Nuclear escalation is no joke

For decades, at the height of the Cold War, the world lived in anguish over the latent threat of nuclear war. The memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was still fresh. The division into irreconcilable blocs—capitalist West versus communist Russia and its satellites—kept the international community in a state of constant tension. Pacifism gained ground (as did environmentalism, which opposed nuclear energy). Détente and de-escalation in nuclear armament came with the agreements between US President Reagan and Russian President Gorbachev, beginning in 1985 and culminating in the START Treaty of 1991. With the fall and dissolution of the USSR, there was a relaxation of the nuclear threat. But despite the destruction of arsenals, the danger has persisted. The weapons are still there, possessing immense destructive potential, infinitely greater than the devastating mushroom clouds that, in Japan, brought the tragic end of World War II.

The US and Russia remain the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, followed at a considerable distance, and in this order, by China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. All of them signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 2017, which entered into force in 2021. But with the war in Ukraine and the return to power of US President Donald Trump, the atmosphere is changing. In just one week,Vladimir Putin has boasted about successfully testing two nuclear-capable missilesThe Burevestnik missile and the Poseidon underwater torpedo. And Trump has responded by ordering the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing "immediately." The supposed good rapport displayed by both presidents, with the symbolic red carpet that the White House occupant rolled out for his Russian counterpart in Alaska, on US territory, has now given way to a scenario of possible nuclear escalation. In just three and a half months, they have gone from one extreme to the other. With this gesture, experts believe that Putin intends to pressure Trump into agreeing to extend the New START treaty, which limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons in each country's arsenal. It expires in February of next year, and although Russia has offered the United States a one-year extension, Washington has not responded. Moscow is concerned about the US president's missile defense shield project.

At the moment, we can't speak of a dangerous step forward, but certainly not of a step backward either. We can't take this lightly. Granted, both Moscow and Washington are framing the situation as a strengthening of their security. But you never know. In any case, as long as the conflict in Ukraine remains unresolved, no nuclear agreement will be possible, partly because the weakening of the traditional Russian army is leading the Kremlin to assert its nuclear power. In the context of the war in Ukraine and the unpredictable behavior of two leaders who have become accustomed to dispensing with conventional diplomacy, the world is now more insecure and volatile. The longer this instability persists, the more real the specter of a dystopian planetary nuclear destruction will become.