The Difference Between Risking Nuclear War & Starting It

It’s self-evident that starting a nuclear war would be bad, but to avoid any risk of it at all costs is almost as misguided. 

A few weeks ago, self-described neoliberal writer Sam Bowman penned a Tweet that made a lot of people assume he did not mind the idea of plunging the world head-first into nuclear armageddon.

Bowman, who works as the director of competition policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, tweeted a thread weighing in on the idea of a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Ukraine. Many people oppose an NFZ because enforcing it would require shooting down Russian planes, which puts everyone at risk of nuclear retaliation. While Bowman agreed that the risk isn’t worth it in Ukraine’s case, he asked, “if Russia invaded Finland, or a NATO Baltic state, would people making this argument also oppose war then, because it would risk nuclear war?”

In a (now-deleted) tweet, he concluded, “My view is basically that nuclear war is worth risking for some things, like keeping as much of Europe free & independent of Russia as we can. But I think that’s a hard position to hold if you think the extinction of humanity is so bad that avoiding it trumps everything else.”

From Left to Right, Twitter roasted him so thoroughly that he temporarily locked his account. Perhaps he could have worded his tweet more clearly to avoid misinterpretation, but when boiled down, he wasn’t wrong.

Most of the people mocking Bowman seem to ignore one critical word in his statement​​​​​—“risking”​​​​​—risking a nuclear war is not starting one. 

Countries should not be reckless about a type of conflict that could exterminate the human race. It sounds stupid to say that we should do anything that would increase such a risk. But the opposite position​​​​​—that we must avoid all risk of nuclear war regardless of the situation​​​​​—is actually more absurd when you think about its consequences. 

As Bowman suggested, it would give a green light for Vladimir Putin​​​​​—or any nuclear-armed adversary​​​​​—to do whatever they want. If “Don’t risk nuclear war” is a fear that supersedes all other goals, then by definition there is no scenario in which it is O.K. to oppose someone who holds this atomic trump card, because the threat of escalation is always lurking.

It may not be a proportionate risk for Ukraine, and it may not be worth it for Finland or Estonia either. My goal is not to play armchair geopolitical analyst; it is to ask whether we can oppose nuclear blackmail in any circumstance. What if Russia wants to annex Alaska? Canada? These are unrealistic examples, but the principle that it is never justified to risk nuclear war means that we must always appease nuclear opponents​​​​​—no matter their demands. 

Accepting the risk of nuclear war is exactly the principle behind nuclear deterrence and alliances like NATO with clear, reliable commitments. We make it clear that X will happen if they do Y, with the intention that the credible threat of retaliation will prevent us from having to retaliate. 

When it comes to all the Twitter warriors dunking on out-of-context screenshots of Bowman’s tweet and patting themselves on the back for saying nuclear war is bad, I wonder what they would have done during the Cold War in response to the nuclear-backed threats of the Soviet Union. Acquiesced, because the risk of annihilation was too overwhelming? 

Risk is a necessary part of life, including risks that may end our lives. But we do not choose to live in a bunker to minimize these risks, because there are things we value above perfect safety. Weighing risks is something we do for our entire lives.

But some of the same people who (rightfully) reject safetyism, and who accept risks when it comes to COVID in particular, are demanding that all risk must be avoided when it comes to nuclear war. “But what if it leads to World War III?” is “If it saves just one life,” applied worldwide.

Just as we as individuals cannot lock ourselves in our rooms forever to avoid the risk of dying of COVID (or anything else), we must recognize that the risk of dying of nuclear war cannot be our only concern. The appropriateness of a risk depends on context, and we must also look at the potential benefits of any given risk. To make eliminating risk the highest goal is not being responsible, it is a recipe for unfreedom.