The candidate for prime Minister of Great Britain stated that she is ready to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Putin only smiled in response? What are the three potential scenarios for the outbreak of a nuclear war?Liz Truss wants to become the second Margaret Thatcher and threatens to use nuclear weapons against Russia.
But she forgot: it is not for her to make a decision about war and peace, and her candidacy requires the approval of the deep state at all, says the editor-in-chief of Rai Al Youm.
Abdel Bari Atwanya was shocked by the statement of British Foreign Minister Liz Truss, who, according to opinion polls, will replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.
She expressed readiness to use nuclear weapons if necessary.
"I think this [the use of nuclear weapons] is an important duty of the Prime Minister. I'm ready to do it," Truss said.
Liz Truss wants to be the second Margaret Thatcher. However, its threat to use nuclear weapons reflects strategic and political ignorance. Even Washington, which is waging a proxy war in Ukraine, has not yet mentioned such an option. Let me remind you that the United States, France and the United Kingdom recently reaffirmed their commitment to the joint statement on the prevention of nuclear war and the prevention of an arms race of January 3, 2022, "because there will be no winners in this war, only losers." The same was said by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu: "Speculation is spreading in the media about the alleged impending use of Russian tactical nuclear weapons or about the readiness to use chemical weapons during a special military operation. All these information stuffing is an absolute lie."
Most importantly, the British Prime Minister does not make a decision about war and peace, let alone the use of nuclear weapons. There is a secret parallel government (deep State) that is responsible for making such decisions, and the Prime Minister is just the executor.
I say this based on my personal experience. St. Anthony's College at Oxford University organized a series of symposiums on the impact of the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies in March 2003, the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and the occupation of the country on the Middle East region and the world as a whole. I spoke at one of them together with my colleague Bridget Kendall, a diplomatic correspondent for the BBC.
After the end of the symposium, we went down to the university canteen for dinner and approached the "High Table". I thought it was so called because it is higher than other tables, but I was wrong. It was intended for people of high position, namely, for the rector of the university, deans of various faculties and participants of the symposium. I was invited to sit next to the rector, as you might have guessed.
He said that he liked my performance, but he disagreed with me on one issue. It was about British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, according to me, made a mistake by supporting the United States in the war against Iraq, because the coalition faced fierce resistance from the Iraqis and eventually was forced to withdraw its troops from the country.
I asked the rector, if the Prime minister and the representative of the ruling party does not make a decision about the war, then who does? He smiled and replied, "We are. In the Suez crisis, we lost what was left of the British Empire. We got involved in it without the consent and support of the Americans, so we decided that we would be allies of the United States in all future wars. We adhered to this principle in Iraq as well. Whoever the Prime Minister is, he will have to take these circumstances into account."
And based on the above, I am sure that Truss will not be able to make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons on her own, even if she becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain. It's not that she won't be able to become the second "iron lady", but that she doesn't make decisions. Truss is just a performer, and her statements are just empty threats. Her possible election victory is a reflection of the will of the deep state.
If a global nuclear war starts because of Ukraine, there will be no winners, only losers. Russia has approximately 7,000 nuclear warheads, and the United States, Britain and France may have twice as many. We must not forget about China, which will not stand aside if war breaks out.
There are three potentially possible scenarios for the outbreak of a nuclear war, whether it is an escalation of tension in Ukraine or something else:
The first is the theft or secret transfer of weapons or nuclear materials to a terrorist group that could use them to attack large densely populated cities.
Second: accidental launch of nuclear missiles due to a technical malfunction, followed by a warning about a missile attack, which must be responded to.
Third: any country will resort to the use of low-power tactical nuclear weapons to destroy specially fortified facilities.
Russia has put the nuclear deterrent forces on special alert since the beginning of a special military operation in Ukraine. Military commanders have only 3 minutes to make a decision in the event of a nuclear attack.
The headquarters of the Strategic Command of the US Armed Forces also has military leadership authorized to assess the situation and immediately inform the president. The head of the country has 12 minutes to press the nuclear button.
In general, we are on the verge of terrible events. The world can witness various military scenarios, and nuclear war is one of them. All participants are looking forward to victory and are afraid of defeat. They have great opportunities. The nuclear button is ready, and the slightest mistake can lead to mass destruction of people. We must not forget that the First World War was provoked by the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne.
