Imagine a game of chess in which rather than the only outcomes being win-lose or draw,

you could win big or you could win small or you could win summer in the middle.

And imagine the underneath the board was a huge amount of dynamite and both players had

a switch and at any given time they could press the button and blow up the board and kill

both of them.

That's kind of like a nuclear crisis.

Hello and welcome to the 538 Politics Podcast.

I'm Galen Drew.

To be honest, just a month ago I don't think I could have imagined recording this podcast,

but today we're going to talk about quantifying the risks of nuclear conflict.

As the war in Ukraine enters its third week, nuclear threats are the subtext for so much

of what has unfolded, from Putin's decision to invade in the first place to how the

rest of the world has responded.

NATO countries have drawn a line in the sand at sending troops into Ukraine and despite

the Ukrainian government's pleas, won't enforce a no fly zone over the country.

The reason they say is that to do so risks escalating the situation to a direct conflict

between nuclear powers and the possibility of nuclear war.

But in polls, significant numbers of Americans still say they support a no fly zone, a majority

in fact.

So how do leaders and experts and how should we think about the risks of nuclear conflict?

What does it mean to make decisions in the context of weapons whose whole purpose is

to either never be used or cause apocalyptic loss of life?

...