10/05/2025
《核戰真的會來嗎？拆解恐懼敘事與現實軍事邏輯》
---
一、引言：為何要討論「核戰」話題
近年，無論在社交平台還是主流媒體，「核戰」這一詞彙屢屢成為吸睛標題。一些自媒體甚至經常以「世界末日」、「第三次世界大戰」、「核彈來了」等語言製造焦慮，讓公眾彷彿活在一觸即發的毀滅時刻。這種敘事雖能吸引點擊與討論，卻往往忽略了一個事實：恐懼，並不等同於現實。
在國際戰略領域，核戰的爆發絕非憑空而來的突發事件，而是一連串極高門檻、制度制衡與風險控管的結果。當我們只看情緒，就會錯失對歷史演變、軍事科技與大國博弈邏輯的理性理解。
本文將以戰爭史的演變為起點，結合冷戰後核威懾體系的建立、現代軍事技術的變化，以及地緣政治博弈的實況，深入拆解：「核戰是否真的迫在眉睫？我們應如何理解這一風險？」
---
二、核戰不是輕易可以觸發的武器
自1945年後，核武器雖然多次成為政治博弈的核心，但至今並未再次被實際使用。這並非偶然，而是因為各國深刻理解核戰所帶來的極高代價——政治、軍事、經濟、外交等方面的重創。核戰的後果是不可逆的，這不僅是對直接參與國的毀滅，也是對整個國際秩序的摧殘。無論是民主國家還是專制政權，發動核戰都需要面對極為嚴重的後果。
1. 民主國家的核武使用決策
在民主國家中，核武使用並非簡單的單一決策，而是需要經過嚴格的程序和多層授權。在美國，核武使用的決策過程被稱為「核足球」，這要求經過總統、軍方及相關政治機構的多重確認。這一層層的授權機制旨在確保核武的使用不會輕易由單一領導人決定，從而減少因情緒衝動或錯誤判斷而引發的核戰風險。
民主國家的核武使用還必須考慮到國內政治與民意的壓力。一旦核武使用，國家不僅面臨全球政治孤立，也將面臨國內外的強烈反彈，甚至可能影響政府的合法性與穩定性。這是民主國家在決策過程中極為謹慎的原因之一。核武的使用，從來都不是短期內可以輕易決定的行為，而是會徹底改變國家的國際地位與政治結構。
2. 專制政權的核武使用決策
在專制政權中，雖然領導人擁有更集中的決策權，但即便如此，發動核戰的決策仍然是極為謹慎的。以中國和俄羅斯為例，這些國家的領導人深知，核武的使用將帶來無法預見的全球後果——不僅僅是戰爭的擴大，還包括國際經濟的崩潰與國際政治的重構。這樣的後果對任何國家來說，無論是專制還是民主，都無法輕易承受。
以中國的“不首先使用”政策為例，這不僅是對外宣示的戰略立場，也是中國政府在國際秩序中的戰略抉擇。中國明白，核武的使用將摧毀其所謂的「和平崛起」策略，也將徹底改變全球政治結構，這是無法承受的後果。
3. 全球化經濟與國際秩序的抑制作用
除了內部的政治與軍事考量，當今世界的全球化經濟和國際秩序也對核戰的爆發形成了一種強有力的抑制作用。二戰後，人類深刻認識到戰爭對全球發展的毀滅性影響，於是建立了一系列的國際組織與體系來協調國際關係，並推動和平穩定。
以聯合國為例，這一全球性的國際組織旨在通過外交談判與多邊合作來防止衝突升級為全面戰爭。與此同時，全球化經濟的發展使得國家之間的依賴性極大增強，貿易、資本流動和資源配置等跨國合作已經成為國家運作的重要支柱。任何一場大規模戰爭，尤其是核戰，將顛覆全球經濟結構，並摧毀多邊貿易體系，對所有國家造成深遠的負面影響。
例如，冷戰期間，儘管美國和蘇聯進行著激烈的軍備競賽，雙方仍然因為深刻理解核戰的毀滅性而保持相對克制。當時的「核威懾」理論，恰恰是基於這一點：核武器是一種極端的手段，任何一方都無法在戰爭後保持政治、經濟和軍事上的完全優勢。因此，核戰的風險在全球經濟相互依賴的背景下，逐漸變得不可接受。
