Carl Robichaud

But I think that there's another piece of the puzzle too.

which is that even for Russia and Vladimir Putin, these weapons are seen as a line that he's reluctant to cross.

And that's in part a result of this history of 78 years of non-use of nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union had its major...

rhetorical talking point throughout the Cold War that we weren't the ones who used nuclear weapons.

It was the US that used these terrible weapons.

And there's been this distinction that we've drawn over the years.

It wasn't always like this, but that nuclear weapons are something different.

So if Russia were to cross that line, they would be paying a price in doing that reputationally.

Three quarters of the people in the world live in a country that haven't really taken sides in this conflict.

And we've heard that China and India have indicated to Russia that Russia should not use nuclear weapons in this conflict.

And so there are considerations that are other than military.

One of my fears is that if a country does use nuclear weapons and especially uses a small, relatively small battlefield weapon,

There will not be the sorts of massive deaths and casualties that we saw from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And a lot of people are going to look around and say, that's it?

What's the big deal, right?

And you could imagine that leading to a new wave of interest in nuclear weapons and a new wave of proliferation.

It also could lead to a rejection of nuclear weapons and to say, we should never use these things again.

And so I think whatever happens immediately in the aftermath of the next use of nuclear weapons, if there is one, could shape our relationship with these weapons for the future.

And this nuclear taboo that we've had for the past 78 years is something that benefits us all, and we should really work to preserve that.