Inside the Nuclear Decision

In this episode of Everyday Ambassador, I speak with political scientist Sharon Weiner about one of the most consequential choices in modern governance: the decision to use nuclear weapons. Weiner has worked across the nuclear policy ecosystem—from the White House and Congress to Los Alamos National Laboratory—and has spent decades grappling with a question that first troubled her as a child growing up near U.S. missile fields: why does security rest on the threat of mutual destruction?

Weiner’s career has taken her inside the institutions that shape U.S. nuclear strategy. The risks of nuclear weapons, she argues, have always been present; what changes is whether we choose to look at them.

That conviction led her to create an unusual research project: a virtual reality simulation called The Nuclear Biscuit. In the experience, participants are sworn in as president and then confronted with an incoming nuclear strike. They have just minutes to decide whether to launch a retaliatory attack before U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles are destroyed. The simulation is grounded in real-world timelines and force structures. It’s an inspiring example of this month’s theme at Everyday Ambassador: the practical power of imagination in peace-building—and it reveals something striking. Two-thirds of participants choose to launch nuclear weapons, often escalating the conflict, even when warned of uncertainty or potential false alarms.

Sharon’s findings challenge the common assumption that nuclear decision-making is purely rational and safeguarded by layers of expertise. In moments of crisis, she explains, people revert to learned language and institutional habits—protecting military assets rather than prioritizing human survival. The problem is not simply technical. It is political, psychological, and democratic. Why, she asks, should one individual possess sole authority to end millions of lives? And why do we treat the current force structure as inevitable when it remains a policy choice?

Sharon also shared with me some concrete ideas for how researchers and citizens can make a difference in nuclear security. Nuclear weapons policy is often framed as too complex or too distant for democratic engagement, but Sharon points out that you have a right to have a voice in a set of policies that have such dire possible consequences.

* Citizens: Sharon gave us specific questions you can ask your elected representatives, as they make the rounds during campaign season, to question them about their position on the president’s sole authority to launch a strike, or demand oversight of nuclear stockpile modernization costs.

* Researchers: Sharon outlined a series of key research questions that remain to be answered, like what shapes public opinion on nuclear policy, or defensive alternatives and international law.

Using the power of imagination and virtual reality, Sharon helps us to cut through the bureaucratic abstractions to understand what would really happen in a nuclear crisis. The Nuclear Biscuit project allows people to make up their own minds about the rationality of nuclear policy, and it may lead to changes that make us all a little bit safer.

Timestamps

00:00 – Growing up near ICBMs and questioning deterrence02:27 – From MIT to Los Alamos: searching for nuclear logic04:25 – The origins of The Nuclear Biscuit VR project08:00 – Becoming president in VR: seven minutes to decide11:37 – Building realism: research, design, and behavioral data14:02 – What participants actually do under pressure18:51 – Alternatives to nuclear deterrence and defensive defense21:19 – Why AI won’t solve the nuclear decision problem23:21 – Fiction, empathy, and the power of simulation25:42 – Sole authority and democratic accountability29:30 – What citizens can ask their representatives32:00 – Research frontiers: social movements, law, and accountability