[quote notimagain]@Yeahthat
The scenario also doesn't make sense to me because the missiles have multiple warheads and indepedent targets.
I didn’t see the programme but there has always been a credible scenario where one warhead might be used to hit a single target (“selective release”) in order to make a point/encourage negotiation.
Sounds to me like that might be one of the more survivable options being postulated in the broadcast.
Obviously an all out attack on the UK would be a different matter.[/quote]
I haven't watched the programme, but I've read some of the war game exercises carried out by the RAND corporation that were carried out with an escalation following a conflict in Ukraine in mind. The upshot of their analysis was that the most likely nuclear use scenario would be Russia launching the first strike in an attempt to deescalate the situation through aggression. RAND seemed to think that the most likely scenario was a low-yield weapon into the sea, military target or into an unpopulated area as a sort of warning shot. Of course, what would happen after that is anyone's guess, we don't want anyone crossing the nuclear line AT ALL because of the risk of spiralling, but I think the consensus was that a first strike on a city is unlikely.
I'm generally anti anything that encourages a 'relaxed' attitude to nuclear weapons because it would be extremely dangerous if leaders viewed them as a legitimate tool that could be used to win or gain the upper hand. A nuclear war would be catastrophic. On the other hand, in the very unlikely event that this actually happened, it's worth survivors knowing how to protect themselves as much as possible.
Glad to hear that the contributors think the overall risk is still low.