
What would nuclear attack on Scotland look like?
That begins with understanding both what happened in 1945, and what might happen if nuclear weapons are ever used again – especially in a context closer to home.
The UK's nuclear arsenal is based on the Clyde, placing Scotland on the frontline of any future nuclear crisis involving the UK. So what would nuclear war in Scotland look like? What would be hit? Could the country survive?
READ MORE: Glen Rosa ferry leaves dry dock to return to shipyard
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the equivalent explosive force of 15 and 21 kilotons of TNT, respectively. These are now considered small, or 'low yield' nuclear weapons.
In contrast, each of the 40 nuclear warheads currently deployed by the UK on each Trident submarine has an explosive yield of 100 kilotons – around six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The American B61-12 nuclear bombs that will be carried by the UK's new F-35A fighter jets have variable yields of up to 50 kilotons.
It's hard to predict who would start a nuclear war, but the UK Government considers Russia to be the most serious nuclear threat.
Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly issued nuclear threats and revised its doctrine to allow the use of nuclear weapons against any 'critical threat' to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Most of Russia's warheads have a yield of 100 kilotons, but the second most common type ranges from 500 to 800 kilotons. That's up to 53 times more powerful than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima.
Likely targets in Scotland include the naval base at Faslane and the nearby warhead facility at Coulport. Recently leaked Russian military nuclear training documents show plans to target Rosyth shipbuilding facilities, and RAF Lossiemouth in Moray (one of the UK's two quick reaction air alert stations) is also a likely target.
These are what's known as 'counterforce' targets in the language of nuclear strategy – military sites to be targeted to prevent the UK from responding. If Russia adopted a 'countervalue' strategy that targeted population centres too, then cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee would be at risk.
A single 800 kiloton detonation in each of those cities and aforementioned military sites could cause an estimated 836,240 deaths and more than 1.2 million injured people.
READ MORE: Ian Blackford to give shock return in Kate Forbes seat 'careful consideration'
Survivors would then face radioactive fallout that would sweep across Scotland, varying in impact depending on complex factors such as the weather and the altitude of detonation.
Medical help would be scarce. Scotland's four major trauma centres – in the same four cities above – would likely be destroyed, as would six of Scotland's seven specialist burn units. But even if these hospitals survived, NHS Scotland only has around 13,000 hospital beds.
At the same time, essential infrastructure for things we take for granted like transport, food and water supplies, and communication would be gone, and social order would likely collapse.
While this is a staggeringly bleak picture, it is also a conservative estimate, as it is unlikely that just one warhead would be used against each place. Russia's long-range missiles typically carry multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (what strategists refer to as MIRVs), meaning one missile can deploy four to 10 warheads and hit multiple locations simultaneously.
In short, the use of even just a few nuclear weapons in Scotland would be catastrophic. At a time when the UK is being put on a war footing, as arms control treaties are collapsing, and as nuclear weapon states seem increasingly content to use violence to achieve their goals, Scotland must take steps to reduce the risk of nuclear war and show leadership in making a world without nuclear weapons a reality.
We must demand diplomacy, an end to nuclear coercion and threats to unleash unparalleled violence. We must push for dialogue, renewed arms control and support serious disarmament efforts, including through the NPT, the TPNW and other bilateral/multilateral endeavours. This is the only pathway to long-term security for Scotland and for the planet. Research shows that it is largely through sheer luck, not through smart strategies or effective nuclear command and control, that we have avoided a world-ending disaster to date.
As tensions increase across the globe, our luck may be running out. Our survival demands action, and Scotland should lead the way.
Dr Rhys Crilley is reader in international relations at Glasgow University and the author of Unparalleled Catastrophe: Life And Death In The Third Nuclear Age, available now in paperback
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump breaks silence on major Putin summit with three-word review
Donald Trump has finally addressed the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, hours after reports of a summit started to circulate Donald Trump has finally spoken out about the buzz surrounding a potential summit with Vladimir Putin, mere hours after speculation about such a meeting began to make headlines. During a press conference at the White House on Wednesday evening, Trump indicated that there is a "very good prospect" for what could be a momentous one-on-one with Putin. While the press conference in the Oval Office was primarily about Apple's multi-billion-dollar investment in the US, the topic shifted when Trump was probed by journalists regarding the rumours of a summit with Putin. He responded: "There is a very good prospect that we will [meet]." This development unfolds as Trump dealt Russia two significant setbacks within hours earlier today, despite suggestions that he might be willing to engage with Putin as early as next week. The White House reaffirmed on Wednesday its commitment to imposing secondary sanctions on Moscow, with this Friday, August 8, marking the deadline set by Trump for Putin to cease hostilities in Ukraine. Washington had already issued a stark warning that it would severely impact the Russian economy if Moscow did not actively seek peace in Ukraine. Today, the White House doubled down on its commitment to implement regulations that will bar third parties from engaging in trade with entities under Russian sanctions—a policy set to take effect in a mere 48 hours, reports the Express. This firm stance was maintained despite President Trump's remarks that his special envoy Steve Witkoff's recent dialogue with Putin "went well". Taking to Truth Social this afternoon, President Trump posted: "My Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this war must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!". Earlier in the day, President Trump had branded Russia as an "extraordinary threat" to US national security and foreign policy. He announced this as he enacted an executive order to slap an additional 25% tariff on Indian imports of Russian oil. President Trump clarified his position, stating: "I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil." The US administration is aiming to cut off a significant source of revenue for the Kremlin by targeting Russian oil sales, thereby crippling their ability to fund the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.


BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Inner London to lose out in funding rebalance, says IFS report
Councils in inner London are set to become the biggest losers under a government plan to update council funding rules, a think tank Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found some London boroughs could see their funding levels drop up to 12% once inflation is taken into areas in outer London are set to gain from the changes, the researchers found, along with urban areas outside the capital including Nottingham, Wolverhampton and government argues the overhaul is necessary because councils' funding has become out of step with local demand for services. The new funding system, to be phased in over three years from 2026, will see changes to the formulas used by government to capture levels of demand for council-run services, along with the differing cost of delivering them.A greater share of funding will be redirected towards areas with a higher share of properties in lower council tax bands, whilst the portion of business rates income that councils have been allowed to keep since 2013 will be IFS predicts the proposed changes are set to redistribute around £2.1bn in annual government funding, with 186 authorities losing out and 161 will not be possible to say exactly what the changes will mean for each area until the plans are finalised later this the think tank said Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster would see their overall funding drop by 11–12%, even accounting for a proposed funding floor to limit areas are set to lose out under the government's proposed method to even out differences in council tax revenues, given they have low rates and many properties in higher bands, it added. Outside London, the East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber regions are set to see the biggest increases in funding, according to the with relatively high - but not the highest - population densities are also set to fare well, it estimates, including outer London boroughs and councils in Blackpool, Nottingham and added that the widest range of outcomes would be seen in shire district councils, where some councils where business rate income has grown most, such as Mid Suffolk and North West Leicestershire, would lose such districts in more urban areas, such as Harlow, Crawley and Norwich, are among the biggest share of funding going to the very poorest areas will be substantially larger, it added, than for the least deprived. 'Moving the pain' The shake-up will affect the share of central government funding distributed to councils in England, including income they are allowed to keep from business currently represents around half of their income, with councils raising the rest locally, subject to a 5% cap on yearly is allocated according to a complex mix of formulas taking into account factors like population and ministers argue the current rules, which have not been updated in over a decade, are failing to reflect higher demand for council services in poorer Liberal Democrats said the changes would "come as a shock to the system for many councils," branding the changes "robbing Peter to pay Paul"."The government is moving the pain of chronic council underfunding from one community to another instead of delivering the economic growth that would deliver the revenue to fund local services everywhere," added deputy leader Daisy Cooper. 'Decisive action' A spokesperson for the local government department said: "The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind."That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services". Although there is widespread agreement among councils that the current system is badly in need of updating, designing a new one poses a political headache for ministers ahead of a significant set of local elections due next local leaders have warned that current funding levels do not cover the rising cost of mandatory services such as adult social care and special educational needs, despite real-terms funding increases in more recent years. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.


Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Trump could meet Putin as soon as next week, White House official says
US President Donald Trump could meet in person with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as next week as he seeks to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, a White House official said. The official cautioned that a meeting has not been scheduled yet and no location has been determined. The official was not authorised to speak publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans. The White House said Mr Trump was also open to a meeting with both Mr Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Trump would be their first since Mr Trump returned to office this year. It would be a significant milestone in the three-year-old war, though there is no promise such a meeting would lead to the end of the fighting since Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on their demands. News of a potential meeting with Mr Putin, which was first reported by The New York Times, came hours after Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff met Mr Putin in Moscow. Mr Trump had posted earlier on Truth Social that Mr Witkoff 'had a highly productive meeting' with Mr Putin in which 'great progress was made'. It was not immediately clear if Mr Putin or Mr Zelensky had agreed to any meetings with Mr Trump. Mr Zelensky has been willing to meet face-to-face with Mr Putin to end the conflict, but Russia has repeatedly rejected the idea. Mr Trump has met Mr Zelensky several times this year, including a contentious February meeting in Washington. Though he has not yet met Mr Putin this year, Mr Trump met with him five times during his first term. Mr Trump said earlier on Wednesday that he updated America's allies in Europe and that they will work toward an end to the Russia-Ukraine war 'in the days and weeks to come'. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelensky.' Her statement did not address the potential timing of any meeting. Mr Witkoff met Mr Putin days before the White House's deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or potentially face severe economic penalties that could also hit countries buying its oil. The meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Witkoff lasted about three hours, the Kremlin said. Mr Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said Mr Putin and Mr Witkoff had a 'useful and constructive conversation' that focused on the Ukrainian crisis and, in a nod toward improving relations between Washington and Moscow, 'prospects for possible development of strategic co-operation' between the United States and Russia.