Toying with the prospect of nuclear war

It’s not just British bluster. A minor mistake could lead to mass annihilation.

I was shocked when Liz Truss, the front-runner to become the UK’s next prime minister, declared she would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia if necessary. “I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that.”, she proclaimed.

This threat reflects the strategic and political ignorance of the woman who aspires to become the second Margaret Thatcher. Even the US, which leads the war in Ukraine, has avoided threatening the nuclear option, at least until now. A few days ago, the three Western nuclear powers — the US, UK, and France — recommitted to their January 2022 pledge to avoid nuclear war, which “cannot be won and must never be fought.” So did Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, who said his country did not need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and reports of their deployment were ‘lies’.

Most pertinently, it is not British prime ministers who decide on matters of war or peace. There is a parallel hidden government, the ‘deep state, that takes such decisions, and the head of government merely implements them.

I say this with personal experience in mind. In March 2003, I was invited to Oxford University’s St. Anthony’s College to participate in a discussion about the consequences of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. At the ‘High Table’ dinner that followed, the distinguished don seated opposite me complimented me on my ‘spirited’ remarks but said I was wrong to fault Tony Blair for deciding to join the US in going to war.

‘Who else should I fault?’, I asked. He smiled and replied: ‘Us. The Establishment.’ Ever since the 1956 Suez war, which the US opposed and cost us what was left of our empire, he explained, we decided to stand by America in all future wars. That rule applies to the Iraq war, and any prime minister would have gone along with it.

So even if she became prime minister, Liz Truss would not be in a position to decide to use nuclear weapons. It is not up to her. She will not be the decision-maker, only the executor. Her threats are hollow and meaningless, aimed only at impressing simple-minded voters in her party.

Everyone would lose and there would be no winners if a nuclear war were to break out over Ukraine. Russia has 7,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, and the US, UK, and France combined have roughly double that number between them, not counting China’s. It would mean global annihilation.

Nuclear war could be started by the rising tension in Ukraine or other causes in three cases: If a non-state actor were to acquire nuclear materials and use them in an attack; if nuclear missiles were launched by accident due to a technical or other fault and trigger an automatic response; or if a state were to use small tactical nuclear weapons to destroy some important target.

Russia put its nuclear deterrent forces on alert since the start of the Ukraine war to respond to any nuclear attack. Their response time is reportedly three minutes. In the US., the president reportedly has 12 minutes to decide whether to press the nuclear button after being alerted to an imminent attack.

This is a terrifying prospect. Everyone involved in the war wants to win and avoid defeat. Their firepower is stupendous, and their fingers are on the trigger, and a minor mistake could lead to mass destruction.

Toying with the prospect of nuclear war