Global tensions have quietly fueled widespread anxiety about the possibility of war. For many, the fear isn’t constant but lingers beneath daily life, shaped by uncertainty and rising geopolitical strain.
Donald Trump’s reelection messaging emphasized avoiding foreign wars, yet actions involving Venezuela, Iran, and repeated statements about Greenland have unsettled observers who see global stability as increasingly fragile.
The greatest concern is the prospect of World War III. While some trust deterrence, treaties, and rational leadership, others argue recent years have brought escalation risks closer rather than further away.
Unpredictable leadership, weakened alliances, and familiar drivers like pride and power have shifted public fear from abstract worry to serious “what if” scenarios about irreversible mistakes.
Adding to this unease, nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein has explained that potential nuclear targets depend on an attacker’s goals. Disabling retaliation would prioritize command centers and missile sites, while symbolic or population centers could be targeted by rogue actors.
This places smaller cities with major military installations at risk. Great Falls, near Malmstrom Air Force Base, and Cheyenne, home to a key missile control center, hold strategic importance despite modest populations.
Similar concerns apply to areas near Hill Air Force Base in Utah, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, NORAD in Colorado Springs, and Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. Honolulu also remains strategically vulnerable.
Major cities like Washington, D.C., Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and San Francisco are obvious targets due to political, military, and economic significance. While catastrophe isn’t guaranteed, the discussion itself reflects deep global unease about diplomacy, leadership, and humanity’s restraint.
