 It is extremely bizarre and unsettling to think about the fact that we are currently living through one of the most dangerous times in human history and the fact that we're witnessing a historical event in and of itself is pretty scary. But to make matters worse, we're all utterly powerless in this situation. The fate of all of humanity will largely be determined by a few world leaders and one madman whose behavior defies all reason and logic. And just yesterday, President Vladimir Putin of Russia ordered his military to put nuclear forces on high alert, and some are arguing that this isn't necessarily cause for alarm because this is nothing more than a strategic calculation. And maybe that's true, but nevertheless, he has the capability of ending all life on earth unilaterally, and he's reminding everyone that he does indeed have this power, a power that no human being should have regardless of how logical or illogical they may very well be. So because we're all human beings and it's only natural to think about this, the obvious question is, how is this going to end? Is this actually going to end in World War III or nuclear warfare where we all witness the annihilation of all of humanity? And I want to take some time to actually explore that. You might think that it's overly cynical and doomer, but we're all thinking it. And I think that pretending as if it's not a possibility isn't healthy. You know, we're all experiencing this together. So I think it's important that we talk through the implications of Putin's threats. Now, first and foremost, the Biden administration was asked this very question. Should we all fear nuclear war? Should Americans fear nuclear war or a direct confrontation with Russia? So we'll talk about that later question. But here's how the Biden administration responded when they were asked if we should be fearful of the prospect of nuclear war. As Brett Samuels of the Hill explains, President Biden said Monday he does not believe Americans have reason to be concerned about nuclear war amid tensions with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Biden responded to the question with a short no after delivering remarks at a Black History Month event at the White House. The Biden administration has largely responded by avoiding further inflaming tensions, calling Putin's action and attempt to justify further aggression. It did not put its nuclear forces on higher alert in response. Now, Biden is right. I agree with him, at least philosophically, because there's nothing that we can do about this. Worrying or not worrying isn't going to change the outcome of this situation. So there's no sense in fearing nuclear war because whether it happens or doesn't happen, we can't control it. So you're not a bad person if you tune out the news cycle and you try to distract yourself from the stress. Remember, our grandparents and parents lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and this same phenomenon, a similar phenomenon. My mom told me about how when she was growing up in Hawaii, they had nuclear drills where at school, she had to hide under her desk, you know, in preparation for war just to kind of get themselves into the mentality of what you do, where you take shelter. In the event, there is this nuclear confrontation with Russia. So this is something that is very, very stressful. So you're not a bad person if you tune out and try to distract yourself with movies or video games. I think that that is the logical psychological response. We have to protect ourselves mentally so that way if we do get through this event, we're healthier as a result. So you're not a bad person to distract yourself. And one thing that you can take comfort knowing is that I think that the Biden administration up until this point has been fairly rational and they are very clearly trying to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia. Now there's been talks of a Ukrainian no fly zone imposed by the United States. This is something that some Warhawks have been pushing and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about this and her response actually made me feel a little bit better because it's clear that they're trying to only respond insofar as they deter further Russian aggression with sanctions economically. But they don't want a direct confrontation with Russia because that would be World War Three. Here's what she said. Well, here's what's important for everybody to know about a no fly zone. What that would require is implementation by the US military. It would essentially mean the US military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes. That is definitely escalatory. That would potentially put us into a place where we're in a military conflict with Russia. That is not something the president wants to do. So that's a no one that those are all the reasons why that's not a good idea. So I actually do find that reassuring. You know, if this were a different administration, the Trump's administration, I'd have no way of knowing what he'd be doing. If Hillary Clinton were in charge, she advocated for a Syrian no fly zone, which would lead to direct confrontation with Russia. So, you know, I'm thankful that Biden's administration, at least now in this moment, is seemingly trying to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia, but not all actors are behaving in the same manner. So Belarus has renounced its non nuclear position and will indeed be allowing Russia to place nukes in its country. And as Derek Johnson puts it, I need you to hear me when I say that even after several difficult years full of bad news, Belarus inviting nuclear weapons onto its territory is the most alarming thing I've seen in my entire professional career. The world is racing toward the cliff with no off ramp in sight. So suffice to say, I don't necessarily believe that you can use the rational actor model to describe Putin's behavior because there's reason to believe he's not a rational actor because invading Ukraine in the first place was not in his interest, whatever he believes he's going to get out of this. I mean, this damaged the Russian economy. It turned the world against Vladimir Putin. It turned large portions of the Russian population against him as they take to the streets to denounce war. It turned Zelensky into an international hero and single-handedly justified the existence of NATO for the foreseeable future. And now countries like Finland and Sweden have been driven into the arms of NATO and they're considering joining because they're fearful of Vladimir Putin. So what he expected, well, it had the opposite effect. And to make matters worse, he's reportedly frustrated that Ukraine is competently resisting Russian aggression across the country. So if Putin were a rational actor, one would logically deduce that invading Ukraine would be out of the question because of the high price that he'd be paying and his country would be paying. But he did it anyway. It's a move that defies logic and reason. So it's not absurd to think, well, if he did that, would he do something even far more unthinkable and actually result to nuclear warfare? And that's something that I think is worth considering because if he gets incredibly frustrated and he kind of feels iced out and he's backed into a corner, is this going to make it more likely that he would take down the whole world with him? It's hard to say. So what I decided to do was look up what people who have been studying Russian politics and Vladimir Putin and geopolitical issues in this area for decades had to say about this, the experts who know more than all of us. And for the most part, the experts don't actually believe that Vladimir Putin's