There are some comments here critical of the article (calling it insane, asking how dare people ask how to make a profit off of WWIII), but they seem to be misunderstanding it entirely.

This isn't an article about how to make money off of WWIII, and it goes out of its way to "of course place financial damage a long way down the list of horrors."

The article is actually about how the degree of current political instability that could lead to a WWIII-type situation isn't reflected in current markets at all, and so raises the important question:

1) Are markets correct, and there isn't really any risk of WWIII right now? Is it all unwarranted fear and hype?

2) Or is there a real risk of WWIII, but markets are bad at predicting geopolitical disruption of that potential magnitude?

The article then concludes that the second position is more likely -- don't use a lack of market movement to underestimate the potential for global war, as if it were an accurate prediction market. Because in an actual nuclear war, financial markets cease to mean anything at all.