結合上述原因，無論是對於民主國家還是專制政權，核武的使用都不是一個輕易的選擇。從政治、經濟到國際關係，核戰的後果對任何國家來說都是毀滅性的。而在當今這個全球化的時代，國家間的相互依賴與國際體系的運行，進一步讓核戰的爆發變得更加不可能。因此，儘管媒體與某些社交平台上不時宣揚核戰的風險，但我們應該清楚地認識到，核戰並非隨時都可能爆發，並且各國對此都有著深刻的反思與防範機制。
---
三、核戰需要哪些前置條件？
雖然媒體經常將“核戰”作為吸引眼球的標題，但實際上，核戰的發生遠不像災難電影中那樣簡單。要引發核戰，必須具備一系列極其特殊的條件，這些條件通常需要相互作用，並且是非常罕見的。以下是核戰爆發所需的幾個關鍵前置條件：
1. 國家進入極端存亡危機 要引發核戰，首先必須有一個國家處於極端的存亡危機之中。這種情況通常是由外部敵對勢力的全面入侵或占領核心地區所引發的。換句話說，當一個國家面臨徹底滅絕的威脅，領導人可能會認為唯一的選擇就是使用核武來自保。然而，這樣的情況極為罕見。即便面臨外部威脅，國家通常還可以選擇其他應對方式，如外交談判、常規軍事行動或尋求國際支持。因此，必須有極為特殊的情境，才能使核武成為自保的唯一選擇。
2. 常規戰爭完全失敗，不得不尋求極端反擊 即使一個國家進入戰爭狀態，如果常規戰爭仍然可以通過軍事手段解決，那麼核武的使用便不太可能發生。例如，兩方軍隊通過常規作戰取得優勢，或通過局部的外交談判達成和平協議。在這種情況下，領導人仍然會盡力避免核戰的爆發。核戰往往是最後的手段，當常規戰爭徹底失敗，且其他反擊途徑已經無望時，才有可能考慮使用核武來對抗敵人。因此，這一條件要求常規戰爭完全無法取勝，並且其他選項已無望。
3. 領導層被孤立或心理異常 在極端的情況下，領導者的心理狀態和決策過程可能會出現異常或錯誤判斷。這種情況可能由內部政治危機、領導人孤立或極度焦慮等因素引發，從而導致錯誤使用核武。然而，這類情況極為罕見，因為現代國家的領導層通常擁有完善的決策機制和監控系統來避免此類情況的發生。例如，美國的「三重授權制」和其他大國的軍事指揮結構都設有層層防範機制，以避免單一領導者的錯誤或極端心理影響決策。
4. 偵測到對手已準備先發制人之核打擊（即古巴危機模式） 古巴導彈危機是冷戰時期最接近核戰的經典案例。在此危機中，兩個擁有核武的大國（美國與蘇聯）因誤解、錯誤情報和相互威脅，走到了核戰的邊緣。當一方偵測到對方準備進行先發制人的核打擊時，可能會誤判形勢並做出反擊，從而導致核戰的爆發。
然而，儘管冷戰時期軍事技術和情報系統相對有限，隨著現代科技的進步，核戰的風險大幅降低。現今的軍事技術和情報系統能夠有效識別並分析對方的軍事行動，減少誤解的機會。高效的衛星技術、精確的偵察裝置和即時監控系統，使大國之間的軍事動態更加透明，並能迅速響應任何異常情況。此外，冷戰時期的溝通渠道不夠直接，常常造成誤解，但今天，國際社會已建立了多層次的危機管理機制，像美俄之間的「熱線」，能夠在危機時刻直接對話，降低誤判的風險。
---
四、歷史已經給予人類警告與應對機制
古巴危機（1962年）是冷戰時期最接近核戰的一次時刻。在這場危機中，蘇聯在古巴部署核導彈，美國則發現這一舉動後決定進行封鎖，並且進行強硬回應，兩國的對峙一度讓全球瀕臨全面核衝突。然而，最終各方通過秘密的外交談判和讓步，成功避免了核戰的爆發。這一事件深刻警示了世界各國核戰的可怕後果，並促使國際社會開始思考如何避免類似的危機再次發生。
為了降低誤判和衝突升級的風險，各大國在冷戰結束後，開始建立多層次的應對機制，包括設立「熱線」系統、預警系統和防誤判通訊機制。這些機制在某種程度上可以在核危機爆發時，提供即時的通訊和情報交換渠道，從而避免誤解和衝突升級。例如，美國與蘇聯之間的「熱線」，最初設立於1963年，它成為兩國領導人可以在緊急情況下直接對話的一種重要手段。隨著科技的發展，這些通訊系統也在不斷升級，確保即使在最危險的情況下，也能保證雙方領導層之間的即時溝通。
