I've lived in fear of nuclear war all my life - this is how I'm prepping
The world has gone to bed each night lately wondering whether World War Three will break out by the time we wake up.
The fighting over Iran's nuclear ambitions made people feel awfully unsafe, particularly with all the bloodcurdling rhetoric from leaders in Israel, Iran, and the US. Then when President Donald Trump announced strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, global fears escalated.
I know that worry well because I first felt it as a child. I've been living under a (mushroom) cloud ever since.
Now, after a lifetime of prepping, I'm doing so again – but this time I'm not putting aside bottles of water, wind up radios and loo roll. I'm mentally prepping – for the fact I might die.
And after 40 years of living in fear, I finally feel a sense of peace.
As an 11-year-old in 1984, I settled down one September evening to watch a BBC film called Threads about a nuclear attack on Sheffield. I can't remember what I was expecting to see but I'll never forget it: 112 minutes of the most graphic, grim, and horrifying television imaginable.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
In the agonisingly tense first half of the film, it shows the build-up to nuclear war in the background of the lives of ordinary families. Then the bombs drop and the film shows the mushroom clouds, the firestorm, and what these monstrous demons do to Sheffield, its people, and its pets.
Threads then follows the bleak horror of the nuclear winter and beyond, showing the brutality of what's left of life over more than a decade after the attack.
Watching this film was quite an experience for a boy of 11. It blew my mind with all the grace and clemency of a nuclear bomb.
I went to bed terrified that night and the boy who emerged the next morning was changed forever.
That next day, I tried to unscrew the living room door to build a nuclear shelter in our cellar. I then marched to the library to try and find information about gas masks, bunkers, and any medicine that might help with radiation sickness.
In the days after, I remembered that we had friends who lived in an isolated house in Cornwall and I asked my parents to ask them whether we could go and stay there when it looked like the bomb might drop.
When we were moving house and it came down to a choice between two options, I begged my parents to put every other factor aside and choose the one that had a bunker in its back garden. We didn't move to that house, but for a lot of my teenage years I had that bunker mentality in mind.
I was mistrustful, angry and terrified. Wherever I was, I looked out for places to duck and cover.
I'd become a nuclear paranoiac overnight and the metaphorical mushroom cloud that Threads cast over my life would hang in the sky for decades. Are you scared of nuclear war?
No, I've made peace like Chas
I have a secret bunker so I'll be fine
Ever since, I've been convinced that the outbreak of nuclear war was nigh. I even joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and marched for the cause.
And if I heard about any global tensions on the news, I'd remember how Threads showed the characters ignoring reports about growing global tensions at first. 'You won't catch me looking the other way,' I'd think.
The nuclear war in Threads broke out because of international tensions over a conflict in Iran. So if you'd asked me as a kid how I would feel if there was a real-life flare-up over a nuclear arms programme in Iran in 2025, I'd have said two things.
One, I can't believe the world hasn't nuked itself to pieces by 2025, and two, this is where World War Three is about to start.
But actually, over the past few weeks I've probably been less worried than a lot of people. Having spent so much of my life fretting about nuclear war, I've ended up finding a sense of peace.
I've already done all my trembling about the bomb and I've concluded that if there were a nuclear war, the best outcome for me would also be the most likely one: Instant death.
Having come to terms with how dramatically Threads changed my life, I've also resolved to try and not be swayed again by propaganda.
So when the Government warned this week that Britain needs to prepare for the possibility of being attacked on its own soil, and when Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned recently that without a major increase in defence spending, British people 'better learn to speak Russian', I declined the invitation to return to the dread of my teenage years.
I've concluded that if there were a nuclear war, the best outcome for me would also be the most likely one: Instant death.
I now know that worrying gets me nowhere. I've accepted that this may end in my death and so freaking about what could happen next is pointless.
You won't catch me prepping. I won't be taking doors off their hinges for shelter. I won't fantasise about that bunker. More Trending
I've lived with this fear for too long.
