“Armageddon”, “total destruction”, “global catastrophe”. The heads of state and government of the world did not shy away from big words in the past week. If the war in Ukraine ends in a nuclear confrontation between the West and Russia, it could lead to extreme deaths and even the end of humanity.

Not exactly a comforting message. The situation is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the Soviet Union and the United States were on the brink of nuclear war. “A lot of people thought the world was going to end,” says military historian Max Hastings, who wrote a book on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Are we as close to nuclear war today as we were then? Much depends on how the West and Russia react to each other.

Go back in time. In 1962, the world is in the midst of the Cold War when American spy planes discover that the Soviet Union is installing nuclear missiles in communist Cuba. These weapons could turn much of America to ashes.

An unacceptable threat, according to Washington. President John F. Kennedy warns Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev: A nuclear attack will be followed by a devastating nuclear counterattack.

A section of the American population and some generals are calling for the bombing of missile installations in Cuba. Hastings: “The Army Chief of Staff, the Eminent General Maxwell Taylor, said declare war on them if it is in our best interests.”

For thirteen days the world seems to be heading for a nuclear catastrophe. But Kennedy ignores his generals and establishes a naval blockade around Cuba to stop Soviet ships with new weapons. He keeps in touch with Khrushchev, who eventually breaks down and dismantles the nuclear weapons in Cuba.

“The situation at that time was even more dangerous than we thought at the time,” says Niels van Willigen, associate professor of international relations at Leiden University. “We now know that when America contemplated bombing, small, tactical nuclear weapons were already on the island.”

The historian Hastings sees an important parallel to the year 2022: Both Khrushchev and current Russian President Vladimir Putin want to expand their country’s sphere of influence and use it (with) nuclear weapons as a means. The men are united by one thought: “Huge resentment against the West and the idea that Russia is not getting the respect it deserves. The West rightly thinks that Russian expansionism and aggression must be fought.”

“A test goes too far”

But there is also a clear difference. This time America is not directly threatened, but “only” a distant ally. NATO may choose not to respond, or respond with restraint, if Russia drops a relatively small nuclear bomb on the battlefield in Ukraine, or symbolically detonates a nuclear bomb with no casualties.

The risk of nuclear war is less today than it was in 1962, one would think. But Van Willigen points out another important difference. “During the Cold War, it was normal for the US and Soviets to test nuclear weapons. Since then, treaties banning testing have been signed.”

Van Willigen says that NATO already considers a Russian test or a symbolic explosion as a step over the red line. “A nuclear test is really a serious escalation.”

Whether a Russian nuclear attack or test later leads to World War III depends on the West’s response and Russia’s response to it. The NATO countries remain deliberately vague, but at least they don’t seem to intend to use nuclear weapons themselves. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said this week: “The conditions under which NATO would deploy nuclear weapons are extremely unlikely.”

eliminate Russian troops

NATO has some conventional, non-nuclear options that could also hit Russia hard. Van Willigen: “As soon as the explosion has taken place, NATO will assemble immediately. The organization has an integrated command structure that enables rapid intervention.”

Available options: a cyber attack, a total economic blockade, or a full-scale attack using heavy non-nuclear missiles. Van Willigen: “There are now very heavy conventional weapons that approach the power of small nuclear weapons. NATO could deliberately eliminate Russian troops in Ukraine or the important Black Sea fleet.”

Such a harsh counterattack will provoke another reaction from Russia. Recently, Putin has stepped up his war rhetoric towards the West. A confrontation with NATO would end in a “global catastrophe”.

So is it inevitable that a Russian nuclear blast will lead to a much larger war between the West and Russia? Not necessarily, says Van Willigen. “If the Russians go over to a demonstrative nuclear explosion, they expect a reaction from the West anyway. The point is that this reaction stays within the bounds of what the Russians expect and are willing to accept. But you never know what those frames are exactly. .”

How rational is Putin acting?

Sixty years ago, thanks to the “rational action” of Khrushchev and Kennedy, nuclear tensions were finally calmed, says historian Hastings. “They wanted to avoid war at all costs.”

“Khrushchev was more reasonable than Putin,” said Hastings. “He knew that the Soviet Union would lose a nuclear war. We are much less certain that Putin will backtrack.”

Van Willigen considers the chance that Putin will press the nuclear button to be “rather slim”. “So far, Putin has acted quite rationally and accepted a lot of interference from the West. For example, he allows large-scale shipments of arms from the United States and European countries to Ukraine. At the same time, he can also decide to use a nuclear weapon based on rational considerations.”

Hastings: “The chance that Putin will start a nuclear war in Ukraine is only 5 to 10 percent. But 5 to 10 percent is high when you look at the effects of a nuclear blast.”