此外，許多國家也開始在地下建設指揮中心，以確保在極端情況下指揮體系的穩定性。中國近年來所建設的「地下超級指揮所」，就是一個典型的例子。這些設施並非用來為開戰做準備，而是為了確保「萬一發生」核衝突或極端情況時，能夠保持指揮系統的持續運作，從而有效避免因為指揮不暢或失聯而引發更大範圍的災難。
這些歷史性的教訓和應對機制，讓世界逐漸認識到核戰的可怕後果，也使得國際間對核武的管控愈加謹慎。如今，全球的核軍備控制和風險管理機制已經深入人心，並成為各大國維護國際和平穩定的基石。人類早已明白，核戰「不可能有贏家」，無論是哪一方，無論是發動方還是受害方，核戰的後果都將是災難性的。因此，核戰的避免已成為全世界共同的責任，並且國際社會正在不斷努力尋找可行的解決方案，確保這樣的災難不會成為現實。
五、北韓的孤立與核武問題
北韓，作為全球最孤立的國家之一，長期以來未與世界大多數國家進行經濟和外交互動。由於其極端封閉的政治體制及對外關係的極度限制，北韓幾乎完全與全球經濟脫節，民生困苦，經濟情況十分艱難。據報導，北韓的貧困程度讓外界難以想象，居民面臨食物短缺、基本生活需求難以得到保障。即便如此，這個國家仍然維持其軍事化和核武計劃，儘管與世界大多數國家的經濟合作幾乎為零。
從根本上看，北韓雖然面對無比艱苦的經濟環境，但並未因此放棄其核武計劃。這一現象揭示出，儘管國際社會以制裁等方式試圖削弱其核計劃，但北韓似乎將其核武視為保證政權穩定和對外安全的關鍵，甚至比經濟發展更加優先。這也再次印證了核武的使用與經濟實力並非總是正相關，反而往往是基於政治安全和生存的考量。
---
六、現代戰爭不再是坦克大軍與壕溝對決
現代戰爭的性質已經發生了深刻變化，戰爭的目的不再僅僅是簡單的占領領土或大規模消滅敵軍，而是為了達到政治目標、改變對手的行為，並在最小化損失的情況下實現這些目標。在這樣的背景下，核戰爭無法達成任何政治或軍事上的可持續目標。核武的使用不僅無法「制勝」，反而會引發全球性的反彈，對使用國自身及其盟友的影響會極為深遠。這也是為何即使是擁有核武的國家，也極力避免將核戰爭作為常規軍事手段。
例如，俄烏戰爭和以哈衝突的發展顯示，現代戰爭越來越多地依賴於資訊戰、經濟戰、代理人戰爭以及精準攻擊，而不再是傳統的坦克大軍和壕溝對決。在這些衝突中，許多戰鬥和行動都更多依賴無人機、網絡攻擊、經濟制裁以及代理軍隊等手段。這些新型戰爭方式的共同特點是成本更低、風險更可控，且能夠更精確地對敵人施加壓力，而不需要進行大規模的地面攻擊。
與此同時，戰爭中的人命和資源成本被極力控制，這是現代戰爭的一個重要特徵。現代軍事力量不再傾向於採用大規模的“人海戰術”，即不再依賴大量人員直接參與戰鬥，這樣的戰術不僅容易造成巨大的生命損失，也不符合現代資本主導下的戰爭邏輯。保存士兵的生命，意味著保存戰爭的資本和持久戰鬥的能力。資本和技術的運作成為了現代戰爭的重要驅動力，而不是僅僅依賴人員的數量和戰場上的硬碰硬對決。
這一點尤其在以哈衝突中得到了體現，雙方都使用了精確打擊、信息戰、輿論戰等手段來達到戰略目標，而不是依賴大規模的地面部隊對決。同樣，在俄烏戰爭中，無人機、遠程火箭和網絡攻擊等現代武器系統的使用，也顯示出現代戰爭已經不再是傳統的地面戰爭。
在這樣的背景下，核戰爭的爆發不僅違背了現代戰爭的戰略邏輯，也顯示出核武無法在現代世界中有效達成政治目的。核武器不僅帶來無可逆的災難性後果，還會對使用國造成巨大的政治、經濟與外交上的反擊。這使得核武在現代戰爭中更多是作為威懾工具存在，而非實際的作戰手段。
---
七、媒體為何不斷炒作核戰？
