{"id":17704,"date":"2026-02-09T02:48:47","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T10:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=17704"},"modified":"2026-02-10T03:32:40","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T11:32:40","slug":"issue-of-the-week-war-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=17704","title":{"rendered":"Issue of the Week: War"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Back to News<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear Arms Control Era Comes to End Amid Global Rush for New Weapons<\/em>, The New York Times, February 5-9, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The End of Civilization As We Knew It, Part Thirty Four <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, David E. Sanger\u00a0and\u00a0William J. Broad followed up their article last Thursday, which combined (below), should be the most terrifying things you’ve ever read.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not long ago, millions were in the streets all the time, the headlines and TV news dominated by one issue–the looming obliteration of life on earth by nuclear war, humanity revolting against it, and real progress made to change it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now we sit on our asses and bemoan it for a moment along with everything else, in between the next entertainment distraction for those who could do something sane to help themselves and their children and their species survive, and those, the majority, struggling every second for a crumb to survive by.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You, who are in that small percentage among all of humanity who have security, are in backward time travel now, experiencing what it is to be alive on a living planet. Before long, this will all be darkness, physical and metaphysical, because of so many of you who chose it, who could be–would be if their was any natural impulse left to resist drowning in nihilsm and distraction and momentary self-gratification and delusion of whatever–rising up with the fortitude of a species that will not go quietly into the night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We’ve addressed this issue for many years, underlined in our post on March 1, 2024, which pressaged what is happening now, and in our post on August 1, 2025, which did so further. Here are excerpts from those posts, followed by today’s and last thursday’s seminal articles in The New York Times:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue of the Week, March 1, 202<\/em>4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the moment that the atom bomb was dropped to end World War Two, through 45 years of the Cold War between the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies, the omnipresent issue for everyone alive was that their lives and all life on earth could be obliterated in a second by nuclear war\u2013and almost was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, Cold War over. As we\u2019ve written at length, for a moment, it appeared democracy and peace were breaking out all over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear weapons?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of sight, out of mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except they never went away. They just spread, under increasingly far more unstable circumstances than ever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New York Times has once again provided an historic service by reminding us that the number one threat of instant destruction of the planet and all life is nuclear war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that it just almost happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that unless full public consciousness is focused again on the threat of nuclear weapons, we are all history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve done a lot of work on this issue over the years. We produced a unique documentary on the issue at the height of Cold War tensions just before it ended, aired on PBS stations nationwide. We will revisit this and present the film in a post in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the point here is that when we say that there is nothing more important or more powerfully presented than the opinion piece and launch of the Times series on nuclear war, we know what we\u2019re talking about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we wrote in our first post of the year:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe movie Oppenheimer is a great movie, not the greatest ever as a film, but perhaps the most important for many reasons. [And if it doesn\u2019t win Best Picture and many other awards at the Oscars, what\u2019s left of Hollywood should obliterate itself]. But one reason predominates: It is the story of the creation and first use of the atomic bomb. The ending is the most stunning and critical piece of film ever. The icon of physics, Albert Einstein, who urged FDR to build the atomic bomb to counter the Nazi program to do the same, who then urged that it not be used against the Japanese, had been seen in snippets during the film talking with J. Robert Oppenheimer, who ran the program to build the bomb, but the conversation is never heard. Then at the end, it is, as reported in Vulture:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Einstein turns to leave, Oppenheimer reminds him of an earlier conversation they had before the testing of the first atom bomb, when the Manhattan Project physicists were worried that the chain reaction caused by the atomic bomb might never end \u2014 that it could proceed to ignite the Earth\u2019s atmosphere and destroy the planet.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen I came to you with those calculations,\u201d Oppenheimer tells Einstein, \u201cwe thought we might start a chain reaction that might destroy the entire world.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat of it?\u201d Einstein asks.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI believe we did,\u201d Oppenheimer says.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point is clear. Nuclear war will annihilate life on earth at some point.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the launching piece of the series in the Times. For a graphic experience you will never forget, go to the piece through the links:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