threats of nuclear war are legitimate. They think that this is all nothing more than strategy, but not all of them agree with that premise. So financial time states that the West is taking Putin's nuclear weapons threat seriously. However, quote Matthew Cronig, a nuclear expert at the Atlantic Council, said Putin's response on Sunday was textbook Russian strategy. Quote, this really is Russia's military strategy to backstop conventional aggression with nuclear threats. Or what is known as the escalate to de-escalate strategy. The message to the West, NATO and US, is don't get involved or we can escalate things to the highest level, Cronig said, adding that he thought Putin was bluffing. Vice spoke with several experts and here's what they say, quote, the overall thing is that some nuclear weapons are always kept on alert. Emma Claire Foley, a senior associate in policy and research at Global Zero, a nonprofit that seeks the elimination of nuclear weapons, told Vice News. She said that both the United States and Russia have intercontinental ballistic missiles that are always ready to launch. That threat is constant and there's a very short decision time for whether that kind of attack will be launched. Beatrice Finn, the executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons says, we've seen with Putin now that this is not a weapon they use to protect their own country. It's a weapon they use to be able to do whatever they want to other countries. Deterrence isn't used to protect the country. Deterrence is used to be like, I will do whatever I want with Ukraine and you are just going to be able to watch. The fact that he announced it is kind of sad. Jeffrey Lewis, a professor of Middlebury Institute of International Studies and a nuclear weapons expert, told Vice News. Quote, Putin is trying to project power and intimidation. This isn't so different from Richard Nixon's Madman Alert in 1973, although Nixon didn't announce it. The Soviets shrugged at Nixon's gambit. We should shrug at Putin's too. Lewis is painfully aware that nuclear weapons are also pointed at Russia. Well, yes, Putin could kill millions of other people. He's not stupid. He also knows that the United States, United Kingdom and France also possess nuclear arsenals. This is what deterrence looks like, Lewis said. Now, Vox also spoke with several experts who echoed basically the same sentiment. Matthew Bunn, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and former advisor to President Bill Clinton's Office of Science and Technology Policy, initially told Vox, I think there is virtually no chance nuclear weapons are going to be used in the Ukraine situation. The main reason Bunn said is that the United States and its NATO allies have made it clear that they will not send troops to Ukraine. Without the threat of military intervention, Putin has little reason to use his nuclear weapons, especially since Russia has a staggering number's advantage over the Ukrainian military. Paul Hare, a senior lecturer in global studies at Boston University, argued that Putin's real goal is to swallow Ukraine and restore the historical power of Imperial Russia. His objective is not to bring the world to nuclear war, Hare said. However, Politico magazine spoke with Fiona Hill. She served in Democratic and Republican administrations because of her knowledge on Putin and Russia, and she's a lot less optimistic. Quote, there's lots of danger ahead, she warned. Putin is increasingly operating emotionally and likely to use all the weapons at his disposal, including nuclear ones. It's important not to have any illusions, but equally important not to lose hope. Every time you think, no, he wouldn't, would he? Well, yes, he would, Hill said. And he wants us to know that, of course, it's not that we should be intimidated and scared. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what it is that we're going to do to head them off. So we've heard from multiple experts and for the most part, they are in agreement that this will not lead to nuclear war. So even if Vladimir Putin is irrational and he's not really acting as rational actors in theory should behave, the question isn't whether or not he's rational, the question is whether or not he's suicidal. And that's what makes the threat of nuclear warfare a little bit different, because if he were to use nuclear weapons, that would also ensure his demise as well. And this is really the idea behind mad, mutually assured destruction. And I think that Wikipedia's explanation of this is perfectly sufficient. They write mutual assured destruction is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. Now regardless, if you subscribe to this philosophy or not, I will maintain that it is not necessary for us to worry at this moment because again, there's nothing we can do. And there's no sense in getting stressed out over something that you have no control over. So experts are saying they don't necessarily believe that this will lead to nuclear war because they don't believe that Putin is suicidal per se. So I don't think that there's a reason to be fearful, but it's reasonable to kind of jump to conclusions and catastrophize when you have a leader with the power to end the world saying I will exercise said power that will very much indeed end the world. Now that's just for now. Things can change. The situation can deteriorate. And there are people who will argue that nuclear weapons are important because it does serve as deterrence. They will kind of foster more peace and security because they're so destructive because of mutual assured destruction for anyone who uses it. But having said that, though, if we're able to survive this moment and move past it as a species, we absolutely, in my opinion, have to work to ban nuclear weapons internationally because even if you agree with this premise that nuclear weapons kind of prevent aggression, no one human being, no world leader should have the unilateral authority and power to end all life on this planet. That's just absurd. I don't care who you are, how rational and well-intentioned you are. You should not have that power. The power of a God, literally. It's not acceptable. So we have to work to denuclearize the world. And this has kind of been a long-time goal of the left, but we need to double down on that effort. It is as important as this effort to save the world from anthropogenic climate change, in my opinion. If we want to actually survive as a species, then we can't allow all of these nuclear weapons to exist and always be on alert. Putin is saying I'm putting my nuclear command on high alert, but they're always on high alert. So him saying that doesn't really change much, but it's important to know that, you know, experts, as they weigh in and say he's kind of just bluffing, they're reminding us, yeah, we probably shouldn't have this. If they're always on high alert and they can be used pretty easily, I mean, all it takes is one madman to get in power and end all life on earth. And that's just not something that we should accept as human beings. If we want to survive as a species, we have to stop allowing things that lead to our own destruction, fossil fuels, nuclear weapons. So I think that it's important that, you know, if we are able to survive this moment, we have to denuclearize. We have to. We have to put pressure on leaders to push for that. Every single actor in the world who has nuclear weapons should get rid of them. And that's difficult. It's a very momentous task, but we have to try because this is about the survival of the human race. And we can't afford to just allow these weapons to exist when we see time and again how close we've come to annihilation.