當今的媒體環境中，核戰的話題往往成為吸引眼球的重磅議題。這背後的原因是多方面的，既有警告風險的責任，也有點擊率和流量驅動的因素。媒體有其責任提醒公眾對各種危險的警覺性，尤其是像核戰這樣的全球性災難性事件，確實值得關注。然而，隨著現代數位媒體的競爭激烈，許多媒體被迫依賴演算法來推動流量和增長點擊率，這使得以“末日感”為題材的報導格外受歡迎。
製造恐慌或危機感的報導更容易吸引公眾的注意，這樣的內容通常會引發大量的點擊、分享和討論。因此，無論是專業的戰爭分析還是一般的新聞報導，將焦點放在核戰等終極威脅上，會讓讀者產生強烈的情感反應，從而達到提高觀看率或點擊率的目的。這種方式並不一定反映真實的情勢或科學的分析，而更多是迎合市場需求。
然而，真正的軍事研究機構與戰略智庫卻較少誇大核戰的可能性。這些機構往往關注的是更為現實和當前的威脅，比如信息戰、經濟戰、網絡戰等新型的衝突模式。這些模式的威脅更具現實性，也更能在當今的國際局勢中發揮作用，對大國之間的博弈有著直接且深遠的影響。相較於核武，這些新型的衝突形式具有更高的可操作性，並且在全球化和數位化的今天，成為了更加主流的戰爭方式。
核戰在這樣的情況下，無疑成為了戰略上的“底牌”。它是極端情境下才會使用的最後手段，並不是任何國家日常對抗的首選工具。媒體常常誇大其發生的可能性，實則忽略了核武器在現代國際關係中的相對“邊緣”角色。
---
八、結論：世界雖然危險，但比你以為的更有秩序
全球局勢確實充滿複雜性與不確定性，但我們必須正確認識到，核戰並不像電影中所描繪的那樣容易引爆。各國之間的競爭固然激烈，但同時也設立了大量旨在避免全面毀滅的緩衝機制。自冷戰時期以來，世界各大國便已經建立了多層次的風險管理和危機應對系統，這些機制有效降低了核戰爆發的可能性。即使在當今充滿不穩定的政治環境中，全球大國之間依然保持著一個脆弱的平衡，這讓人類在面對極端威脅時，仍有一定的防範和應對能力。
正如蘇聯解體的歷史所示，勝利並非單純依賴熱戰或直接軍事衝突，而是可以通過經濟、科技等非傳統手段實現。這一變化充分體現了帝國競爭的演變，從軍事征服到經濟統治，再到信息與科技主導的角逐。
如果我們真的想為未來做出有效準備，應該將焦點放在當前更可能出現的現實戰場上，比如“資源戰爭”、“地緣經濟”、“科技封鎖”、“人工智能戰”、“科技戰”、“網絡戰”以及“代理人衝突”。這些領域的衝突和競爭，往往更直接地影響到國際安全和經濟秩序，而它們的發展趨勢和局勢演變，將會是未來全球局勢的主要挑戰。與其過度擔心核戰的假設性危機，我們應該更多關注當前更為現實和迫切的問題，這樣才能為未來做好更有針對性的準備。
最後，我們不應忽視戰爭的深層動因與底層邏輯——也就是支撐戰爭發生的根本規律與驅動力量。戰爭的核心目的在於對他人資源的掠奪，而非雙方同歸於盡，這一點無論在極端體制還是民主制度中皆然。至於這種底層邏輯，在全人類逐漸意識到核戰爭的毀滅性後，我們不得不反思：如果一個國家失去了它的人民，那麼它還能稱之為國家嗎？同樣地，批判性思維往往被誤解為一種僅僅挑戰權威、懷疑一切的態度，然而，真正的批判性思維應該建立在深刻理解和理性思考的基礎上，目的是促使我們認識事物的真相，而非簡單的否定和對立。當今世界，許多人誤將批判性思維視為無止境的懷疑，卻忽視了它應該指引我們走向智慧與和解，尤其在涉及重大議題如戰爭和核威脅時。
#核威懾 #冷戰 #核武使用 #政治博弈 #軍事邏輯 #全球化經濟 #國際秩序 #媒體敘事 #風險控管 #北韓核武 #俄烏戰爭 #現代戰爭 #信息戰 #國際關係
"Will Nuclear War Really Come? Dissecting the Fear Narrative and the Logic of Military Reality"
