Fear of large-scale war rarely announces itself with sirens. It creeps in quietly, shaped by news alerts, political threats, and the sense that the global order is no longer as stable as it once seemed. In recent years, that unease has deepened, fueled by fractured alliances, rising tensions, and increasingly aggressive rhetoric among world powers.
The return of Donald Trump to the White House was framed, in part, around keeping American troops out of prolonged foreign conflicts. On the surface, that promise reassured a war-weary public. Yet simultaneous moves and statements—ranging from pressure on Venezuela, sharp words toward Iran, and repeated calls to acquire Greenland—left analysts unsettled. To many, global stability suddenly felt precarious.
At the heart of public anxiety is the prospect of a third world war. Unlike past conflicts, a modern global war—particularly one involving nuclear weapons—would not just redraw borders; it could threaten civilization itself. Optimists point to deterrence, treaties, and rational self-interest as safeguards. More cautious observers note that history is full of wars sparked not by grand plans, but by miscalculation, pride, and fleeting lapses in restraint.
Nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein of the Stevens Institute of Technology highlighted the grim reality in 2025. Targets in a nuclear strike, he explained, would likely be selected based on strategic value rather than symbolism. “If the adversary were Russia, first strikes would likely hit command centers and missile sites to prevent retaliation,” he said. “A rogue actor might instead target population centers or symbolic locations.”