With growing speculation that Russia could lose the war in Ukraine,
observers suggested that Moscow may resort to desperate measures to prevent defeat.
Worryingly, there's even been talk that it may use nuclear weapons.
But while this would once have sounded like outlandish scaremongering,
Western officials are now openly raising this scenario.
So, could it really happen? And what would
be the response if Russia did indeed use a nuclear weapon.
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel my name is James Ker-Lindsay and
here I take an informed look at international relations, conflict, security, and statehood.
For almost 80 years, the international community has lived in the shadow of nuclear weapons.
Throughout the Cold War, the prospects of a
nuclear war between the superpowers was a constant source of anxiety.
And even in the post-Cold War era the possibility of a nuclear exchange has continued.
As well as worries about a nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan in South Asia,
there have also been concerns about North Korea's nuclear capabilities.
Meanwhile, there are also fears that other countries are on the
verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, including Iran.
However, the greatest threat now appears to come from Russia.
At the very start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in early 2022,
it raised the alert status of its nuclear forces as a warning to the West not to get involved.
Since then, as the Russian attack has faltered and
Ukrainian forces have pushed back, these fears have grown.
With hardline elements in Russia openly calling on the Kremlin to consider a nuclear strike,
Russian officials are now signalling that this is indeed an option.
But could it really happen?
In 1942, at the height of the Second World War, the United States began work on a program
to develop a devastating new device to end the conflicts in Europe and Asia.
But while Nazi Germany was defeated before the first bomb was tested,
16 July 1945, Japan fought on.
Faced with the prospect of a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland, a campaign that would
have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, the United States used its new weapon.
On 6 August, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima.
Three days later a second was dropped on Nagasaki.
The results were devastating.
Both cities were flattened and over 125 000 people were killed
immediately - with tens of thousands more dying in the months and years afterwards.
On 15 August, Japan surrendered.
The attacks transformed the world.
As the Cold War set in, the other major international
powers race to acquire their own nuclear weapons.
In August 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first bomb,
followed by Britain in 1952 and France in 1960.
In 1964, they were joined by the People's Republic of China.
Meanwhile, the technology evolved rapidly.
While the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around 14 and 23 kilotons - equivalent to 14
000 and 23 000 tons of TNT - in October 1961 the Soviet Union
tested the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created, the Tsar Bomb.
At 50 megatons, or 50 million tons of TNT, it was almost
4,000 times more powerful than the bombs used on Japan.
By now, it was obvious that any full-scale nuclear exchange would
not only annihilate the warring parties but it would also destroy the planet.
As a result, the concept of mutually assured destruction,
MAD, came to be seen as the best deterrent against a nuclear war between the superpowers.
However, this didn't stop other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons.
These included Israel in the 1960s, India in 1974, Pakistan in 1998, and North Korea in 2006.
This all in turn spurred efforts to limit
the further development and testing of nuclear weapons.
Key milestones included the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Most recently, the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
contains a clause outlawing the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
While around 70 countries are party to the treaty,
it hasn't been signed by any of the declared nuclear powers.
Nevertheless, a taboo has seemingly emerged over the use of nuclear weapons;
weapons that haven't been used in Conflict for almost 80 years.
So, why are there fears that Russia may now use one in Ukraine?
Although many observers still believe that Russia is bluffing,
and it may well have been the case earlier in the conflict,
there are in fact good reasons to take the latest threats from Moscow seriously.
First of all, Russia is now facing the very real possibility of defeat.
Ukrainian forces have made serious gains in the East.
If the tide appears to be turning decisively against it, Moscow may see no choice but to act.
In particular, the loss of Crimea, which was illegally annexed in 2014,
and is the home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet,
would be an almost unbearable political and Military humiliation for the Kremlin.
Russia's nuclear doctrine explicitly allows the
use of nuclear weapons in the face of a severe threat to the country.
While it's unclear what this means in real terms,
the loss of claimed territory, including Crimea, may well pass that threshold.
Secondly, while we often think of nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction designed to wipe
out cities, 'strategic nuclear weapons' as they're usually known, there is in fact another class.
So-called 'tactical nuclear weapons' are much smaller and designed for battlefield situations.
This means that a strike could be far more limited than many might realise.
Rather than attack a city, it could be aimed at a military target in a sparsely inhabited area.
It could even be used in a way that doesn't directly affect the conflict,
but nevertheless sends a powerful message.
For example, one could be detonated over the Black Sea.