I. Introduction: Why Discuss the Topic of "Nuclear War"?
In recent years, the term "nuclear war" has frequently appeared as an eye-catching headline in both social media and mainstream media. Some independent media outlets even regularly generate anxiety with phrases like "End of the World," "World War III," or "Nuclear Bomb is Coming," making the public feel as though they are on the brink of an imminent catastrophe. While such narratives may attract clicks and discussions, they often overlook one crucial fact: fear does not equate to reality.
In the realm of international strategy, the outbreak of nuclear war is by no means a sudden, unpredictable event, but rather the result of a series of high thresholds, institutional checks and balances, and risk management. When we focus solely on emotions, we miss a rational understanding of historical developments, military technology, and the logic of great power competition.
This article will begin by examining the evolution of war history, combine it with the establishment of the nuclear deterrence system after the Cold War, the changes in modern military technology, and the realities of geopolitical competition, to deeply analyze: "Is nuclear war really imminent? How should we understand this risk?"
II. Nuclear War is Not an Easily Triggered Weapon
Since 1945, although nuclear weapons have frequently been at the center of political maneuvering, they have not been used again. This is not by chance, but because countries deeply understand the immense cost of nuclear war—the severe political, military, economic, and diplomatic consequences. The aftermath of nuclear war is irreversible, not only causing destruction to the directly involved nations but also devastating the entire international order. Whether it is a democratic country or an authoritarian regime, initiating nuclear war comes with catastrophic consequences.
1. Nuclear Weapon Decision-making in Democratic Countries
In democratic nations, the decision to use nuclear weapons is not a simple, singular act but requires strict procedures and multiple layers of authorization. In the United States, the decision-making process for using nuclear weapons is referred to as the "nuclear football," which requires confirmation from the President, military, and relevant political institutions. This layered authorization mechanism ensures that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be easily decided by a single leader, thereby reducing the risk of nuclear war caused by emotional impulses or misjudgments.
The decision to use nuclear weapons in democratic countries must also consider domestic politics and public opinion pressures. Once nuclear weapons are used, the country faces not only global political isolation but also strong domestic and international backlash, potentially affecting the legitimacy and stability of the government. This is one reason why democratic countries approach decision-making with extreme caution. The use of nuclear weapons is never an action that can be easily decided in the short term; it would fundamentally alter the country's international status and political structure.
2. Nuclear Weapon Decision-making in Authoritarian Regimes
In authoritarian regimes, while leaders have more centralized decision-making power, even they exercise extreme caution when considering the use of nuclear weapons. Taking China and Russia as examples, the leaders of these countries understand that the use of nuclear weapons would bring unpredictable global consequences—not only escalating the war but also leading to the collapse of the international economy and a restructuring of international politics. Such consequences are unsustainable for any country, whether authoritarian or democratic.
Take China’s "no first use" policy as an example. This policy is not only a strategic stance declared to the outside world but also a strategic choice for China within the international order. China understands that the use of nuclear weapons would destroy its so-called "peaceful rise" strategy and completely reshape the global political structure, which is an outcome it cannot afford.
3. The Restraining Effect of Globalized Economy and International Order
Apart from internal political and military considerations, the globalized economy and international order of today's world also serve as a powerful deterrent to the outbreak of nuclear war. After World War II, humanity deeply understood the devastating impact of war on global development, leading to the establishment of a series of international organizations and systems to coordinate international relations and promote peace and stability.
Take the United Nations, for example. This global organization aims to prevent conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars through diplomatic negotiations and multilateral cooperation. Meanwhile, the development of the globalized economy has significantly increased interdependence between nations. Transnational cooperation in trade, capital flows, and resource allocation has become a crucial pillar of national operations. Any large-scale war, particularly nuclear war, would disrupt the global economic structure and destroy the multilateral trading system, resulting in profound negative impacts on all countries.
