A renewed public discussion on nuclear deterrence is needed to ensure national resilience and strategic credibility, according to Professor Sir Hew Strachan, who argues that the silence surrounding the UK’s nuclear strategy has been particularly noticeable.
In his article ‘National resilience: A strategic advantage for deterrence’, published by the Council on Geostrategy, Sir Hew states that deterrence is only effective if it is perceived as credible.
He warns that Britain has grown unaccustomed to open discussions on nuclear strategy, leading many to question whether the public is prepared for such a debate.
“Britain has become so unused to these sorts of discussions that many doubt that the public is ready for such a debate. But if there is no debate, there can be no public understanding or public ownership,” Sir Hew argues.
Sir Hew highlights that national resilience extends beyond conventional military forces, pointing to cyber-security, pandemic responses, and the underutilised potential of civilian skills as key contributors to the UK’s broader strategic advantage.
He argues that many modern warfighting competencies reside in civil society, stating: “Many of the skills and competences required by modern war lie in civil society, from doctors to software engineers. The growth of professional forces has left the reserves under-funded and under-strength.”
Sir Hew also draws attention to the role of cyber-security in everyday life, describing it as a form of deterrence that individuals engage in with little reflection. Similarly, he notes that the Covid-19 pandemic response demonstrated a crucial element of national resilience, relying more on community-level initiatives than central government action.
“The importance of cyber-security and its practice in our daily lives are direct contributions to one form of national resilience which we execute with little reflection,” he explains. “And hiding in plain sight, but even less well recognised, was the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, whose effectiveness relied on bottom-up responses at community level much more than it did on government action.”
Sir Hew contrasts past debates on nuclear deterrence in Britain with the current security landscape, arguing that discussions before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 were often oversimplified.
“Before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the debate about British nuclear weapons was infantile,” he says. Critics of the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent dismissed it as irrelevant to threats such as terrorism, while supporters advocated for preparedness against unforeseen dangers.
The lessons from Ukraine, Sir Hew suggests, reinforce the need for strategic resilience, with a focus not just on military force but also on broader national preparedness. His conclusion is clear: “Here is a lesson with deterrent effect which should remind us that defence begins at home.”
I don’t think there is any debate in British politics. Everyone wants us to get more nuclear weapons. Everyone in Europe wants us to get more nuclear weapons, they are even offering to pay for them.
The only people who don’t want us to get more nuclear weapons are the Russians and our “besties” from across the pond.
Double strategic warheads and build a UK tactical nuclear weapon.
No need for Fannying about or debating anything. Do not even announce it, just do it.
We have the world’s largest stock pile of plutonium and we just built the largest Tritium manufacturing plant on the planet we are good to go. We even have several off the shelf cruise missile options perfect for tactical nuclear weapons.
This should be funding priority number 1 2 and 3 in the SDR because European NATO can and will do everything else.
Where do you think we would or could use a tactical’ nuke without it going strategic PDQ?
A nuke is a nuke whatever the size!
We should of course wean ourselves off trident and make our own missiles which I have no doubt will be expensive but doable.
At the moment Europe relies on B61 for nuclear escalation. B61 will no longer be available soon. British tactical nuclear weapons are needed for Europe not the UK.
You haven’t answered the question! Where would you use it? Any nuclear exchange on the battlefield will escalate! To use any of our weapons in Europe would not mean we don’t get it back here in spades. After any NBC training we had was the old saying “oh yeh don’t forget to practice bending over and kissing your arse goodbye,” tactical or strategic that’s the end!
I feel a nuclear depth charge would be an escalation but probably not instant WW3, might be necessary if we can’t rely on all our allies defending GIUK.
The issue is that Russia believes in the idea of escalation to de escalate..essentially they think they know we would not not full strategic exchange because they drop one tactical nuclear weapon…and we would be forced to back off..if that happens our deterrent has failed…but if we have a sub strategic option that would act “AS A DETERRENT” because Russia would be more likely to believe we would respond to a tactical weapon detonation with a sub strategic option even if it’s convinced itself we would not go strategic..so essentially it’s not about using it it’s about strengthing the Deterrent..because as you say once 2 nuclear powers start throwing nuclear weapons at each other the world is F%cked…so building as strong a deterrent as we can is vital.
Ahhh, yes…we hold very similar views re ensuing events, once festivities commence. Was occasionally advised to bring popcorn to consume while watching the greatest fireworks show in history (not to be repeated for several millennia), then to bend over and kiss it goodbye.
I’m pretty sure we can nerf the warheads to lessen the yield to tactical level. What we don’t have is a tactical delivery vehicle. Where would we fire a tactical Trident from, because the launch of a single tactical from the CASD sub would give away the position and screw up our second strike. Not to mention the obvious opportunity for misinterpretation. We don’t have a leg to stand on.
