Not to nitpick your word choice, but taking you literally: WWIII isn't synonymous with nuclear armageddon, and not just contingent on Russia's stockpile. To gi

Not to nitpick your word choice, but taking you literally: WWIII isn't synonymous with nuclear armageddon, and not just contingent on Russia's stockpile. To give an example: China invades Taiwan, but all three conflicts remain frozen like Ukraine. Death tolls reach the hundreds of thousands, smaller regional conflicts emerge, more stuff is happening than the news can cover. But 95% of people are living their lives as normal, fighting online about whether this should be called WWIII instead of actually fighting in WWIII. The economy becomes weirder, but no worse than during Covid, shortages emerge and disappear as global capital continues to operate. Or a more dire example: An avalanche of wars break out, only grifters deny it's WWIII. Pakistan becomes completely overrun and drops a warning nuke, feeling as though it has nothing to lose. Fearing normalization of nukes, most world leaders shift to focusing on preventing this, planning a conventional retaliation of Pakistan alongside threats of totally annihilating it Pakistan if it launches another. That said, the tail risk absolutely exists and should be our primary concern, given that billions dead is much much worse than millions.