not only as a tool of deterrence, but also as a symbol of political status and international hegemony.

This essay seeks to explore the sociological implications of the presence of nuclear weapons in the global order, examining how they shape concepts of sovereignty, power, resilience, and vulnerability. Throughout the analysis, the ethical, cultural, and political dilemmas imposed by nuclear technology will be discussed, and how its existence challenges the limits of peaceful coexistence in an interconnected world.

The Construction of the Nuclear Order: An Exclusive Club

The consolidation of the nuclear order after World War II was driven by a small group of states that had the technological and industrial capacity to develop atomic weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, institutionalized this exclusivity, recognizing only five countries as legitimate nuclear powers: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. This legitimacy is based on their position as permanent members of the UN Security Council, a centralized body that proclaims itself the guardian of world peace.

However, this structure is often challenged. Countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel have developed their nuclear arsenals outside the treaty, questioning the legitimacy of an order that privileges some nations over others. North Korea, for its part, withdrew from the NPT and began nuclear tests, openly defying international norms. These cases demonstrate that nuclear proliferation cannot be completely contained by treaties, as it is closely linked to national security issues and the perception of vulnerability.

This asymmetry generates distrust and fuels global tensions. Countries that do not possess nuclear weapons often denounce the NPT as a tool for perpetuating the hegemony of nuclear powers. In practice, this inequality creates a scenario in which nuclear power not only regulates conflicts, but also defines sovereignty at a hierarchical level.

Strategic Resilience and the Logic of Fear

The introduction of the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) during the Cold War exemplifies the attempt to use fear as an element of global stability. The logic of MAD is based on the guarantee of devastating retaliation: even if a country suffers a surprise attack that eliminates a large part of its population and infrastructure, it must still be able to respond with sufficient force to annihilate the aggressor. To this end, hidden nuclear submarines, strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles have been positioned as deterrent mechanisms.

However, this strategy presupposes the rationality of the actors involved. It works well between states, but fails when dealing with non-state threats, such as terrorist groups. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State operate outside the traditional logic of sovereignty and do not have fixed territories that can be targets for retaliation. Furthermore, the suicidal disposition of many terrorists eliminates the deterrent effect of MAD. In this context, nuclear proliferation to more actors poses a significant threat, especially in unstable regions such as the Middle East and South Asia.

Nuclear Energy: The Ambivalence of Technology

Nuclear energy, despite its association with war, also plays a role in the generation of electrical power and technological development. This duality, known as the “dual use” of nuclear technology, creates complex ethical dilemmas. For example, countries such as Iran argue that they have the right to develop nuclear programs for peaceful purposes, but face international resistance due to suspicions of military intentions.

Dual use also poses technical and political challenges. Uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear reactors is similar to the process required to manufacture nuclear weapons. Thus, any technological advance in this area can be interpreted as a potential threat. International surveillance, exercised through inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), seeks to prevent the militarization of nuclear technology, but faces resistance from countries that see such inspections as violations of their sovereignty.

The tension between technological development and global security reflects the central paradox of modernity: scientific progress often brings with it new dangers, and the solutions to these dangers often generate new forms of risk.

Cultural and Infrastructural Resilience: Global Responses

A society’s ability to cope with nuclear shocks or technology-related catastrophes is often defined by the concept of resilience. Countries such as Switzerland and Israel illustrate approaches to structural and cultural resilience. Switzerland, for example, has enough nuclear shelters for its entire population, built over decades. In Israel, defense systems such as the Iron Dome and cultural practices such as emergency preparedness ensure a rapid and organized response to attacks.

On the other hand, events such as Hurricane Katrina in the United States highlight the inequalities in global resilience. While Japan demonstrated discipline and cohesion after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the American response to Katrina was marked by chaos and social disorder. These examples illustrate how resilience is not just a matter of material resources, but also of cultural values, trust in institutions, and community cohesion.

From Fragile to Antifragile: Opportunities in Chaos

While resilience seeks to return to a baseline state after a shock, the concept of antifragility, introduced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, suggests something deeper: the ability to grow and strengthen in the face of adversity. Historically, countries such as Germany and Japan exemplify antifragility. After the destruction of World War II, both rebuilt their economies and societies, emerging as global powers.

At the individual and community scale, antifragility is also visible. Catastrophes often inspire innovation, paradigm shifts, and the strengthening of social bonds. However, developing this quality requires an adaptive mindset and a willingness to learn from failure.

The Future of the Nuclear Order: Between Utopia and Dystopia

As technologies advance, new challenges emerge. Cyber, biological, and autonomous weapons introduce additional complexities to the global security landscape. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in a world with these new threats could amplify instability.

The international community’s ability to address these challenges depends on its ability to balance regulation, cooperation and innovation. This includes not only strengthening treaties such as the NPT, but also integrating new approaches, such as the inclusion of non-state actors and the promotion of voluntary disarmament initiatives, such as the example of South Africa.

A Sociological Reflection on the Future of Humanity

The nuclear challenge transcends military and geopolitical issues, as it involves ethical, cultural and existential dilemmas. Global resilience requires more than shelters and treaties; it requires a collective commitment to peace, cooperation and the construction of social structures that can thrive even in the face of crises. If the world seeks not only to avoid catastrophe, but also to learn and grow from its challenges, the nuclear age could be a starting point for a new way of global coexistence.