For instance, during the Cold War, despite the intense arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, both sides exercised relative restraint because they deeply understood the destructive consequences of nuclear war. The theory of "nuclear deterrence" at the time was based precisely on this point: nuclear weapons are an extreme means, and neither side could maintain complete political, economic, or military superiority after such a war. Therefore, the risk of nuclear war, in the context of a globally interconnected economy, became increasingly unacceptable.
Given the above reasons, for both democratic countries and authoritarian regimes, the use of nuclear weapons is not an easy choice. From politics and economics to international relations, the consequences of nuclear war are catastrophic for any country. In today’s globalized world, the interdependence between nations and the functioning of the international system further reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. Therefore, even though the media and some social platforms occasionally exaggerate the risk of nuclear war, we must clearly recognize that nuclear war is not likely to break out at any moment, and countries have deeply reflected on and developed mechanisms to prevent it.
III. What Preconditions are Needed for Nuclear War?
Although the media often uses "nuclear war" as an eye-catching headline, the reality of nuclear war is far more complex than portrayed in disaster films. For a nuclear war to occur, a series of extremely special conditions must be met, and these conditions are rare and typically require interaction. The following are some key preconditions for the outbreak of nuclear war:
1. A Country Facing an Extreme Existential Crisis
To trigger a nuclear war, a country must first be in an extreme existential crisis. This situation is usually caused by a comprehensive invasion by an external hostile force or the occupation of vital areas. In other words, when a nation faces the threat of total annihilation, its leadership might believe that the only option for survival is to use nuclear weapons. However, such situations are extremely rare. Even when facing external threats, countries can usually choose other means of response, such as diplomatic negotiations, conventional military actions, or seeking international support. Therefore, only under very special circumstances can nuclear weapons become the only option for self-preservation.
2. Complete Failure of Conventional Warfare, Necessitating an Extreme Retaliation
Even if a country is at war, if conventional warfare can still resolve the conflict through military means, the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely. For example, if one side gains the upper hand through conventional military operations or a localized diplomatic negotiation results in a peace agreement, the leadership would still strive to avoid nuclear war. Nuclear war is often considered a last resort, and it might only be considered when conventional warfare has completely failed, and all other avenues of retaliation have been exhausted. Thus, this condition requires that conventional warfare be entirely unresolvable and that other options are no longer viable.
3. Isolation of the Leadership or Psychological Abnormalities
In extreme situations, the psychological state of the leader and the decision-making process may become abnormal or lead to misjudgments. This could be triggered by internal political crises, isolation of the leader, or extreme anxiety, which might result in the erroneous use of nuclear weapons. However, such situations are extremely rare because modern states generally have well-established decision-making mechanisms and monitoring systems to prevent such occurrences. For example, the "triple authorization system" in the United States and the military command structures of other major powers have multiple safeguards to prevent a single leader's mistakes or psychological extremities from influencing decisions.
4. Detection of the Opponent Preparing a Preemptive Nuclear Strike (i.e., the Cuban Missile Crisis Scenario)
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a classic example of the closest approach to nuclear war during the Cold War. In this crisis, the two nuclear-armed superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) came close to nuclear war due to misunderstandings, faulty intelligence, and mutual threats. If one side detects that the other is preparing a preemptive nuclear strike, it may misinterpret the situation and retaliate, potentially leading to the outbreak of nuclear war.
However, despite the limited military technology and intelligence systems during the Cold War, the risk of nuclear war has significantly decreased with the advancement of modern technology. Today’s military technology and intelligence systems are able to effectively identify and analyze the opponent’s military actions, reducing the chance of misunderstanding. Efficient satellite technology, precise reconnaissance devices, and real-time monitoring systems have made military dynamics between major powers more transparent, allowing for a swift response to any unusual situation. Moreover, communication channels during the Cold War were insufficiently direct, often leading to misunderstandings, but today, the international community has established multi-layered crisis management mechanisms. For instance, the "hotline" between the US and Russia allows direct communication in times of crisis, significantly lowering the risk of misjudgment.
IV. History Has Already Provided Warnings and Response Mechanisms
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) was the closest the world came to nuclear war during the Cold War. In this crisis, the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, and when the United States discovered this, it decided to implement a blockade and respond firmly, bringing both countries to the brink of full-scale nuclear conflict. However, ultimately, through secret diplomatic negotiations and concessions, all parties successfully avoided the outbreak of nuclear war. This event profoundly warned the world of the terrifying consequences of nuclear war and prompted the international community to start thinking about how to prevent similar crises in the future.
