\”Ever since the Cold War ended, the world has been faced with the looming threat of nuclear destruction. The nine nuclear powers of the world possess the capability to wipe out all life on Earth. In both Russia and the U.S., the authority to launch these world-ending weapons lies in the hands of a single individual. This reality has been in place for decades, but for a long time, the general public was able to overlook this threat. However, a shift has occurred, and people have once again started to fear the power of nuclear weapons. As someone who has been reporting on nuclear weapons for the past ten years, I have witnessed this topic transition from a niche interest to a major focus in the news over the last couple of years. Something changed in 2024. The number of stories related to nuclear weapons and the public interest in them has increased significantly. Every time a vague threat is made by Vladimir Putin, a flurry of news stories flood the media. Reports to Congress regarding advancements in the Chinese nuclear arsenal now receive national press coverage. Just recently, ’60 Minutes’ compiled a decade’s worth of nuclear coverage into a lengthy video on YouTube. The New York Times has dedicated the past year to publishing groundbreaking investigative journalism on nuclear weapons. One of the most popular TV shows of the year is an adaptation of a video game set in a post-nuclear wasteland. How did we reach this point? How did nuclear weapons go from being a curious relic of the Cold War to a major public concern? These weapons have loomed over us like a Sword of Damocles throughout my entire life, yet people used to be able to ignore them. Matt Korda, who monitors nuclear weapons for the Federation of American Scientists, highlighted TV shows like ‘Fallout,’ The New York Times’ coverage of nuclear issues, and a prevailing sense of impending doom in American society as contributing factors. ‘The current mood is one of apocalypse. Doomsday is on everyone’s mind,’ he stated. Last year, ‘Oppenheimer’ recounted the origins of nuclear weapons. Shortly after, Amazon released ‘Fallout,’ a bleak and absurd depiction of a nuclear-devastated California. Both were massive successes. Korda also mentioned the election, particularly the contest between Biden and Trump. ‘Both candidates were elderly, and both parties were eager to portray the other as historically dangerous for the country. There were signs of cognitive decline on both sides,’ he noted. ‘I believe that this contributed to people realizing that one of these individuals would have control over a highly destructive nuclear arsenal, and both candidates had serious issues in that regard.’ As Biden exits office at 82 years old, Trump will be 78 upon taking office and 82 upon leaving it, while Putin is currently 72. Recently, the New York Times conducted a survey regarding the President’s sole authority to launch a nuclear weapon. The publication questioned all 530 incoming members of Congress on their opinions regarding the President’s ability to potentially end all life on Earth. The responses varied, with many expressing discomfort at the idea of the President initiating a nuclear strike but being okay with a retaliatory strike. Democrats criticized Trump for being erratic, while Republicans pointed out Biden’s perceived cognitive decline. Some respondents offered nuanced responses regarding deterrence, escalation, and sole authority. Many did not reply, and some provided simple yes or no answers, but those who delved into the topic did so thoughtfully. Nuclear threats were prevalent during the first Trump administration, but the conversation surrounding nuclear weapons has evolved since then, taking on a more ominous tone. ‘What was alarming about the initial Trump administration was the casual manner in which he made nuclear threats, particularly in relation to North Korea. The events of late 2017, such as ‘Fire and Fury,’ along with the failed negotiations with Kim Jong Un throughout his presidency, were concerning,’ said Sharon Squassoni, a seasoned arms control veteran in Congress and a research professor at George Washington University. She also cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Putin’s persistent nuclear threats as factors that have instilled fear in the public. ‘For the first time, we are facing a nation that has openly declared its intention to use nuclear weapons,’ she remarked. ‘Additionally, the collapse of numerous arms control treaties has exacerbated the situation.’ For years, a series of arms control agreements between the U.S. and Russia helped ease tensions. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. even assisted Russia in dismantling its nuclear weapons and repurposing the nuclear material for use in power plants. However, these efforts have come to a halt. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a pact that restricted certain types of intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The following year, the U.S. exited the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed countries to conduct mutual surveillance to prevent misunderstandings. In 2023, Russia pulled out of a treaty prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons. The only remaining arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), established during the Obama administration to limit the number of nuclear warheads each country could deploy. However, this treaty is set to expire in 2026 unless both parties agree to extend it. Yet, enforcing the agreement requires both nations to permit inspections of their nuclear facilities, a measure that Putin has indicated he will not allow. This has cast doubt on the treaty’s future. Furthermore, the U.S., Russia, and China are all bolstering their nuclear arsenals. China is constructing new intercontinental ballistic missile silos in its deserts. The U.S. is modernizing its arsenal, investing billions in silos and ICBMs. Russia is testing a new nuclear cruise missile and recently launched a novel medium-range ballistic missile at Ukraine. ‘We are now in a new era of nuclear arms competition. This is not mere rhetoric,’ explained Joseph Cirincione, a former Congressional staff member turned advocate against nuclear proliferation. ‘Almost all nine nuclear-armed nations are engaged in multi-billion dollar programs, with the U.S., Russia, and China leading the way.’ According to Cirincione, the U.S. is spending $70 billion annually on new nuclear weapons and an additional $30 billion on missile defense systems. This substantial investment has tangible effects in the communities where these projects are based. Nuclear weapons have a distorting effect on the areas in which they are situated. The construction of the new Sentinel-class ICBMs in the U.S. necessitates the excavation of massive silos and the creation of vast underground structures in several states. Contractors building these silos often establish temporary settlements to accommodate the influx of workers. General Dynamics, a company involved in developing new nuclear submarines, visits schools to educate students on opportunities in the nuclear industry, particularly in submarine construction. All these factors contribute to shaping public perception. What was once a relic of the past has reemerged as a significant presence in American society. Nuclear weapons are not merely abstract tools of war but integral components of our post-World War II narrative, believed by some to safeguard us from even greater conflicts. ‘I believe that nuclear weapons continue to hold a unique place in the fears of Americans, partly due to the predominant narrative surrounding their use in ending a war,’ noted Kelsey Atherton, Chief Editor at the Center for International Policy. ‘The fact that the U.S. and Russia possess enough nuclear weapons aimed at each other to destroy the world indefinitely means that whenever tensions escalate between these two nations, the immediate assumption is that nuclear annihilation is imminent.’\”
