From ‘dotard’ to ‘Rocket-Man’, the harsh words and chilling threats between the leaders of the United States and North Korea inspired two responses: fear of imminent nuclear war and unperturbed snickers of disbelief that a war will be started.

President Trump warned North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un that he could “totally destroy North Korea” if the US continues to be threatened. Tensions all around escalated when President Trump asserted his stance on Iran’s nuclear compliancy façade, that “the Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions… [an] embarrassment to the United States.”

Insults were thrown around in a meeting that was to mediate peaceful relations between nations, and that could signify a growing readiness all around, in military prowess and mentality, for war.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) recently received a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in pushing for a global ban on weapons of mass destruction. A treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons was successfully pushed through the United Nations with 2/3 of member signatures.

While nuclear weapons will not disappear in the near future, this treaty could be the first stepping-stone to long-term cease of its possession.

However, the treaty did not receive support from the nations that possessed the most nuclear weapons, including the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain, Pakistan, India, and Israel. These nations combined hold nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons. Instead, they support the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would not outright ban the weaponry but would limit its numbers.

Without support from the greatest nuclear powers, the treaty’s impact at this point is minimal. But it is still a groundbreaking step to a possible nuclear-free world, and the recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize honored those efforts.

The treaty is not trying to target any nation in particular, rather it is reaching out for global collective efforts.

Some argued that the treaty has the potential to undermine past non-proliferation efforts and even increase the risk of pending nuclear war. Especially with the current hostilities between some nations that have nuclear weapons, namely the dramatic relationship between the United States and North Korea, a total ban on nuclear weapons could be perceived as having both the worst and the best timing.

On one hand, the threat of nuclear war encourages nations more than ever to develop the same deadly weapons of their own because there is otherwise no responsive action to counter those threats. On the other hand, increased nuclear weaponry means an increased likelihood of global catastrophe.

We are at a point in time where nuclear weapons make us feel both safe and scared—a sensitive paradox.

The White House stance appears to be to fight North Korean nuclear weaponry with the even more destructive American collection of an arsenal. To be protected from nuclear weapons by nuclear weapons is the current affair for Americans.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize should have been a ceremonial event to every being in the world, as no one is safe from nuclear destruction. However, many nations at the brink of war probably met the news with numbness and ever-present concern for its implications.