OPINION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

AT THE BRINK<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

A SERIES ABOUT THE THREAT OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN AN UNSTABLE WORLD<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction by Kathleen Kingsbury, Opinion Editor<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE THREAT OF<\/em><\/strong> nuclear war has dangled over humankind for much too long. We have survived so far through luck and brinkmanship. But the old, limited safeguards that kept the Cold War cold are long gone. Nuclear powers are getting more numerous and less cautious. We\u2019ve condemned another generation to live on a planet that is one grave act of hubris or human error away from destruction without demanding any action from our leaders. That must change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In New York Times Opinion\u2019s latest series, At the Brink, we\u2019re looking at the reality of nuclear weapons today. It\u2019s the culmination of nearly a year of reporting and research. We plan to explore where the present dangers lie in the next arms race and what can be done to make the world safer again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

W.J. Hennigan, the project\u2019s lead writer, begins that discussion today by laying out what\u2019s at stake<\/a> if a single nuclear weapon were used, as well as revealing for the first time details about how close U.S. officials thought the world came to breaking the decades-long nuclear taboo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russia\u2019s president, Vladimir Putin, threatened in his 2024 annual speech that more direct Western intervention in Ukraine could lead to nuclear conflict. Yet an American intelligence assessment suggests the world may have wandered far closer to the brink of a nuclear launch more than a year earlier, during the first year of Mr. Putin\u2019s invasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the first telling of the Biden administration\u2019s efforts to avoid that fate, and had they failed, how they hoped to contain the catastrophic aftermath. Mr. Hennigan explores what happened during that tense time, what officials were thinking, what they did and how they\u2019re approaching a volatile future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN THE FIRST ESSAY<\/a> OF THE SERIES, W.J. HENNIGAN LAYS OUT THE RISKS OF THE NEW NUCLEAR ERA AND HOW WE GOT HERE. YOU CAN LISTEN TO AN ADAPTATION OF THE PIECE HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within two years, the last major remaining arms treaty between the United States and Russia is to expire. Yet amid mounting global instability and shifting geopolitics, world leaders aren\u2019t turning to diplomacy. Instead, they have responded by building more technologically advanced weapons. The recent intelligence on Russia\u2019s development of a space-based nuclear weapon is the latest reminder of the enormous power these weapons continue to wield over our lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no precedent for the complexity of today\u2019s nuclear era. The bipolarity of the Cold War has given way to a great-power competition with far more emerging players. With the possibility of Donald Trump returning as president, Iran advancing its nuclear development and China on track to stock its arsenal with 1,000 warheads by 2030, German and South Korean officials have wondered aloud if they should have their own nuclear weapons, as have important voices in Poland, Japan and Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latest generation of nuclear technology can still inflict unspeakable devastation. Artificial intelligence could someday automate war without human intervention. No one can confidently predict how and if deterrence will work under these dynamics or even what strategic stability will look like. A new commitment to what could be years of diplomatic talks will be needed to establish new terms of engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past several months, I\u2019ve been asked, including by colleagues, why I want to raise awareness on nuclear arms control when the world faces so many other challenges \u2014 climate change, rising authoritarianism and economic inequality, as well as the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of the answer is that both of those active conflicts would be far more catastrophic if nuclear weapons were introduced into them. Consider Mr. Putin\u2019s threat at the end of February: \u201cWe also have weapons that can strike targets on their territory,\u201d the Russian leader said during his annual address. \u201cDo they not understand this?