Countdown to The End: Thirty-five years to nuclear risk. I will be gone! You? :)

Raju Korti
Humanity has always lived under the shadow of existential risks, but rarely have they felt as immediate and quantifiable as they do today. Nobel laureate David Gross’s projection of thirty-five years is not a prophecy but a probabilistic calculation, an attempt to quantify the risk of nuclear war in a world where deterrence is fraying. His analogy with radioactive decay is apt, for low-probability events accumulate over time until they become almost inevitable. Yet the question remains whether such mathematical framing captures the full complexity of human decision-making, diplomacy and restraint.

The Cold War demonstrated that deterrence, however precarious, could hold back catastrophe. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction was grotesque but effective, instilling caution in leaders who knew that a single misstep could annihilate civilisation. Today, however, deterrence is being tested in ways unseen before. The proliferation of nuclear powers, the erosion of treaties, and the rise of artificial intelligence in military systems introduce layers of unpredictability. The danger is not only deliberate escalation but accidental miscalculation, where machines or men misread signals and unleash irreversible destruction.

Gross’s pessimism is not unfounded. Conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and South Asia show how quickly regional disputes can acquire global dimensions. The rhetoric of nuclear use, once taboo, is now openly voiced, eroding the psychological barrier that once kept such weapons in the realm of the unthinkable. The absence of new arms control agreements underscores a dangerous complacency, as if the world has forgotten that restraint must be constantly renewed.

Yet to reduce humanity’s survival to a thirty-five-year threshold risks oversimplification. History is replete with dire predictions that did not materialise, not because the risks were illusory but because human agency intervened. Dialogue, diplomacy and sheer luck have often averted disaster. The Doomsday Clock may inch closer to midnight, but it is also a reminder that catastrophe is not predetermined. The very act of warning is itself a form of deterrence, a call to vigilance that can alter the trajectory.

(Both pics courtesy Wikipedia)

Nature, meanwhile, adds its own turbulence. Climate change, pandemics and natural disasters compound the fragility of human systems, making the prospect of survival not only a geopolitical challenge but an ecological one. The convergence of man-made and natural risks creates a sense of siege, fuelling the apocalyptic imagination. Yet it also underscores the urgency of cooperation, for no nation can insulate itself from planetary crises.

The allure of doomsday scenarios lies partly in their drama. They offer a grim clarity in a chaotic world, a narrative of inevitable collapse that some find perversely satisfying. But to indulge in fatalism is to abdicate responsibility. Gross himself acknowledges that nuclear weapons are human constructs, controlled and maintained by people. That means they can also be dismantled, regulated and restrained.

The thirty-five-year figure should therefore be seen less as a countdown to extinction than as a provocation, a reminder that survival is not guaranteed but contingent on choices. Humanity has survived thus far not by accident but by a combination of fear, prudence and negotiation. Whether deterrence continues to hold depends on whether leaders can resist the temptation of brinkmanship and whether societies can demand accountability.

The threshold is not a fixed line in time but a measure of our collective will. If patience wears thin and war clouds gather unchecked, the probability Gross speaks of may indeed harden into reality. But if dialogue revives, treaties return and restraint is restored, the thirty-five years could stretch into centuries. The reckoning is not with fate but with ourselves.

(For all the seriousness with which I have treated this subject, please also note the smiley at the end of the headline.)