To reduce the risk of misjudgment and escalation, after the Cold War, major powers began to establish multi-layered response mechanisms, including the creation of "hotline" systems, early warning systems, and communication mechanisms to prevent miscalculations. These mechanisms can, to some extent, provide immediate communication and intelligence exchange channels in the event of a nuclear crisis, thereby preventing misunderstandings and escalation of conflicts. For example, the "hotline" between the US and the Soviet Union, initially established in 1963, became an important tool for the two leaders to directly communicate in emergencies. With the advancement of technology, these communication systems have continuously been upgraded to ensure that even in the most dangerous situations, real-time communication between leadership can still be maintained.
Furthermore, many countries have also begun to build underground command centers to ensure the stability of the command system in extreme situations. China's construction of the "underground super command center" in recent years is a typical example. These facilities are not built to prepare for war, but rather to ensure that in the event of a nuclear conflict or extreme situation, the command system can continue to function, thereby effectively avoiding larger-scale disasters caused by breakdowns in communication or loss of contact.
These historical lessons and response mechanisms have led the world to gradually recognize the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, prompting greater caution in the international management of nuclear weapons. Today, global nuclear arms control and risk management mechanisms have deeply rooted in international consciousness and have become the foundation for major powers to maintain international peace and stability. Humanity has long understood that there is "no winner in nuclear war"; no matter which side—whether the aggressor or the victim—the consequences of nuclear war would be catastrophic. Therefore, the prevention of nuclear war has become a shared responsibility of the entire world, and the international community is continuously striving to find feasible solutions to ensure such a disaster does not become a reality.
V. North Korea's Isolation and Nuclear Issue
North Korea, as one of the most isolated countries in the world, has long refrained from engaging in economic and diplomatic interactions with most countries. Due to its highly closed political system and extreme restrictions on foreign relations, North Korea is almost entirely disconnected from the global economy. The country faces severe hardship, with citizens enduring food shortages and struggling to meet basic living needs. Despite this, North Korea maintains its militarized stance and nuclear weapons program, even though its economic cooperation with most countries is virtually nonexistent.
Fundamentally, despite facing an extremely challenging economic environment, North Korea has not abandoned its nuclear program. This phenomenon reveals that, despite international efforts to weaken its nuclear plans through sanctions, North Korea seems to view its nuclear weapons as key to ensuring the stability of its regime and its external security, even prioritizing them over economic development. This further confirms that the use of nuclear weapons is not always directly related to economic power, but is often driven by political security and survival considerations.
VI. Modern Warfare is No Longer About Tank Armies and Trench Warfare
The nature of modern warfare has undergone profound changes. The goal of war is no longer simply to occupy territory or annihilate enemy forces on a large scale; instead, it is to achieve political objectives, alter the opponent’s behavior, and realize these goals while minimizing losses. In this context, nuclear warfare cannot achieve any sustainable political or military objectives. The use of nuclear weapons not only fails to guarantee a "victory," but it also triggers global backlash, with profound consequences for the country using them and its allies. This is why even countries with nuclear weapons are keen to avoid using nuclear warfare as a conventional military tactic.
For example, the developments in the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict show that modern warfare increasingly relies on information warfare, economic warfare, proxy wars, and precision strikes, rather than traditional tank armies and trench battles. In these conflicts, many of the actions and engagements rely more on drones, cyberattacks, economic sanctions, and proxy forces. The common characteristics of these new forms of warfare are lower costs, more controllable risks, and the ability to exert pressure on the enemy more precisely without large-scale ground attacks.
At the same time, the loss of life and resource costs in war are carefully controlled, which is an important feature of modern warfare. Modern military forces no longer favor large-scale “human wave tactics,” where large numbers of personnel are directly involved in combat. Such tactics not only result in enormous casualties but also contradict the logic of modern, capital-driven warfare. Preserving soldiers’ lives means preserving the capital for the war and the ability to sustain prolonged combat. The operation of capital and technology has become the main driver of modern warfare, rather than relying solely on the quantity of personnel or direct, hard-hitting confrontations on the battlefield.
