The Need for Fit Leadership in a Nuclear Age
A Proposition for Leaders of Nuclear Weapon States
The world has come close to nuclear war on at least eleven occasions. In these close calls, the decision rarely reached the apex of the command and control pyramid. Stanislav Petrov took great pains to avoid passing his information up the chain of command, in case the information he judged to be flawed was misdiagnosed as real. Depending on the geopolitical situation, the decision to launch nuclear weapons could be very precarious, dependent on a small number of people taken by prevailing “group think,” or a culture inured to the dangers of nuclear war.
Although the decision is not down to one man, the intelligence, knowledge, personality, and emotional stability of the ultimate decision maker matters. It is also vital that nuclear armed leaders not stoke division, animosity, or war. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, that a practice be established for leaders or aspiring leaders of nuclear weapon states to receive initial screens and then periodic follow-ups of their mental fitness.
A common misconception is that personal interviews are the cornerstone of mental fitness tests; they are not. In the case of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, a personal interview would not only be impossible to procure but unnecessary. That leaders got to their positions in the first place because of competence is also fallacious in the absence of a standardized screen—since the most disordered individuals can also be the most motivated to deceive (including in an interview). Mental fitness tests are very different from diagnostic ones in that consent is unnecessary, refusal to be interviewed is itself used as data, and other sources of information are more central to yielding a conclusion.
Donald Trump and Putin have both upended our reliance on the tenet that “No rational man would start a nuclear war,” as a model of leadership. With the rise of disordered “leaders” seeking and attaining power, a global culture that requires mental fitness in our leaders would do well to accompany other efforts at curbing the risk of nuclear war.
With regard to the danger of highly irrational decisions being made eye by mentally compromised people, we in the UK were threatened with nuclear catastrophe, by one of “Putin’s people” for supporting the Ukrainians. They threatened to fire a nuclear missile at the sea, thus causing a “radioactive tsunami” to sweep over the country killing us all. Whether it would even be possible to do this, I cannot say, but I can imagine action film producers laughing me out of Hollywood, if I presented it as a plot idea. One really couldn’t make it up.
Dr Lee, we don't know the secrets of chain of command of Nuclear weapons in certain countries but it's reasonable to assume that risk of Nuclear launch is more in countries run by authoritarian leaders ruled by despots which are surrounded by clique of small number of elites and sycophants. If the authoritarian leader (like Kim Jong, Modi, Putin etc) are mentally unfit, then they are more likely to take highly irrational & dangerous decisions. For e.g Putin's decision to start Ukraine war. Several high rank officers in Russian establishment were highly skeptical of the success but they were too afraid to confront Putin. And so Putin took reckless decision in his own foolishness & arrogance.
Nuclear weapons of US and Europe are relatively in safer hands because these countries have significant checks and balances in Govt as well as military. Even if some madman like Trump ( or Greg Stillson) gets to power, there will be Generals like Mark Milley who will have moral intellect and courage to refuse any illegal & dangerous orders. Also the checks and balances in healthy Democratic nations constraints authoritarians (if they somehow get to power) of their omnipotent ambitions.
The dangers of Nuclear war have many dimensions - Nuclear proliferation or terrorism, major war between superpowers etc. But i myself see the risk of Nuclear war from unstable & mentally unfit leaders like Putin & Modi as more prominent. Take example of some like Modi who has already killed thousands of Muslims and minorities in India. This man is a mass murderer who clearly demonstrates complete lack of empathy. The rule of thumb should be that politicians who have already committed mass murder should never be allowed to reach the top echelons of power.
Another problem is that while US may create a mechanism for psychological examination for fitness of commander on chief but it's not possible to make similar mechanism for other Nuclear states specially the authoritarian ones where there are no checks and balances.