No, the U.S. should not consider nuclear weapons in the Russia-Ukraine conflict

“Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability,” Mississippi’s senior senator said. “It could mean that. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.”

Clearly, this is absurd. The Russia-Ukraine conflict in no way warrants use of nuclear weapons, which have been used only twice in the history of the world to stop the Empire of Japan during World War II. Even the mention of nuclear weapons in this situation is asinine. Wicker has made a mushroom cloud out of a molehill.

Wicker later clarified that he was not advocating nuclear war, just stating that it should be considered. This clarification, even if it was a completely truthful and honest statement from Wicker, is nonsensical.

“I think the thing to do is not take anything off the table,” Wicker said. “You know, when it comes to our nuclear policy, if you’ll recall, we don’t take things off the table there. We make it clear that every option is open. That’s been a policy of Democrats and Republicans, administration in and administration out.”

Except, no. This is an awful idea.

The Cold War spanned nearly four decades with government officials taking every approach possible to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no need to suggest using nukes in a conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The situation there, while troubling, has no direct impact on the national security of the U.S. And, even if it did, the use of nuclear weapons — or even the notion of using nuclear weapons — is not something that should be publicly announced on television by politicians in this context.