This is especially evident in the Israel-Hamas conflict, where both sides employed precision strikes, information warfare, and media campaigns to achieve strategic objectives, rather than relying on large ground forces. Similarly, in the Russia-Ukraine war, the use of drones, long-range rockets, and cyberattacks has demonstrated that modern warfare is no longer about traditional ground combat.
In this context, the outbreak of nuclear war not only contradicts the strategic logic of modern warfare but also demonstrates that nuclear weapons cannot effectively achieve political objectives in the modern world. Nuclear weapons bring irreversible catastrophic consequences and would provoke immense political, economic, and diplomatic retaliation against the nation that uses them. This makes nuclear weapons more of a deterrent tool in modern warfare, rather than an actual combat method.
VII. Why Do Media Constantly Exaggerate the Threat of Nuclear War?
In today’s media landscape, the topic of nuclear war often becomes a headline-grabbing issue. The reasons behind this are multifaceted, involving both the responsibility to raise public awareness of global risks and the drive for higher click-through rates and traffic. The media does have a duty to alert the public about potential dangers, especially something as catastrophic as nuclear war. However, in the competitive environment of modern digital media, many outlets are compelled to rely on algorithms to drive traffic and boost click rates. This has made "end-of-the-world" stories, such as those about nuclear war, particularly appealing.
Reports that generate fear or a sense of crisis tend to attract more public attention. Such content often sparks a surge in clicks, shares, and discussions. Therefore, whether it’s specialized war analysis or general news reporting, focusing on nuclear war and other ultimate threats provokes strong emotional responses from readers, which in turn increases viewership and click-through rates. This method doesn’t necessarily reflect the actual situation or scientific analysis but rather caters to market demands.
However, genuine military research institutions and strategic think tanks tend to exaggerate the likelihood of nuclear war less frequently. These institutions are more focused on current, realistic threats such as information warfare, economic warfare, cyberattacks, and other new forms of conflict. These threats are more tangible and immediately relevant in the context of today’s international dynamics and have direct, significant implications in the ongoing power struggles between major nations. Compared to nuclear weapons, these newer forms of conflict are more operational and have become more mainstream methods of warfare in today’s globalized and digitized world.
In this context, nuclear war remains a "trump card" in strategy. It is a last resort that is only used in extreme circumstances, not a tool that any country regularly employs in everyday confrontations. The media often exaggerates the likelihood of nuclear war, while overlooking the relatively “marginal” role nuclear weapons play in modern international relations.
VIII. Conclusion: The World Is Dangerous, But More Ordered Than You Think
While the global situation is undoubtedly complex and fraught with uncertainty, it is crucial to recognize that nuclear war is not as easily triggered as movies might suggest. The competition among nations is fierce, but there are numerous mechanisms in place to prevent global annihilation. Since the Cold War, major world powers have established multi-layered risk management and crisis-response systems, which have effectively reduced the likelihood of nuclear war. Even in today's unstable political environment, the fragile balance between global powers ensures that humanity still has some capacity for prevention and response when facing extreme threats.
As demonstrated by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, victory does not solely rely on hot wars or direct military conflicts. It can be achieved through economic, technological, and other non-traditional means. This shift reflects the evolution of imperial competition, from military conquest to economic dominance, and now to rivalry in information and technology.
To truly prepare for the future, our focus should be on more likely and immediate areas of conflict, such as "resource wars," "geoeconomics," "technological blockades," "artificial intelligence wars," "cyber warfare," and "proxy conflicts." These areas of competition and conflict have a more direct impact on international security and economic order. The trends and developments in these fields will define the challenges of the future global landscape. Instead of obsessing over the hypothetical crisis of nuclear war, we should concentrate on current, more pressing issues to better prepare for the future.
Finally, we must not overlook the deeper motivations and underlying logic of war — that is, the fundamental forces and principles that drive conflict. The core purpose of war is to seize resources, not mutual destruction, whether in extreme regimes or democratic systems. In the wake of humanity's increasing recognition of the devastating potential of nuclear war, we must reflect on a crucial question: If a nation loses its people, can it still be called a nation? Similarly, critical thinking is often misunderstood as merely challenging authority or doubting everything. In truth, critical thinking should be grounded in deep understanding and rational thought. Its purpose is to lead us toward the truth, not just negation or opposition. In today's world, many mistake critical thinking for endless skepticism, overlooking that it should guide us toward wisdom and reconciliation — especially when confronting significant issues like war and nuclear threats.
