Most of my non-tech friends believe that nuclear apocalypse would entail at least the end of all human life. I think this only makes them more complacent in a strange way. They can shrug it off with gallows humour - if it happens, well, that was that, I only hope it’s quick. They don’t have to think about the reality of how life would change in the years following a nuclear war. The myth of nuclear apocalypse is a kind of licence to stop mentally engaging with the issue, which I don’t think is good. Not to mention the nihilistic side effects of believing one is going through life on borrowed time. Pushing falsehoods for the greater good always has unintended consequences.

It might be worse if we were to allow another holocaust because we base our risk assessment on faulty analysis whereas our enemies feel free to threaten because they are working from an accurate risk assessment.

That only works as long as Putin and Xi also believe they are world-ending.

I think it’s almost always better to have a more accurate mode of the world than a less accurate one.

For example if Russia were to commit further atrocities worse than actual nuclear war, and the civilized world refused to call their bluff because the cost of imaginary nuclear war is worse still.

Of course there are also scenarios where bluffs getting made and called are net-negative utility, and maybe you wouldn’t make those bluffs if you thought them being called would end the world? However Putin is already making threats of nuclear retaliation, so this point is probably moot.