A reasonable proportion of B61 (Mods 12 & 13) NATO inventory will be successfully delivered on target by F-35As, during the near-to-mid term future. Agreed, though that the UK (and France) should initiate expedited development programmes for stand-off air launched weapons, and conceivably even ground launched weapons. As Miguel de Cervantes noted in 1605, it is not advisable to place all of one’s eggs into one basket. 😉
Battlefield nukes like the Lance or nuclear depth charges could be used without going full blown strategic. But air-launched 100kt missiles don’t differ much from 100kt MIRVs. Nonetheless, having this as an option allows us to have a first use capability once again.
It’s more about deterring Russian from its policy of escalation to de escalate…essentially if they think they can force us to back away by using a tactical nuc because we will not go full strategic and end our nation and theirs they may just go for it. If they know we have a sub strategic air launched option they will probably never take the risk as where we would not go fully strategic, we may just remove a remote less important military base from the face of earth with a 100kt air launched weapon in retaliation.
Essentially the sub strategic option that does not expose our strategic options strengthens the deterrent against the madness of escalate to deescalate.. and we do need to deter that because once it starts it will likely end with full blown thermo nuclear war.
One,Two or Ten on the battlefield,how many do think we could use? Even with one that’s many square miles of territory that will be uninhabited for thousands of years!If both sides use them vast swathes of Europe will be shagged!Depending on the winds etc even Russia would suffer the fallout!
Please get your head around the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘tactical ’ nuke it’s just a smaller weapon than an ICBM and will result in the same outcome!
Realistically retiring Trident will be in the far future as right now, we have no idea what the replacement will be
The Russians don’t think that. They have a good stock of 10kt freefall bombs.
Oh yeah, Americans are just obsessed about preventing the UK from getting more nuclear weapons. Americans talk of nothing else. Ask your Doctor about Aristada, it just might help.
Everyone knows your just pretending to be American, why don’t you just f**k off, no one here wants to read your trolling comments anymore.
Even worse, I think he actually is American and his is a major stream of opinion in their politics.
It’s quite funny actually, Trump mused recently that the UK was getting too cheap a deal on Trident and was “cheating” somehow.
So there are elements in the White House who really do want to prevent the UK continuing the SLBM programme.
MAGA republicans have never read any history but by sheer coincidence through a combination of narcissism and xenophobia they are playing the NAZI party play book from 1933 to 1935. Trump is currently trying to create autarky through Anschluss with Canada. Where Nazi ideology was obsessed with soil MAGA is now obsessed with minerals. When you ask any of them what minerals do you want they look at you with glazed eyes because none of them know including their leader. Scary stuff.
If he’s not American, the “Ask your doctor” was very well inserted.
I think you are right. The hand ringing has to stop. 500 nuclear non US design cruise missiles launchable from multiple platforms, including Typhoon, P-8, land launchers, attack subs, surface ships would help restore Europe’s independent deterrence. France needs to do the same. No need to build new strategic missile subs. Germany could pay for additional U212 subs where a German U-boat captain together w a British missile commander prowl the Baltic sea
Yeap. A common European missile capable of having a nuke warhead and being launch from an aircraft, could then mean we could quickly see all European states (or at least the larger ones) becoming nuclear. Would love to see Putin mess with that!
I agree we need more warheads. It’s not good enough to be able to nuke Moscow, just, maybe. I wonder if the kind of world leaders we are getting right now might not be willing to sacrifice a city! Especially if they aren’t certain that it will be used and whether it would even get through.
I’m certain that Russia can wipe out the UK. I’m certain we can’t do that to Russia. There was an argument that said it doesn’t matter because it would start a general war and we’d all go down. However would Trump nuke Russia over the loss of the UK, or would he get on the blower to Putin and agree not to bother?
Certainly we shouldn’t be aiming any warheads at military targets as the US reportedly want.
Real food for thought in your comment. Are we going to become Target No.1 as the leader of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ rather than the US?
Yes, indeed we will be.
Most of Mad Vlad’s asymmetric warfare will directed at us.
The only thing is that the more if it there is the more obvious it is and we have seen how public opinion has hardened behind defence spending in the last couple of months.
Yes I agree, when dealing with megalomaniac narcissists the ability to destroy Moscow is no longer sufficient.
Trump would phone Putin to complain about the loss of his golf courses, but that’s about it
Here is a genius idea…..Trump could build wall to wall golf courses in Ukraine?
Wouldn’t that be a gold plated security guarantee?
With all the gold plate on Trump Tower and the excess Tangerine Tint it has to be true? Right?
Gave me a good chuckle, either way.
