What would cause the next nuclear strike?

The detonation of such a device is not just a physical act. It’s also a political decision and one with terrifying consequences. And, in the current climate, as Russia continues to wage war in Ukraine, the nuclear threat is very much back in the public consciousness. I’ve been speaking to General Sir Richard Shirreff who served as NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander Europe between 2011 and 2014.

Richard - The Russians integrate nuclear thinking into every aspect of their military doctrine. And indeed their nuclear commander control is delegated down to army district or district level. We've watched them practice this, I mean, for the last decade or so, every four years or so, the Russians have run a so-called Zapad exercise. And very often the scenarios have been the Russians biting off a chunk of, or all of one of the Baltic states, which of course are members of NATO. So that means that NATO would be treaty and duty bound to come to the aid of them. They take them over and then anticipating a NATO response, the Russians would practice the deployment and potential use, I say potential only of a tactical nuclear warhead. The basic message being that if you come back at us to recapture or have a go at us in the Baltic states we will drop one of these things on a NATO capital, Copenhagen or Warsaw or Berlin. And the idea being that you threaten your opponent and so NATO backs off because such an outcome would put NATO in an extraordinarily difficult position because the only response would be a nuclear response.

Chris - So it's kind of the first mover advantage situation here.

Richard - It is indeed the first mover advantage.

Chris - Most people, when you say nuclear weapon, tend to think of the huge mushroom cloud going up and that kind of thing, but these weapons come in a range of different sizes in shapes and forms, don't they? So we are not necessarily talking about the capital city destroying weapons. They could use things which are much smaller and devastating more locally. And is that what he's posturing with at the moment?

Richard - I don't think we should downplay the threat here. I mean, the use of a tactical nuclear weapon in its immediate vicinity would be absolutely devastating. It's indiscriminate as well because of the nature of the fallout and the radiation that follows. But I think we have to, if one can, put it into perspective. Ukraine is a big country. That frontline is a thousand kilometres. It's a vast amount of Ukrainian steppe. Would it change the dynamic militarily locally? Absolutely, it would, but it would not stop the Ukrainians doing what they need to do.

Chris - It would also be on his own doorstep, wouldn't it? Because if the intention is to take over Ukraine, arguably piece by piece or the whole thing, you'd end up with a huge nuclear mess in the middle of part of what you've now acquired and then it would cease to be the opposition's problem. It would be your own problem to clear it up.

Richard - Absolutely. And of course, the chances are that if it did happen, it would be released in one of the four oblasts that Putin has technically annexed to become part of Russia. So utterly self-defeating. What sort of message does that send? If you use a nuclear weapon on territory which you have annexed and whose population is now you would like to think of as part of your own? I think the other aspect, of course, is it's massively self-defeating from a geopolitical and wider international perspective. I mean, president Xi has made it very clear that nuclear is not on the agenda. It would be a real issue for the Chinese as probably it would be for the Indians and others. So it would have a major impact.

Chris - Therefore, if he did do this and it would probably be because it was pushed into a corner act of desperation. What would be the retaliated response? What would people do? Would there be a point in retaliating or would we really gain nothing by retaliating at that point?

Richard - I think there has to be a very clear message that any form of nuclear release would invite the most massive conventional retaliation from NATO and it would bring NATO de facto into the war. And that is not what Putin wants. Now I don't want to speculate on the nature of that, but suffice it to say that NATO combined could completely annihilate Russian forces. There is communication between Washington and Moscow. I mean, I look back to the time that President Biden went into Kiev and after he came out it was revealed that the Americans had told the Russians that Biden was going in. So there is communication on that. And communication is essential. It's an essential component of deterrence because without communication, there's always the danger of miscalculation. So communicating the intent to retaliate ruthlessly at this stage of the game is essential.