Thirdly, while nuclear powers will obviously avoid direct nuclear strikes on each other,
Ukraine doesn't possess its own nuclear weapons - having
given up the Soviet ones on its soil at the end of the Cold War.
Given that Kyiv's Western supporters have made it clear that they have no
wish to become entangled in a nuclear exchange with Russia,
Moscow may well feel that there's little danger of nuclear escalation - if it does indeed use one.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly in this discussion, Russia appears to
view the use of nuclear weapons rather differently from Western countries.
As well as being open to using them alongside conventional weapons when
it's in a weaker position, it also sees them as providing a way to de-escalate a crisis.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but according to this line of thoughts a
nuclear strike could in fact be used as a powerful signal that
the time had come to put a stop to the war and engage in peace talks.
And it's this that perhaps gives us the clearest
sense of what Moscow might hope to gain through a nuclear strike.
While many observers have questioned the military value of an attack given that
Ukrainian forces are so spread out, in this case a nuclear strike wouldn't be a military tool.
It would be a political one.
If Russia stood on the verge of a defeat that would not only drive it
from Eastern Ukraine but also from Crimea, it may well see a nuclear strike as its
best and only remaining option to halt the war - even temporarily.
And it may well be right.
Whatever happens next, there's no doubt that the nuclear strike of any
sort would have an immediate and sobering effect.
The whole nature of the war in Ukraine would change dramatically,
as would the whole international debate about the conflict.
The question is whether it would indeed de-escalate the situation,
as many in Moscow might hope.
Looked out from the West,
it seems hard to believe that a nuclear strike could possibly go unanswered.
But it's far from clear what sort of tangible response would follow.
For a start, a lot would depend on the precise nature of any strike.
Was it aimed at the civilian or a military target?
Was it clearly meant to be a warning shot with few casualties,
or was it designed to cause maximum damage?
Proportionality will likely play a part in whatever happens next.
The first potential option would be for the West
to respond with the tactical nuclear strike of its own.
While a retaliatory nuclear strike can't be ruled out it, would seem very unlikely.
At a stroke, it would transform the war in Ukraine into a war between Russia and the West.
It could also open dangerous International divisions, including between European partners.
The second, and more likely, option would be a conventional military response.
This could in fact go in several directions.
First of all, the United States and NATO could strike Russian targets.
While this is also possible, it will also spark a direct Russia-West conflict.
A more obvious option therefore would
be for the West to increase its military assistance to Ukraine.
Again, though, this isn't without its dangers.
Presumably Russia will have used a nuclear weapon to try to stop its defeat.
Having broken the taboo, but still having failed to stop the war,
Moscow could then be tempted to use another one to emphasise the points.
Yet another option were would be to step up hybrid and cyber attacks on Russia,
including against critical infrastructure.
This certainly seems very likely.
But Western states would still have to be prepared for Russian retaliation.
And it wouldn't necessarily stop the war in its tracks.
But, of course, there'd also be a range of possible non-military responses.
While it seems likely that Western States would introduce a raft of stringent new measures against
Russia, any serious response would also have to involve the wider international community.
While Russia would block any Security Council resolution condemning a nuclear attack,
the matter would certainly be brought before the UN General Assembly.
The hope would be that the members would overwhelmingly censure Moscow.
However, the United States,
European Union and other Western states will also be looking for concrete action.
Countries that have so far taken a more neutral position would now be expected to impose punitive
sanctions on Russia - perhaps under threat of sanctions of their own if they didn't.
But whether the International Community would in fact unite is hard to say.
One gets the sense that divisions will inevitably emerge.
While it's likely that most countries will be appalled at such a strike, rather than see it as
the moment intensify the pressure on Moscow many could instead see this as the moment to call for
all sides to sit down and talk - the de-escalation moment that Moscow may well be counting on.
For all these reasons, the growing concerns
over a Russian nuclear strike are not to be taken lightly.
A nuclear attack de-escalation strategy might not be as outlandish as it first seems.
However, the international community will also need to think long and hard
about the consequences of allowing this to succeed.
If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon to stop a war it was losing,
other countries may well be tempted to resort to the same strategy in future.
For this reason, if it does happen, many will argue that there'll have
to be some sort of reckoning for Russia's leaders.
In the meantime, what can be said for certain is
that any nuclear strike will have a truly earth-shattering significance.
It will amount to the most profound moment of truth in international relations since 1945.
The reaction of the international community
could well define the shape of global security for the rest of this century.
Of course, the worries over Russia's war in Ukraine are the most serious
example of a threat posed by nuclear weapons.
But there are others.
Here's another video looking at efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.