The threat of nuclear weapons—"catastrophic destruction, potentially wiping out hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and spreading radioactive contamination across borders and generations"—is terrifying. But "nuclear weapons are remarkably inefficient tools of war"—"they are clumsy, expensive, and lack practical military utility," Beatrice Fihn, former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, writes at the New York Times, arguing their true power is in how they are perceived. And "since no other weapon is so dependent on public perception," ordinary people can help reduce their impact.
Individuals might be thinking there's little they can do personally to prevent Russia from following through on its threats to use nuclear weapons, for example. But "Ukrainians' refusal to be deterred by Russia's threats ... is one example of how regular people can shift perceptions of nuclear threats," Fihn writes. "When the threats are ignored, they lose their potency." To ignore those threats might seem risky, but the reality is that a nation that uses a nuclear weapon would bring "significant harm" on itself and its allies, Fihn writes, suggesting there would be "little benefit" in the face of "international condemnation."
Through corporate divestment campaigns and honest conversations about "the facts and scientific evidence of what happens when these weapons are used or tested," everyday people can push for their eradication, Fihn writes. "Every conversation, every local resolution, every piece of art that challenges nuclear myths contributes to a larger movement." They might seem like it, but "nuclear weapons are not an inevitable fact of human life," writes Fihn. "We can all start questioning common assumptions that these weapons are designed to keep us safe and expose the irrationality of a national security strategy based on threatening to commit collective global suicide." Read the full piece here. (More nuclear weapons stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