I feel compassion for people who are still worried about the bomb, but I want them to take it from me: After over 40 years of nuclear war anxiety, fretting about it won't make it go away – and neither will marching about it.
We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, we have to purge mankind of the consciousness that made us want them in the first place, and that's a deeper, longer battle that can only be fought in each of our hearts.
For now, we have to find a way to live with the threat they pose to us – and seek the peace that comes with accepting that they may destroy us.
Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing jess.austin@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
MORE: I was punished for not telling my boss about my disability
MORE: Denis Villeneuve threatens to overshadow the new James Bond – whoever he is
MORE: Trump and his defence boss have created a 'cult of personality'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
THE HAGUE, June 26 (Reuters) - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said.
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
The woman who could bust Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough may not be a household name, but the so-called referee of the Senate has found herself the centre of a firestorm after she objected to several parts of US President Donald Trump's mega-sized tax 1,000-page document, which he's dubbed the "big beautiful bill", would slash spending and extend tax Ms MacDonough has said that certain provisions violate senate rules, throwing billions of dollars of cuts into doubt. Her findings have also made it difficult for Congress to pass the bill by 4 July - a deadline set by the president some Republicans are calling for the Senate to ignore her recommendations - going against long-standing tradition - or to fire her. What is in the bill? Earlier this month, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a massive spending bill that included cuts to low-income health insurance programme Medicaid, reforms to the food assistance programme SNAP, and a measure to end taxes on tips and overtime version then went to the Senate, where both Republicans and Democrats wanted adjustments made. The US Senate has spent recent weeks debating changes and writing a new version of the bill.A look at the key items in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill''Our food doesn't even last the month' - Americans brace for Trump's welfare cutsLegislators are now racing against the clock to deliver the bill to Trump's desk by 4 maintain a majority in both the House and the Senate, which should make it easy to pass legislation. But leadership in both chambers has struggled to get consensus on a number of provisions - particularly on social programs like Medicaid - from competing factions within the party. Who is the Senate parliamentarian? The Senate parliamentarian's job is to decide whether a bill complies with budget rules. Ms MacDonough - the first woman to hold the role - has held the position since 2012. Before that, she spent 25 years as a Senate staffer and worked for the Justice she was appointed by former Democratic Senator Harry Reid, she has served Senates controlled by both Republicans and 2021, multiple Democratic legislators called on the Senate to overrule Ms MacDonough when she said a minimum wage increase could not be included in a policy bill at the serving as the Senate parliamentarian have been fired before, too. In 2001, the Senate majority leader at the time fired then Senate parliamentarian, Robert Dove, after one of Dove's rulings on a bill infuriated Republicans. What did she say about the bill? Several of the provisions Republican senators have proposed violate the Byrd Rule, she said, which is a 1985 rule the Senate adopted that says "extraneous" provisions cannot be tacked onto "reconciliation" budget bill is a reconciliation bill, which means it does not need a 60-vote supermajority to pass the Senate. Reconciliation bills tell the government how to spend money, not how to issue policy, the Byrd rule says. Because of these rules, Republicans can avoid a Democratic filibuster on the bill and pass it with a simple majority. But as Ms MacDonough has examined the text she has found a number of places where the reconciliation bill tries to change policy. Among the provisions Ms MacDonough has ruled against is a plan that would cap states' ability to collect more federal Medicaid funding through healthcare provider taxes and a measure that would have made it harder to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. And more rulings could come as she continues to examine the large bill. What are Republicans saying? Some Republicans, like Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, are not please with her rulings and have gone as far as calling for her to be fired. "President Trump's landslide victory was a MANDATE from 77 million Americans," he wrote on X on Thursday. "The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on that mandate. The Parliamentarian is trying to UNDERMINE the President's mandate and should be fired."Kansas Senator Roger Marshall urged his party