This article was first published by Digital Journal.
For most people, nuclear weapons belong to history.
The danger they represent feels distant, almost fictional, the preoccupation of policy wonks and grey-haired strategists. Yet A House of Dynamite, Kathryn Bigelow’s new film, seeks to unravel that complacency. Critics may argue over its cinematic merit, but its real power lies not in spectacle, but in plausibility: a reminder that the atomic threat never vanished, only slipped from view.
The film’s release is well-timed.
Instead of dismantling their arsenals, the nine nuclear-armed states are modernising them. Russia and the United States, which together possess approximately 87 percent of the world’s warheads, are slowing the pace of disarmament. China, once restrained in both rhetoric and capability, now swaggers as it brandishes its growing arsenal. Saudi Arabia hides under Pakistan’s de facto nuclear umbrella. Some commentators even hint at the need for middle powers that have long styled themselves champions of disarmament, such as Canada and Germany, to acquire nuclear weapons.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies are transforming nuclear decision-making, and, indeed, everything related to warfare. Algorithms promise to reduce decision times and alter command-and-control structures, thereby increasing the risk of errors.
The nuclear peril of the twenty-first century is not a faded relic of the Cold War. It is more complex, less predictable, and potentially more catastrophic.
A More Deadly Arms Race
Nuclear competition during the Cold War was terrifying but came with rules. Arms control agreements, though imperfect, constrained deployments and created channels of communication.
Today’s nuclear arms race lacks this sense of order. The arms control architecture of the past, which sustained a measure of stability, has steadily eroded.
The history of the nuclear age shows that arms control, confidence-building and verifiable reductions can lower tensions and preserve peace.
Russia has openly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. The United States has sharply increased its nuclear weapons budget. China is rapidly expanding its stockpile. India and Pakistan engage in routine military brinkmanship. North Korea regularly issues theatrical nuclear threats. A renewed nuclear crisis with Iran looms.
The new speed of hypersonic missiles reduces warning times. Cyber operations create new vulnerabilities in nuclear command-and-control. The fog of war is thickening, bringing with it the risk of calamitous miscalculation.
Safety as Illusion
Proponents of the concept of “nuclear deterrence” insist that nuclear weapons keep the peace, as they did, supposedly, during the Cold War.
But their logic is flawed.
Deterrence assumes rational actors with stable communication. Today’s multipolar nuclear landscape features autocrats facing domestic turmoil, populists intoxicated with nationalism, and leaders willing to gamble with escalation.
Deterrence also assumes reliable technology. Today’s rapidly evolving and incredibly complex systems, from early-warning satellites to AI-driven analytics, are prone to glitches, hacking, and human misinterpretation.
The world has come close to nuclear catastrophe more than once.
In 1983, for example, Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov chose not to respond when an alarm, later proved false, indicated incoming American missiles. He averted a nuclear exchange.
In today’s sped up environment, humanity might not be so lucky. Petrov’s understanding of the weaknesses in his early warning system, and his subsequent decision to trust his “gut instinct,” might not have a role in our current world, in which human agency and control over AI systems are being constantly eroded.
Disarmament Still Matters
Calls for disarmament are often dismissed as naïve. Yet the alternative — accepting nuclear weapons as a permanent feature of international life — is reckless. Nuclear weapons are the only arms capable of destroying civilization in an afternoon.
Disarmament is not an all-or-nothing enterprise. The history of the nuclear age shows that arms control, confidence-building, and verifiable reductions can lower tensions and preserve peace.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union, now Russia, cut arsenals dramatically from Cold War peaks. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, although not yet in force, has created a powerful norm against nuclear testing. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while dismissed by nuclear-armed states, nonetheless reflects the moral and humanitarian consensus of most of the world’s governments.
Re-energizing such efforts is not utopian but necessary and critical. Even modest steps, such as renewing dialogue between Washington and Moscow, encouraging Chinese transparency, and strengthening crisis-communication mechanisms, could reduce risks. Meanwhile, multilateral forums like the United Nations continue to provide necessary platforms and civil society remains actively engaged.
Time to Wake Up
Humanity has been lucky in escaping widespread devastation so far.
But luck is not a strategy.
Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to our planet. The only rational way to reduce this threat is to reduce their number, constrain their role, and finally to eliminate them, through persistence, political will, and imagination.
The first step is recognition. The world must face the reality that nuclear warfare is with us, not a distant memory but a present and growing danger. A House of Dynamite is a sobering reminder of that truth, and of how easily fiction can mirror reality.
