OAN Commentary by: Robert L. Maginnis
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Standing at ground zero in Hiroshima, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a stark, emotional warning to the world: we are “closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.” Her message, delivered through a somber three-minute video, painted a vivid picture of mass death, global famine, and political hubris. She invoked haunting images of 1945’s devastation, underscored the vastly greater power of today’s nuclear weapons, and accused “political elites and warmongers” of driving the world toward catastrophe while sheltering themselves from its consequences.
Her tone was prophetic. Her imagery, disturbing. And her timing—amid growing tensions with Russia, stalled nuclear talks with Iran, and a dangerous standoff with China over Taiwan—was not misplaced. Yet as important as it is to listen to Gabbard’s warnings, we must be equally honest about her proposed remedy: full nuclear disarmament. As morally appealing as the idea is, the world is not able to eliminate its nuclear arsenals. That solution, while ideal, is politically and strategically unworkable in today’s fractured global landscape.
However, Gabbard’s message must not be dismissed simply because her solution is unrealistic. Instead, we should let it catalyze a more constructive and urgent conversation—not about abolishing nuclear weapons but about mastering the wisdom of never using them again.
The Myth of a Nuclear-Free World
Calls for global nuclear disarmament are as old as the bomb itself. Since the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki first settled, humanitarians, scientists, and policymakers have argued that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear arms makes them morally indefensible. That remains true. But from a geopolitical perspective, the calculus has only grown more complicated.
The stark reality is that no nuclear-armed nation has ever voluntarily disarmed. Even amid progress through arms control treaties like START and New START, the world’s major powers have clung to their nuclear arsenals for one overriding reason: deterrence. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has, ironically, helped maintain a fragile peace among major powers for nearly 80 years. Nuclear weapons are not stored because governments are eager to use them, but because their very existence deters adversaries from escalating conflict beyond the point of no return.
Tulsi Gabbard, in portraying today’s leaders as bunker-bound warmongers, paints with too broad a brush. The world is not on the verge of nuclear war because leaders want to unleash apocalypse. Rather, it is because great powers operate under constant suspicion of one another, and nuclear arsenals provide what many see as the last line of strategic insurance.
Take China and the United States, for instance. As tensions rise over Taiwan, both nations are investing heavily in nuclear modernization. For Beijing, it’s a way to counterbalance U.S. conventional superiority. For Washington, it’s a hedge against authoritarian aggression. Neither side is likely to disarm unilaterally, nor would they trust the other to do so credibly.
The same holds true for Russia and NATO, India and Pakistan, and certainly for North Korea, whose entire regime survival depends on its nuclear threat. Add to that the difficulties of verification, the threat of nuclear terrorism, and the accelerating pace of weapons miniaturization and delivery systems, and the vision of a nuclear-free world begins to collapse under its own weight.
Where Gabbard Is Right
Despite the impracticality of her solution, Gabbard’s warning should not be ignored. Her voice is important because it cuts through bureaucratic complacency and public apathy about nuclear risks. Too often, nuclear policy is relegated to the shadows of defense planning and academic theory, while most citizens remain unaware of just how fragile the global balance truly is.
Gabbard reminds us that nuclear war is not a Cold War relic—it is a live threat, especially in an age of rising nationalism, degraded diplomacy, and AI-driven warfare. The danger is not necessarily a deliberate launch, but a miscalculation, accident, or escalation spiral that spins out of control. In this environment, her call to vigilance is not only valid—it is essential.
Moreover, Gabbard’s framing of the elites vs. the people—though populist and arguably exaggerated—reflects a growing distrust between governments and citizens. In an era where many feel powerless over decisions made in distant capitals, her insistence that “we the people” have a voice in preventing catastrophe taps into a legitimate democratic impulse. Peace cannot be the province of generals and presidents alone. It must be a public priority.
The Real Path to Peace
If global disarmament is not feasible, how then do we honor Gabbard’s deeper appeal: the call to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in our time?
The answer lies in a commitment to strategic restraint, mutual transparency, and enduring diplomatic engagement. Here are a few concrete paths:
- Reinvigorate Arms Control – Even if abolition is off the table, arms control is not. Agreements like New START offer limits, verification mechanisms, and a framework for dialogue. Their extension and expansion must be pursued vigorously, even in times of tension.
- Establish New Norms and Guardrails – The world needs updated rules governing emerging threats: cyberattacks on nuclear systems, AI-influenced command structures, hypersonic delivery vehicles. Without new guardrails, technology may outrun human wisdom.
- Improve Crisis Communication Channels – The Cold War “hotline” between Washington and Moscow helped avoid disaster more than once. Today’s geopolitical landscape demands similar communication links between all nuclear powers—particularly the U.S., China, and Russia.
- Support Nonproliferation – Preventing new states or terrorist actors from acquiring nuclear weapons is critical. This includes recommitting to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and enforcing its provisions through both diplomacy and strategic pressure.
- Raise Public Awareness – Nuclear policy should not be buried in classified memos. Educating the public—through leaders like Gabbard and others—about the real dangers and ethical stakes involved is necessary for democratic accountability.
- Promote a Culture of Restraint – Finally, both political leaders and military planners must internalize the simple truth that nuclear weapons can never be used casually, preemptively, or recklessly. Their utility lies only in their deterrent power—and their restraint must be absolute.
Tulsi Gabbard’s warning is raw, emotional, and in many ways, right. The world does face growing nuclear risk, and complacency could be fatal. But the answer is not utopian disarmament. The true path to peace lies not in pretending these weapons do not exist, but in mastering the wisdom never to use them.
It is a wisdom born of history, sustained by diplomacy, and reinforced by moral courage. And in a world full of arsenals, it may be the only real safeguard we have left.
(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)
Mr. Maginnis is the President, Maginnis Strategies, LLC, a retired US Army officer and the author of a dozen books to include Preparing for World War III: A Global Conflict That Redefines Tomorrow.