Tag Archives: nuclear risk

Conflicts to Watch in 2026

Leave a reply

The Council on Foreign Relations has a list of conflicts to watch. I’ll highlight a few below:

  • “U.S. military operations targeting transnational criminal groups escalate to direct strikes in Venezuela, destabilizing the Maduro government” – marked “probably or highly likely to occur in 2026” when this was written in December 2025. It took three days.
  • high likelihood, high impact: conflict over (clearly illegal under international law) Israeli settlements in the West Bank; “renewed fighting in the Gaza strip” is also listed as depressingly “likely to occur” [I find this deeply tragic and a human rights catastrophe for everyone involved. I am not sure I find it hugely consequential for global war and peace. I think it is more politically correct for the U.S. media to treat it as such. There are other human rights catastrophes going on in the world which will not get equal media or political attention.]
  • “An intensification of the Russia-Ukraine war, caused by expanding attacks on each side’s critical infrastructure and population centers” – also listed as “probable or likely to occur” – so they don’t see this one dying down in 2026 either
  • “Renewed armed conflict between Iran and Israel” – they mark this one as “an even chance of occurring in 2026”
  • “A state or nonstate entity undertakes a highly disruptive, artificial intelligence–enabled cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure” – also marked as an even chance, and I find this one deeply disturbing
  • “Intensified military, economic, and political pressure by China on Taiwan precipitates a severe cross-strait crisis involving other countries in the region and the United States” – also marked as 50% likely to happen in 2026
  • “Armed clashes between Russia and one or more NATO member countries, precipitated by increasing Russian provocations toward European states” – 50% likely
  • “A resumption of North Korean nuclear weapons tests heightens tensions on the Korean Peninsula, triggering an armed confrontation involving other regional powers and the United States” – 50% likely

So the cyberattack we need to be ready for – are we? Not to worry, I am sure the tech companies that created the technology underlying the weapons also have massive government contracts to create counter-measures. Let’s hope the power stays on.

So if we were to gamble (which I guess we can on the futures sites), we would put even money on armed conflict breaking out in at least 2 of these 4 situations, and we should not expect to get through the year without at least one of them: (1) between Iran and Israel, with the U.S. pretending to be reluctantly dragged in [3 NUCLEAR STATES], (2) between China and Taiwan/U.S./Japan [2 NUCLEAR STATES, 1 THRESHOLD NUCLEAR STATE, 1 AMBIGUOUS THRESHOLD NUCLEAR CITY-STATELET], (3) Russia and NATO [4 NUCLEAR STATES], (4) North Korea and South Korea/U.S. [2 NUCLEAR STATES, 1 THRESHOLD NUCLEAR STATES].

There are a couple things they say are low likelihood, so at least we have these: a U.S. armed attack on Mexico, and a China/U.S. armed conflict over the Philippines.

terrible news on nuclear risk

The New York Times makes a very scary claim here.

The second big change arises from China’s nuclear ambitions. The country’s nuclear expansion is running at an even faster pace than American intelligence officials anticipated two years ago, driven by President Xi Jinping’s determination to scrap the decades-long strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent” to reach or exceed the size of Washington’s and Moscow’s arsenals. China’s nuclear complex is now the fastest growing in the world.

This is awful news. The U.S. and Russia certainly have no moral high ground here. They could have proposed to reduce their arsenals to a minimum credible deterrent in exchange for China not expanding theirs. I am not a person of vast intelligence, but I can see that this would benefit the world. You would have to “trust but verify” with a heavy international inspection regime of course, but there is plenty of Cold War precedence and experience with that.

I don’t trust the New York Times (or rather, the spies on their staff masquerading as professional journalists and thereby undermining all credibility of their actual professional journalists), and the paragraph above is not even the main point of the story. The main point of the story is supposedly the U.S. preparing for the possibility of a coordinated attack by both China and Russia. The way this was leaked to the press has a whiff of propaganda to me, but the possibility of three planet-ending nuclear arsenals rather than two is terrible news for the world’s overall nuclear risk whatever the sneaky intentions of this particular article.