Resisting the risks of nuclear mission creep: UK deterrence and

The UK National Risk Register (NRR)10 acknowledges the regional impacts of a limited nuclear conflict between two states, which would not only be catastrophic because of the high number of casualties and fatalities from the strike itself, but also in terms of famine resulting from the event, caused from the fallout and the impact on the climate affecting food production. [...] The NRR, as the unclassified risk assessment of the Government, does not include nuclear attacks on the UK, but it refers to risks related to the malicious use of EDTs. [...] However, the advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons14 of the International Court of Justice of 1996 gives some (though limited) guidance. [...] The ICJ advisory opinion argues that for reasons of proportionality the use of nuclear weapons would be “contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles Nuclear deterrence and rules of humanitarian law”. [...] violation of the political commitments made Second, is nuclear deterrence of EDT compatible with UK political obligations? Nuclear deterrence against EDTs would be a violation by the UK and other of the political commitments made by the UK and other nuclear nuclear weapons states weapons states in the NPT at the 2010 Review Conference.