The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists released their latest report Jan. 23 on the potentially world-ending dangers of nuclear escalation. The doomsday clock, which serves as an analogy for how close humanity is to extinction, was set at 90 seconds to midnight. This is closer than it has ever been, even closer to midnight than it was at the height of the Cold War. The Bulletin cited nuclear proliferation in states like North Korea and, most pressingly, the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine as major contributing factors to the decision. Since the beginning of the war, risk analysts have warned that the nuclear risk generated by an armed proxy conflict between the two most powerful nuclear states in the world outstrips even the Cuban Missile crisis in severity. Still, despite this constant barrage of terrifying statements from politicians and political scientists, people really do not seem all that concerned.
Experts warn that the greatest risk generated by the conflict is not that Russia will suddenly choose to attack the West with nuclear weapons. Rather, they fear that miscalculations and strategic miscommunications may cause an otherwise manageable situation to spin out of control with devastating consequences. Such miscalculations are not just a theoretical possibility — they almost led to global nuclear war at least two times during the Cold War and were only narrowly averted by the level-headedness of low-ranking officers like Stanislav Petrov. Analysts stress that we cannot count on such extraordinary individuals being present the next time unchecked tensions or faulty technology lead to a miscalculation.
When I ask people around me whether this is something that bothers them, the response I usually get is either that it doesn’t or that they prefer not to think about it. To an extent, this is completely understandable. Nuclear bombs, as potentially horrifying as they are, have only ever been used twice on humans, and since 1980 no atmospheric nuclear tests have been conducted anywhere on Earth. While the threat of nuclear war may not have gone away, for all intents and purposes the image of the mushroom cloud and nuclear devastation is now associated in popular consciousness with the bygone era of the Cold War.
Another possible cause of the lack of discourse surrounding the nuclear threat may be that people simply have other things to worry about. Recent polls show that other issues, such as the economy, immigration and reproductive rights, mean far more to Americans than nuclear disarmament. This makes sense; if you’re struggling to afford your next meal, worrying about the potential risk of a world-ending conflict may not be the most productive use of your time.
Still, despite how difficult it can seem to take action, history shows us that it can be done. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war was far more present in public consciousness than it is today — pro-disarmament protests were widespread throughout the world, and millions marched against nuclear proliferation. Considering the fact that nuclear war is arguably more likely today than it was in the 80s, it seems strange that we are not seeing a similar movement.
One reason for this difference may be how ubiquitous depictions of nuclear war were in the popular media of the Cold War. Movies like “Threads,” “Dr. Strangelove” and “The Day After” were major cultural touchstones of their time, helping to educate people about how bad such a war would be. Famously, after watching “The Day After” President Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary that it left him “greatly depressed.” The president, who until that point had been a hawkish supporter of nuclear proliferation, stated years later that watching the film played a major role in shifting his viewpoints to favor disarmament with the USSR.
Nuclear war is less salient in popular culture today, but I believe that we might be starting to see a shift in this trend. In March 2024, American journalist Annie Jacobsen published her non-fiction novel “Nuclear War: A Scenario.” The book, which received rave reviews from critics, is unflinching in its description of the unprecedented horrors that a nuclear war would bring. Jacobsen describes in visceral detail how even a single bomb could kill millions, vaporizing some instantly and leaving others to die slow and painful deaths from radiation poisoning or severe burns. Over the course of a decade, Jacobsen consulted dozens of experts in order to paint the most realistic picture possible of how a slight miscalculation could lead to the end of the world.
Despite the book’s grim content, this is a positive development. Authors like Jacobson help us conceptualize the threats we are facing and understand the urgency of demanding action from our political leaders. Due to the book’s success, it is now in the process of being adapted into a major motion picture by “Dune” director Dennis Villeneuve. If Villeneuve’s film is a success, my hope is that it could be a call to action and bring discussions about nuclear issues back into the forefront of public discourse, just like “Threads” and “The Day After” did in the 1980s.
Art shapes people, and people spark action. If in the long term, we want to live in a world free of the threat of nuclear holocaust, then we need to write more about nuclear bombs.
Contact Adam Pildal at pildal@oxy.edu
