Has the war in Ukraine changed our Civil Defence posture?

Much of the content of this page is opinion lead because the questions cannot be directly answered. Feel free to share your opinion at the bottom.

Ukraine

Since the invasion of Ukraine [1] on the 24th February 2022 many questions have surfaced about the impact of the war on us here in the UK and our Civil Defence posture.

1. Has the risk of nuclear war increased?

We must always remember that nuclear war works both ways. The phrase "Mutually assured destruction" (or MAD) is something that all leaders will hold in their thinking. The idea that anyone can win a nuclear war is therefore ficticious and Putin pointed this out in August 2022 [2]. It would appear that NATO has no first-strike intentions so nuclear war remains an absolute last resort and a deterrent so that the idea of mutuality remains mutual. So in short - probably not.

Interestingly, back in 2010 the National Security strategy [7] said "a CBRN attack on the UK by a state was judged to be low likelihood, but high impact". However the 2023 National Risk Register [8] is more reserved. Applying after the Ukraine conflict started limited information is now given and "A separate scenario involving a nuclear attack on the UK mainland or UK overseas interests exists and is held at a higher classification" [aka we can't see it!]. Good to know though that risks and plans are still being updated - with whatever labels or references.

2. Will we have a war with Russia?

We have seen much in the press about this and different voices say different things. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin says Russia doesn't want a war with NATO [3] but the German defence minister warned Russia could attack by 2032 [4]. Who knows. The war in Ukraine has gone badly for both sides with thousands of soldiers having died. Lets hope and pray that no, we are not close to a war with Russia.

There are a couple of scenarios I envisage how things could go from bad to worse:.

Russia fires tactical nuclear weapons into Ukraine

Tactical (or battlefield) nukes are smaller devices (than we would see destroying cities) and these could well be used. It requires Ukranian concentrations of people, weapons and a target big enough to hit though, which will be in Ukrainian defensive thinking. Both NATO and China have warned that this would be a red line [5][9] and could well mark a "Pearl harbour" moment in the war where NATO becomes directly involved. That would mark a severe downward turn in events as the battle field would change dramatically involving modern western weapons directly against Russia. Former CIA Director General Petraeus suggested the response "would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea." This is a situation neither side wants to see!!
Ukraine encroaches too far

The summer of 2024 saw the first direct invasion of Russia since World War 2. That is hugely significant and currently doesn't threaten Putins power, however should Ukraine push too far then a threat of more severe weapons usage could occur. Russian policy see's nuclear weapons as legitimate when their state is threatened (a fair policy?!). It would appear the invasion is related to land grabbing so that if Trump comes to power and tries to hand over Eastern Ukraine in exchange for peace, Ukraine has got something to barter.
Russia takes Ukraine

This is foremost in the thinking of a lot of western leaders that were Russia to get to the borders of Poland having conquered Ukraine then there may not be anything stopping it from carrying on. A highly mobile Army on the move (such as from D-Day) is hard to stop and were the Russian economy shift to a wartime economy then this would be an area of grave risk.

According to the latest National Risk Register [8] in reference to a "conventional" (i.e. non nuclear weapons based) war, "The reasonable worst-case scenario of this risk involves an adversary nation attacking the UK mainland or overseas territories using a combination of conventional missiles and cyber operations. For this scenario, targets are related to infrastructure. Although no population centres are deliberately targeted, a successful attack is likely to result in civilian fatalities as well as members of the emergency services. The economic costs of such a scenario would be high, as well as significant impacts to essential services."

Again this doesn't state that the risks are increased - but just the scale or the impact. In scenario 1 above, where Russia uses Nuclear weapons first and we retaliate, then I would suggest some direct strikes on the UK and other NATO infrastructure couldn't be ruled out. At least the risk suggested here is more targetted (rather than aiming to kill civilians) but the impact would still be high.

3. Is NATO already at war with Russia?

Clearly this is the worst case scenario and no, NATO combat forces are not directly engaged with Russian forces. However much western military equipment and ammunition is in play, and the extent that this is used (and allowed to be used by Ukraine) is very interesting. Large amounts of this include Anti-missile technology which is crucial for self defence from the drones and missiles Russia sends [15]. Russia is certainly keen to stop Ukraine using the longer range weapons inside Russia itself and you can read more about that here: [16].

Interestingly though, Prime minister Rishi Sunak back in Feb 2023 urged European allies to supply Ukraine with weapons because "What is the purpose of these stockpiles? If the weapons are degrading Russian armed forces, that is increasing our security." [14] The threat we'd long feared of a war with Russia is playing out, but just within the borders of Ukraine and so giving our weapons (which are in large part are designed to protect against Russia) is not self defeating.

Also for an interesting read about how Russia still has thousands of tanks in storage - see [17].

4. What would happen if we were hit by nuclear weapons?

Much has been said of how many nuclear weapons Russia has. The figure of 6k+ war heads must be understood in that only about 1700 are actually armed and ready to fire (during the Cold War Russia had more than 45,000 warheads!!). Furthermore - the number of targets specifically within any one country is limited to the number of countries within NATO - currently 30. If we do the math, that is about 53 per country, however unfortunately the United States (and probably the UK for its core Ukraine support) would have to take a lot more. Once a war with NATO has started and nuclear weapons are flying, they will not just be heading to the UK!

Most likely however by this point, China is probably at war with NATO as well following an invasion of Taiwan. If we combine Chinas deployed (24) that increases the ratio slightly. The concerning question to all is how easily the extra 4.3k worth of Russian and Chinese weapons could be deployed and how quickly. Combined however China and Russia currently have more weapons than NATO. BUT please remember no leader wants to wipe their nation out. The concept is simply unimaginable.

The limiting factor for any enemy is the delivery systems. Russia has aproximately 400 Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) which can each deliver about 4 nuclear warheads each. The UK has aproximately 48-64 trident (submarine launched) missiles. Russia still has 66 nuclear bombers that could also deliver nuclear weapons. On top of that the nuclear states have tried to develop anti-missile systems so that incoming nuclear weapons can be destroyed (although the level of success for these systems is unclear).

5. Nuclear Winter

The University of Cambridge [10] ran a detailed survey into the US and UK public's thinking around a Nuclear Winter and if the results from a Peer reviewed 2022 article in Nature would justify a nuclear weapons based response.

Forbes wrote an article based on this called "No sunny days for a decade" [11] and describes how the sheer volume of soot released from cities being struck by nuclear weapons would lead to global deaths of 5 billion with 3 billion seriously struggling. [12] 86% of the UK population would be dead within 2 years [13] and likewise 98% of Russia and 97% of the US.

The research however clearly shows that most of the impact is felt in the Northern hempisphere. India for example would see 55% of its population die whilst Australia and Argentina 0!%. Not every nation would be impacted the same and the North would certainly feel the brunt a lot more. (Interestingly Ireland comes in at 53% and yet Iraq and Iran are hit much harder).

It is clearly impossible to know the full extent of how different size nuclear wars would impact the globe but clearly they should be avoided at all costs!!

6. Has there been any developments in Civil Defence since the Ukraine war?

Not that I'm aware of and unfortunately I have no "special insights" to offer beyond Google!

Civil Defence today

Ukraine

1. Has the risk of nuclear war increased?

2. Will we have a war with Russia?

Russia fires tactical nuclear weapons into Ukraine

Ukraine encroaches too far

Russia takes Ukraine

3. Is NATO already at war with Russia?

4. What would happen if we were hit by nuclear weapons?

5. Nuclear Winter

6. Has there been any developments in Civil Defence since the Ukraine war?

References/Links