Time To Take Putin's Nuclear Threats More Seriously

Most adults know of the existence of nuclear weapons and understand the consequences of their use. Very few are simply ignorant of them or their immense power. But global annihilation is too overwhelming to think about other than fleetingly. As a result, we tend to focus on less drastic futures.

These regular denials and self-deceptions affect political outlooks, though. Every so often, a journalist or another politician asks the leader of a nuclear-armed country about their readiness to press the nuclear button. They always say“yes.” When this question is asked in front of an audience, there is usually enthusiastic applause.

This response – applauding an individual politician's willingness to bring about the end of the world – is perhaps the most compelling evidence of the duality that the threat of nuclear war exists within.

Rather than perceiving such a response as the worrying sign that a maniac has somehow maneuvered their way into high office and should be immediately removed, the voter perceives the utterance as a signifier of leadership strength.

Psychologically, it can be argued that the applause actually represents an outpouring of relief that this mass self-deception can continue.

During the Cold War, official propaganda placed great emphasis on threat and preparedness for nuclear attack. The BBC film Threads first aired 40 years ago, in September 1984, and depicted the aftermath of a nuclear strike.

It was responsible for great alarm among the British public at a time when news media, movies and even official literature were also focused on the threat of nuclear war.

Between 1974 and 1980, the UK government issued a booklet entitled Protect and Survive, accompanied by short films. The BBC, in its public service role, also ran documentary programming, including a 1980 edition of Panorama called If The Bomb Drops .

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's 1957 study Nuclear War and Foreign Policy caused alarm by arguing that small-scale nuclear war using“battlefield” weapons might be possible.

Cold War communications like these served to focus the public mind on the threat of nuclear attack above all other fears. And perhaps, at that time, they were right to do so. But more than 30 years have passed since the end of the Cold War, and the emphasis within what is known as“fear propaganda” now focuses on other threats, such as extremism, pandemics and migration.

As such, Putin's nuclear threats provide propaganda analysts like myself with a case study about the important role played by fear propaganda in determining what people are scared of.

If taken within the wider history of the fear of nuclear holocaust, it is clear that political leaders cannot rely on their words alone to be taken seriously. They require a wider supportive propaganda environment-like the atmosphere created at the height of the Cold War.

Questions about how to understand Putin's nuclear attack threats ought to be positioned as the latest in a long(ish) line of world leaders who have tried to convince the global public of their readiness to commit nuclear genocide.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Richard Nixon, for example, used what was referred to as “madman” tactics when trying to convince people of his readiness to push the button. Interestingly, the more recent depictions of Putin, Kim Jong Un and other authoritarian leaders as madmen by Western tabloids can actually help them by playing down the fact of their inferior military capabilities when compared to those of the NATO allies.

Don't think for a moment, though, that any of this discussion of propaganda increases or decreases the actual threat posed by nuclear weapons. Indeed, there exists a degree of confirmation bias among politicians, journalists and other public commentators that because nuclear war did not happen during the Cold War, it is unlikely to happen now.

But this can't be guaranteed. It may be that these conclusions are mistakenly based upon the intensity of the propaganda environment – not the actuality of the threat posed.

To this end, it ought to be remembered that the ability to press the button sits well within the capacity of the sane human mind. US President Harry S Truman pushed the button in 1945. He was then given detailed reports of the death and destruction that his decision caused to Hiroshima.

Then he pushed the button again to annihilate Nagasaki.

Colin Alexander is senior lecturer in political communications, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.