After the Cuban Missile Crisis ended in 1962, President John F. Kennedy estimated that there was a “one in three” chance that the conflict could have ended in nuclear war. That’s a one in three chance that events taking place over mere weeks could have led to the collapse of civilization. We lucked out that time. And in the thirty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons haven’t really seemed like the existential problem they once were. 

Then, on February 24th, 2022, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, that changed – sort of. Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened any country interfering in Ukraine with “consequences greater than any you have faced in history.” That undoubtedly brings global protection from nuclear war into question. But is Putin really considering the nuclear option, or is he just bluffing?

There’s no simple answer to that question. First off, if Putin is considering the nuclear option, it won’t necessarily mean a full-on nuclear war and the end of human civilization. The more practical way to go about it would probably look somewhat like the last time a country detonated a nuclear bomb: when the U.S. detonated two warheads that devastated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. A weapon of that magnitude wouldn’t do that much damage on a global scale, but would cause enough human suffering to force a quick surrender from Ukraine.

Anything in the realm of nuclear weaponry is no more than speculation. But using a “tactical” nuke could actually seem pretty appealing from Putin’s perspective. Every day that the war continues, Russia is bleeding money, and crippling their economy years into the future. If Putin suddenly decided a swift victory was worth reducing a Ukrainian city to rubble, they probably wouldn’t have much trouble getting them to surrender afterwards.

The use of lower-yield nuclear weapons would, undoubtedly, be devastating and have major implications for years to come. That being said, Putin’s threat was a lot more extreme than that. The kind of nuclear weapon use that is “greater than any consequences the world has faced in history,” something that could pose an existential threat to humanity – like the bullet we dodged during the Cuban Missile crisis – is really dependent on what the U.S. and NATO do. 

Publicly, that threat has led to promises on Biden’s behalf that we’ll stay out of the conflict, stating: “We will not fight the third World War in Ukraine.” Now, that doesn’t mean he’s unwilling to help them out in any way. Biden himself requested $33 billion in aid for Ukraine back in April 2022, and the Senate subsequently approved a package of $40 billion on May 19th, 2022.

Sending aid doesn’t pose too much of a risk, and it definitely isn’t anywhere near as aggressive as directly fighting the war on the behalf of Ukraine would be – which is exactly what the American military is doing. Leaked documents found that U.S. intelligence helped Ukraine sink the Moskva, marking the first Russian flagship sunk in over a century. America also gave Ukraine intelligence that was used to assassinate Russian generals on the battlefield.

Even if there aren’t actually American troops on the ground, the U.S. is doing an awful lot of fighting for a country that claims to be keeping military action off the table. And that’s not to mention the defensive measures that the West has taken. Finland and Sweden are looking to join NATO in the near future – and their recent bids for membership resulted in more threats of retaliation from Russia. On top of that, NATO has stationed more troops in countries on the Russian border than ever before.

The West is heavily invested in this conflict, hoping not just to win the war for Ukraine, but to cripple Russia both militarily and economically. Dealing with the Russian threat is important, but it can’t be at the expense of global security – American involvement isn’t worth the risk of nuclear conflict.

At the end of the day though, this isn’t just about Russia or Ukraine. The odds Putin actually uses a nuclear weapon are pretty slim – especially considering that an end to the war might finally be in sight – and the risk of nuclear war right now is still far, far lower than it ever was during the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. But America’s response to the crisis the world is facing right now points out a reality humanity is going to have to face for decades or centuries down the road. Nuclear weapons – and the existential threat that comes with them – are here to stay. 

The war in Ukraine isn’t at the point where the fate of humanity is dependent on a massive act of heroism from Biden or NATO, and it probably isn’t going to. And we should count ourselves lucky that we have bigger worries than nuclear weapons right now. But as more and more hostile leaders are rising to power in nuclear-armed nations, our response to the threat we have on our hands right now sets a precedent for how we will act next time, when there might not be as much room for error.

Whether it’s in Cuba, Ukraine, or anywhere else, and whether it’s today or decades in the future, containing the nuclear weapon threat will always require the triumph of rationality and diplomacy. 

The West is heavily invested in this conflict, hoping not just to win the war for Ukraine, but to cripple Russia both militarily and economically. Dealing with the Russian threat is important, but it can’t be at the expense of global security – American involvement isn’t worth the risk of nuclear conflict.