to pass a resolution to term limit the parliamentarian. He noted in a social media post that the Senate parliamentarian was fired during reconciliation in 2001: "It's 2025 during reconciliation & we need to again fire the Senate Parliamentarian." Texas Senator John Cornyn said Republicans should not let "an unelected Senate staffer" stop the party from passing the Senate Republican Leader John Thune, of South Dakota, does not seem to agree with these calls to oust who is the senior most ranking senator, told reporters on Capitol Hill on Thursday he would not overrule Ms he described the senate referee's rulings as "speed bumps", and said his party had other options to reach Republican-promised budget cuts, namely rewriting the bill. Thune had previously said a vote on the bill was expected on Friday, though it remains unclear if Republicans can agree on a bill to move to the floor for a vote by then. What could happen next? Once the bill passes the Senate, it goes back to the House for approval. Some Republicans in the House have already indicated their displeasure with the Senate's edits to the bill. After the bill passes both houses, then it can go to Trump's Leavitt, White House Press Secretary, said the Trump administration is sticking by the 4 July deadline. "This is part of the process, this is part of the inner workings of the United States Senate, but the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day," she said referring to the parliamentarian's rulings.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Todd Chrisley said God appeared to him in a dream with a message about Trump during his first night in prison
Todd Chrisley detailed his harrowing first night serving time in prison during a sit-down interview this week with first daughter-in-law Lara Trump. President Donald Trump announced last month that he had pardoned reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, the Chrisley Knows Best stars who were convicted in 2022 on federal bank and tax evasion charges. Todd Chrisley started serving his sentence on January 17, 2023. 'I remember going in and that night, I was so angry with God and that night when the lights went out, I literally cried myself to sleep because it's the first time Julie and I have ever been away from each other since we had been married,' the Chrisley patriarch told Trump. 'I'd never not been in that house when my kids woke up in the morning or when they went to bed at night,' Chrisley recalled. He was sentenced to 12 years - which was later knocked down to 10 - and served time at the Pensacola Federal Prison Camp in Florida, while wife Julie was imprisoned three states away at the Federal Medical Center Lexington in Kentucky. 'And I just said, God, why?' Chrisley continued. 'I've tried to be a loyal and faithful servant.' 'Why are you allowing this to happen? You know these things are not true,' he said. Prosecutors pushed that the Chrisleys had used false documents and exaggerated financial statements to secure more than $30 million in loans, which they used to fund their lavish lifestyle, which was on full display on their reality TV show that went on for 10 seasons. 'And in my dream, God came to me and he said that I have planted you where I need you and when you leave, they will rise,' Chrisley recounted. 'I look back on that dream now and I now understand when he said "when you leave they will rise" because they're rising through President Trump,' the former reality TV star said. 'So I am grateful for that.' President Trump had never met the Chrisleys but daughter Savannah spent two and a half years making a push for her parents release - immersing herself in the MAGAverse. The 27-year-old became a fixture in MAGAworld as she worked toward getting her parents a pardon by the Republican commander-in-chief. She attended the 2024 Republican National Convention and the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference - both events where Trump was the headliner and aides and allies were everywhere. Savannah also appeared on the sidelines of this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner, which took place in late April, shmoozing with a number of Washingtonians. On May 27, Trump called Savannah from the Oval Office to inform her that he decided to pardon her reality star parents. 'That's a terrible thing, that's a terrible thing,' the president told Savannah. 'But it's a great thing because your parents are going to be free and clean and I hope we can do it by tomorrow, is that OK?' 'I don't know them, but give them my regards,' Trump also said. 'Wish them a good life.' Savannah can be heard on the phone thanking the president and telling him her brother Grayson was on the line too. Grayson, a 19-year-old student at the University of Alabama, piped up: 'Mr. President, I just want to say thank you for bringing my parents back.' 'Yeah, well, they were given a pretty harsh treatment from what I'm hearing,' Trump said. Both Savannah and Grayson appeared alongside their parents for the Lara Trump interview. The full-length interview with the Chrisley family will air as part of her show My View with Lara Trump on Fox News Channel Saturday night at 9 p.m. ET.
