After visiting Hiroshima, Japan, where America dropped a nuclear bomb in 1945, Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard posted an emotional video on social media, warning Americans about the danger of nuclear war. She recounted the pain and suffering she saw which still haunted Hiroshima. Then she pointed out how the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 15 kilotons of TNT, while today’s bombs have a yield of 100 kilotons to one megaton of TNT. Gabbard used this statistic to call the people of America to action to prevent nuclear war. In her words, the world is “closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.”

Both Gabbard and President Trump seem certain that a full-blown nuclear war is inevitable unless all the nations get rid of their nuclear weapons. Back in March, Trump urged world leaders to rid their countries of nuclear power. “It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons,” he stressed. “Russia and us have by far the most. China will have an equal amount within four or five years, and it would be great if we could all de-nuclearize, because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”

While it’s true that “the power of nuclear weapons is crazy,” the idea of eliminating nuclear arsenals worldwide is neither likely nor practical.

To understand why, we must go back to 1945, to the invention of the first atomic bomb. After America invented the atomic bomb and later dropped one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki, the Soviet Union (USSR) began stocking up on nuclear weapons. As tensions between the U.S. and the USSR grew worse, the Cold War began. This war was different from others in the past, because there was less fighting on the ground and more of a stalemate between countries who continually threatened to bomb one another. This was known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD was the expectation that if one country launched a nuclear attack on another country, that nation would counter with their own nuclear weapons. This would result in complete annihilation of both countries. Such a doctrine of warfare deterred both countries from launching their weapons in the first place, resulting in a stalemate.

Nuclear weapons were critical in the Cold War. Without them, countries were at a major disadvantage. They had no bargaining power with other nations and could do very little to deter their enemies from destroying them. Without nuclear weapons, they would have nothing to fight back with. That disadvantage continues today.

Countries who do have nuclear weapons do not want to get rid of them. Doing so would mean their opponents have an automatic advantage over them.

Of course, countries have entered into arms reduction treaties in the past, which have reduced the amount of nuclear weapons they possess. Nevertheless, no nation has ever completely disarmed, because they recognize how disarming themselves would put them at a disadvantage.

“While the idea of eliminating nuclear arsenals worldwide is morally compelling and has long been a goal of international diplomacy, the reality is that such a prospect is not currently feasible,” stated Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council. “[N]o nuclear-armed nation has ever completely disarmed, and in some cases — such as North Korea — states have pursued nuclear capabilities despite international pressure. These trends highlight a stark reality: nuclear weapons are still viewed by many governments as essential tools of national survival and strategic deterrence.”

Another issue that will prevent nations from disarming entirely is distrust.

“No state wants to risk being the first to disarm, only to discover that another has concealed weapons or broken the agreement. The verification of nuclear disarmament is technically and politically challenging. Weapons can be hidden, technologies can be dual-use, and breakout capabilities allow a country to re-arm faster than any adversary can respond,” Maginnis said.

The most likely way President Trump could convince other nations to get rid of their nuclear arsenals would be to disarm America first. But doing so would make America extremely vulnerable and put it at risk of destruction from its enemies. Trump is highly unlikely to do so. Thus, it is just as unlikely that any other nation will disarm.

If countries will not get rid of their nuclear arsenals, then how can this nuclear war Gabbard foresees be prevented?

Maginnis suggested that the best strategy forward would not be disarmament, but “pragmatic peacebuilding rooted in restraint, diplomacy, and a renewed commitment to arms control.”

Such strategies would include renewing arms control agreements, working on better crisis communication to avoid misunderstandings, preventing the spread or further creation of nuclear weapons, and increasing public transparency and accountability.

Maginnis concluded, “Gabbard’s warnings serve as a needed wake-up call about the dangers of escalation, but they should be balanced with a recognition that nuclear war remains a worst-case scenario — one that policymakers are still, by and large, working to prevent. … [W]hile total nuclear disarmament may be unattainable for now, the peace Gabbard and Trump call for is still possible — not by abolishing the weapons, but by mastering the wisdom to never use them.”

Evelyn Elliott serves as an intern at Family Research Council.