Hmmm…that may just may be the most inspired geopolitical concept this year. It is one matter to write off friend states and long-term allies, but another matter entirely to write off one’s personal real estate holdings. 😉 Assumption is also that Trump will honor Article V if the CRINKs advance to the English Channel (although it will probably be renamed Donald’s Channel). The UK’s highest (Trump 🙄) card in geopolitics may well be The Donald’s UK real estate holdings. It is one thing to acquiesce to destruction of democracies, but quite another when one’s net worth statement could be affected. Then it would become personal, and the CRINKs are undoubtedly aware that The Donald controls a substantial arsenal.
Jim FYI The UKAEA haven’t actually started to build the demonstration Tritium facility at Culham yet, it starts in the summer and should be finished in 2026 / 7. And as for the main plant try 2030’s. So no we do not have the worlds largest Tritium plant and are absolutely not good to go.
We are presently 100% reliant on US for Tritium and we receive regular shipments to “refresh” our Warheads.
As for the plutonium stock, Mr Miliband is intent on burying it ASAP as it will save £100 million pa for its storage and security, he hates Nuclear anything with a vengeance and is a complete idiot.
He was asked recently about the UK SMR project progress and just refused to answer the question repeatedly, he just Babbled on about renewables such as solar and wind. Funny thing is it was when we just had weeks of cloud and no wind, so pretty well running on gas.
Good to know on the Tritium, I would not worry too much on the burying of plutonium, Ed Milliban will be dead and buried by the time it will take to get planning permission 😀
Here here Sir, the other reason we need nukes is because of those spineless Liberal woke politicians/ civil servants who run this country into the ground and our conventional military with it. Don’t anyone be fooled as soon as an Ukraine ceasefire happens all those funding promises will disappear and cuts will follow. But we will have less carbon, hooray !!!
You mean the Tory party right?
It’s been a while since the Liberals were in charge…
I am making a good salary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is I started_______ Www.Earn54.COM
The first thing that must be done is to rebuild the armed forces that are in a catastrophic state and if there is money left over, one more SSBN submarine and a few launchers with additional warheads.
Nonsense. The UK has held a stance on Nuclear Weapons for decades for exactly this type of situation. Russia knows perfectly well that any nuclear attack on the UK will result in a catestrophic response for Russia hence the deterrence. The UK has also assumed that an attack on one country will result in a response from all NATO countries. If the military feel that there is a possibility that they might be fighting alone they have the responsibility to plug any necessary gaps by adding weapons to the UK arsenal which might be necessary for different scenarios.
The last thing we need to do is have a debate. There was no serious anti nuclear support in this country pre 2022 so I think we can be pretty sure support will have increased rather than decreased. What we need to do is stop chatting and writing reports and start building ships, planes, missiles, drones and training people for the worst.
What’s to debate? We need a deterrent now more than ever before, anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. If anything it needs increased in scope to include tactical options to deter Russia from feeling they may get away with a smaller scale tactical strike.
Not sure why we need a debate. We do need a thorough assessment of what our nuclear deterrent can do and what it can’t.
Does a single Trident submarine pose sufficient threat to a large country like Russia to make a first strike against the UK unthinkable? I wouldn’t bet on it, in which case we need to increase our nuclear arsenal.
Would our CASD deter a non nuclear attack on critical UK assets? Almost certainly not just as Israel’s nuclear weapons didn’t deter conventional attacks from Iran; no one would believe that a nuclear response would be triggered. A more credible counter and therefore more effective deterrent would be tha ability to retaliate with long range precision strikes on the same types of critical asset- military bases, power stations etc. So large numbers of such missiles should be acquired for use from ships, submarines, aircraft or even land based platforms.
Recent experience from the Middle East and Ukraine shows that using long range conventional weapons is an easy decision for political leaders to make. Accordingly, deterring this kind of attack should perhaps have the highest priority.
There is no debate. We have gutted our conventional forces almost to the point where they are useless, so this is the only thing we have left. If the nuclear deterrent is eliminated we have virtually no means to defend ourselves. Period.
It reminds me of the Yes, Prime Minister quote”Conventional forces are very expensive, Prime Minister. Much cheaper just to press a button.”
I will just repeat this once more, IMHO the only realistic way to increase the Nuclear deterrent is if HMG commits Right Now, PDQ, ASAP, Immediately etc to a 5th Dreadnought SSBN.
It’s also the most cost effective solution because right now the Boats are in build, long lead items being ordered / built and delivered, it’s a hot production line.
Right now that is very doable and if HMG / MOD will speed up the ongoing expansion of the facilities / recruitment and review working practices (24/7 shifts) by using something like the old Wartime “Super Priority” then it shouldn’t impact on the subsequent SSN(A) builds.
In fact doing it right now might just be the smartest move MOD have made in decades as it enables the delivery of those boats to follow on in a speedier delivery schedule. That results in greater efficiency, lower unit costs and enables us to afford more U.K SSN’s.