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other answer lies in our recent history. When people around the world in the 1960s, \u201970s, \u201980s and early \u201990s began to understand the nuclear peril of that era, a vocal constituency demanded \u2014 and achieved \u2014 change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fear of mutual annihilation last century spurred governments to work together to create a set of global agreements to lower the risk. Their efforts helped to end atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which, in certain cases, had poisoned people and the environment. Adversarial nations started talking to each other and, by doing so, helped avoid accidental use. Stockpiles were reduced. A vast majority of nations agreed to never build these weapons in the first place if the nations that had them worked in good faith toward their abolishment. That promise was not kept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1982 as many as a million people descended on Central Park calling for the elimination of nuclear arms in the world. More recently, some isolated voices have tried to raise the alarm \u2014 Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said last year that \u201cthe most serious thing facing mankind is nuclear proliferation\u201d \u2014 but mostly such activism is inconceivable now. The once again growing threat of nuclear weapons is simply not part of the public conversation. And the world is less secure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today the nuclear safety net is threadbare. The good news is that it can be restitched. American leadership requires that Washington marshal international support for this mission \u2014 but it also requires leading by example. There are several actions that the U.S. president could take without buy-in from a Congress unlikely to cooperate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a first step, the United States could push to reinvigorate and establish with Russia and China, respectively, joint information and crisis control centers to ensure that misunderstandings and escalation don\u2019t spiral. Such hotlines have all but gone dormant. The United States could also renounce the strategy of launching its nuclear weapons based only on a warning of an adversary\u2019s launch, reducing the chance America could begin a nuclear war because of an accident, a human or mechanical failure or a simple misunderstanding. The United States could insist on robust controls for artificial intelligence in the launch processes of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democracy rarely prevents war, but it can eventually serve as a check on it. Nuclear use has always been the exception: No scenario offers enough time for voters to weigh in on whether to deploy a nuclear weapon. Citizens, therefore, need to exert their influence well before the country finds itself in such a situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should not allow the next generation to inherit a world more dangerous than the one we were given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the introduction to a new Opinion series about the modern nuclear threat. Read the <\/em>first essay<\/a><\/em> of the series, where W.J. Hennigan lays out the risks of the new nuclear era and how we got here.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue of the Week, August 1, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Eighty Years On The Edge<\/em>, The Atlantic Magazine, August 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The End Of Civilization As We Knew It, Part Thirty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often, for 26 years, our posts have covered or referenced the singular existential threat to all life on the planet Earth, and perhaps beyond, of nuclear weapons<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our work in our documentaries and public service ad campaigns has emphasized this since the beginning, 48 years ago at the official founding of Planet Earth Foundation, and for years before leading up to this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two most likely things to lead to nuclear war are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) All the regional, national and global instability caused by all the other issues we address\u2013hunger, environment, economic opportunity, human rights, population, disease\u2013in other words the inequality and lack of security related to basic human needs and rights not being met for a majority of the population of the world, from struggling to make it to extreme poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) the very existance of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And more and more, a third issue. Other technologies taking over the mechanisms ranging from control to launch. Error has always been a threat, from human to technological. But in the age of AI no one knows what dark territory we may be entering into.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also the conundrum of the threat of the weapons themselves and the use of them to blackmail others into virtual slavery. Tricky as it gets. The simplistic notion that the weapons can never be used and all the notions that have and can flow from this are akin to a unique psychosis. Any nations with these weapons and many without but under the umbrella of those who do, are never going to surrender their freedom and become the equivalent of serfs by the threat of another nation to use them. The fact of the imperative of agency in the human marrow against the imperative of survival is a standoff that has worked, barely, for eighty years. A blink of the eye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It will not keep working for much longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No weapon created that leaps past those of the past in any age has not been used. It is the very unique capacity of nuclear weapons to destroy everything that has deterred their use. Sometimes the threat to use them has deterred a larger conflagration. But the day is coming soon when all the forces that create all the instability in the world will overcome this, and armageddon will be unleashed. If we\u2019re lucky, a limited use will shock everyone, led by the strongest powers, to their senses, the world will unite as if an alien invasion has occurred, and the underlying causes will finally be addressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we\u2019re lucky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Creating a world of equality was the goal of the United Nations allies at the end of the World War Two, the war that saw the creation of nuclear weapons because Hitler was racing toward doing so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki eighty years ago was exhibit number one in holding everyone back from using these weapons again. Plus they became exponentially more powerful. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as much progress toward equality\u2013basic needs and rights for all\u2013as was made, even when stymied by the Cold War, and when it seemed it was launched forward with irresistable force with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the monied interests, as Roosevelt called them, the richest interests in the world, became more rich and powerful than imaginable with economic inequality becoming more extreme by far than at any time in modern history. And this is in one completely inter-related world. As has been written here before, we are long past any attempts, such as those currently underway, to revert to nationalism as if the fact of globalism will go away. Everything everywhere affects everything. There is only one escape from doomsday, a world with global rules and governance to at least the extent needed for survival which has as its basis basic needs and rights met for everyone, in a sustainable way that protects the environment we all rely on, therefore protects all life on the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A tall order. But it always has been, and the progress chart over the ages is astonishing. The problem is the downside of the race between blind corruption of greed and hubris of the powerful few and the well being of the great majority of people and the planet, and the outcome that leads to transformation or destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The odds are getting far worse at the moment. The number of nations with nuclear weapons is probably about to double or worse, after being close to going in the other direction. The most dangerous wars and conflicts since World War Two are raging. Democracy versus dictatorship as the future of humanity in one world are at stake throughout as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a spectator sport. The involvement of everyone, not as ideological sloganeers, but as people of multidimensional knowledge and values, will likely determine the outcome. Get to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of our work and observations and that of others we have gathered over the decades is a resource for anyone who is serious as a person of values\u2013a member of a species dedicated to the nurturing and survival of its children, therefore its species.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this singular issue of the threat of nuclear weapons, Ross Anderson has written a masterful history and current analysis on where things stand as part of the August Atlantic Magazine\u2019s cover story, Eighty years on the edge<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s an excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear weapons can be thought of as a kind of cancer that started metastasizing through human civilization in 1945. A few times during the Cold War, this cancer threatened to kill off much of humanity, but a partial remission followed the fall of the Berlin Wall. The U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed on a limit of 6,000 deployed warheads each\u2014still enough to destroy most of the world\u2019s major cities many times over, but down from the tens of thousands that they\u2019d previously stockpiled.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high-water mark for the disarmament movement came in 2009, when President Obama called for a world without nuclear weapons. For this address, Obama chose Prague, the site of the Velvet Revolution. He cast his eyes over a crowd of thousands that morning, and then over the whole continent. Peace had come to Europe, he said. Now it was time to go further, and negotiate a new arms-control treaty with Russia. The very next year, the two countries committed to cap themselves<\/a> at 1,550 deployed warheads. At the time, China still had fewer than 300. Disarmament wasn\u2019t on the near horizon, but the trajectory was favorable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How long ago that moment now seems. The world\u2019s great-power rivalries have once again become fully inflamed. A year after invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin suspended his participation in the capping agreement with the United States. He has begun to make explicit nuclear threats, breaking a long-standing taboo. Meanwhile, the Chinese have slotted more than 100 ICBMs in deep desert silos near Mongolia<\/a>. The military believes that the U.S. has to target these silos, and Russia\u2019s silos, to deter both countries, and doing so eats up \u201ca big chunk of our capped force,\u201d the former senior official at the Pentagon told me. Nuclear strategists in both of America\u2019s major parties are now pushing for a larger arsenal that could survive a simultaneous attack from Russia and China. Those two countries will likely respond by building still more weapons, and on the cycle goes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now back to today, only a few months since the Atlantic piece, Eighty Years on the Edge<\/em>, and three years since The New York Times in-depth series “The Brink”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, here we are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Newly Unbound, Trump Weighs More Nuclear Arms and Underground Tests<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

It remains to be seen whether the three big nuclear powers are headed into a new arms race, or whether President Trump is trying to spur negotiations on a new accord now that a last Cold War treaty has expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Listen to this article \u00b7 8:37 min Learn more<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n