FWIW I agree with you on literally every single point. Where we may differ is I also see far more viable threats. It's not just nukes but biological weapons (wh

FWIW I agree with you on literally every single point. Where we may differ is I also see far more viable threats. It's not just nukes but biological weapons (which could very easily prove a far greater threat than nukes) and then the countless number of ever-creative ways that the universe has to kill us: asteroids, super volcanoes, unfortunate gamma ray burst, etc. It seems fairly safe to say that all those living on any planet, anywhere, will inevitably face an extinction level event. The only way to beat the game is to expand. We've lost countless civilizations on Earth, but we thrive yet because we spread far and wide. The same will be true on a planetary scale. WW3 will not only likely set back humanity many decades, if not centuries, but it's not like that it will be the War to End All Wars. As we start to regrow, tensions and conflicts will once again emerge, and we'll be back to killing each other en masse soon enough, repeating the cycle all over again. The fact that our reaching the window in time to viably consider expanding to other planets corresponds basically perfectly to the window in time which we become capable of exterminating ourselves probably goes a long way towards explaining the Fermi Paradox. I doubt power seeking behavior is unique to our species. And war has the allure of power, control, wealth, and all that. And colonizing an inhospitable rock has, to most, all the allure of punching oneself in the face.