Nuclear war more likely as Putin discovers new use for horror weapons

Putin ‘knows he’s losing’ in Ukraine says Andrew Bolt

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The Russian leader has threatened and alluded to the deployment of nuclear weapons if a NATO country intervenes militarily in Ukraine. Putin said last month: “If someone intends to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside and create strategic threats for Russia that are unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast.

“We have all the tools for this, things no one else can boast of having now.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has issued a similar message of the “serious, real” danger of nuclear conflict.

He warned: “We must not underestimate it.”

But Vladimir Putin’s tactics of threatening nuclear weapons is a “worldwide danger” for more reasons than one.

John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told that “Russia is adding a new use for nuclear weapons to their traditional role of deterrence”.

Vladimir Putin is now using the threat of nuclear warfare as an “enabler for military aggression”, he explained.

The consequences could include the mention of nuclear weapons in more and more conflicts, Mr Erath added.

He said: “New uses for nuclear weapons could make them seem more attractive or more usable to other governments and lead to calls for more and new weapons.”

In a bleak prediction, he added: “This could increase the chances that such weapons could someday be used.”

In such a case, Mr Erath warned, NATO countries would not be able to fend off a Russian ballistic missile attack.

The only ability many NATO states would have would be to stop an “extremely limited attack”, for example, an accidental detonation.

Mr Erath, who has previously sat on the US National Security Council, said: “These defences would have no possibility of stopping the kind of massive attack Russia is capable of launching.”

Ukraine annihilates ‘Putin’s personal boat’ in laser-guided attack [REPORT] 
Putin health: Russia leader looking ‘rather frail’ as top scrambled [ANALYSIS] 
Should the UK join Macron’s new ‘European Community’? – POLL [VOTE]

And the UK would be among the most vulnerable to such a “massive attack” from Moscow, an international relations expert previously told

Professor Andrew Futter, of the University of Leicester, pointed to the UK’s focus on deterrence, rather than active defence.

Although the UK has a continuous at-sea deterrent – and has done since the late 1960s – this is “only the minimum amount of destructive power” possible to maintain a “credible” deterrent.

The UK Government added: “Our submarines on patrol are at several days’ notice to fire and, since 1994, we do not target our missiles at any state.”

Professor Futter said: “We don’t have the ability to intercept and destroy incoming Russian ballistic missiles.

“Since the early Cold War, the UK has effectively relied on deterrence because defence (either active missile defences or passive civil defence) are hugely expensive and in some cases unworkable.

“UK policy rests on the threat of nuclear retaliation after a strike.

“No adversary would risk attacking the UK with nukes because they would be attacked with nukes in response.”

Source: Read Full Article