Whats more I suspect that if we did this it would have two immediate and very positive effects, firstly France would feel obliged to do likewise and secondly it sends a massive clear message to Tango and Dobby that Europe’s stepping up to the mark with long term resolve.
As for Tactical Nuclear weapons, I think we need some we can use from our Typhoons and F35, so an iron bomb or Storm Shadow shouldn’t be too hard to build. The expensive bit will be extra aircraft for the extra tasking, renewing the WS3 in the HAS at Marham and Honnington, command and control and ensuring there are sufficient troops to guard them.
My other concern is that if don’t do something PDQ then other European countries will ignore NPT and develop their own Nucs, Poland, Italy, Finland and Sweden are all capable of doing so.
As for funding I do think that a proportion of the EU Defence fun should go equally to UK / France to help fund us providing a European Nuclear umbrella as it negates our ability to provide more conventional forces.
Micron is after a big slice of the Common Defence fund for:-
– Nuclear Weapons and their support
– PANG and maybe PANG #2 and its planes
– Their equivalent of DNE
You see where that is going!
I’m not sure that Storm Shadow has the level of reliability and failsafes you need for a nuclear launch?
I agree we need to enact the politician syllogism
‘We must do something (nuclear);
This is something (nuclear);
Therefore we must do it”
In this regard announcing a free fall Tango Free bomb would have the same effect TBH
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on a 5th SSBN. What enhancement do you think we could make to our posture with five boats instead of four? Would five boats allow us to keep two at sea? What if we went to double crews like the USA use to do in the Cold War?
Simple answer to that 5 is the logical number and always has been ever since Polaris. It allows us to operate a 2 boats on Patrol and still have one in for refit / refuelling etc. France has done precisely the same maths as us and came to the same conclusion but when a Politician hears we can get away with 4 they assume you mean 3 (which is what it was nearly cut to). So we got 4 !
It’s also much better for the crews, shorter deployments aids retention, reduces W&T, eases maintenance, time between refuels (🤞🏻never again !). etc etc which in turn increases reliability and reduces the overall life time costs.
And if we had 5 and France had 5 we just give Russia a massive headache that they can do nothing about. People forget that Russias SSBN are split 50/50 between Northern and Pacific Fleets so we together are more than match them.
As for Blue / Gold crews well unless someone knows differently that’s what RN SSBN have been doing since 1968 ! TBH it works OK but is way better if you reduce the overall usage and deployments over a bigger fleet. So 5 boats, 2 out, 1 in transit, 1 in dock and 1 for rotation / training and surge if required.
So that’s why 5 is really the optimum number (bet you wish you hadn’t asked now) 😉?
Thanks for that, exactly what I was looking for.
Hi Jim I’d like to add something that answer, and it is the bluntest reason I have seen for having a 5th SSBN.
201 (ongoing), 174, 201, 195, 154, 165, 161. These are days at sea for the last 7 RN CASD patrols.
If for just 1 minute I could see the PM and the Treasury “Officials” I’d invite the most senior of the latter to go and do a patrol with these other civil servants. Then come back and tell me why we don’t need a 5th boat ordered up right now.
I’m a recent convert to a fifth SSBN, and for much the same reasons as Rodney. More boats means more missiles can be fired and the less chance Putin will chance his arm.
I think we could fire from two boats right now. A third with the off chance of a fourth would be nice. Six month deployments are over….until they aren’t. An alternative to a fifth boat would be another delivery method, but a fifth boat would be easier.
That’s not the main reason at all 201 days and one of them is still on patrol 😞 How many enemies you can kill on the day of Armageddon is one thing but how we treat the men & women and their loved ones who provide the deterrent is just as important.
Agreed.
Though I don’t think our politicians believe in it.
Lots of talk still going on.
2.5 not now.
3.0, maybe.
Talk. When there is action, and the ending of cuts, I’ll change my opinion.
Some of that fund directed our way to ease the cost of the SNE on core budget would be a Godsend.
Do they have the sense to request any of it? Or is it a EU only thing?
The EU borrowing component fund was quite small in the end only €150 out of €800 billion with most coming direct from members to their own defence so we were not involved. UK bond auctions are now oversubscribed (we can borrow way more than we need) thanks to the Donald just as the US is now having trouble borrowing.
There is a debate to be had, but it’s not should we shouldn’t we debate..it’s a how many and what type debate.
Personally I think we need to consider the following
1) Our nuclear weapons are a deterrent so exactly how many do we need to be an effective deterrent, we always had a hold Moscow at risk..with the U.S. providing MAD.. do we now need to move to MAD..that’s holding every major city and town in Russia at risk ?
2) How do we manage the Russian escalate to de escalate nuclear posture in which a limited first strike is used to intimidate an opponent into giving in.
3) What happens if our relationship with the US degrades to the point they will no longer provide support for maintenance of trident.
4) How do we support none nuclear European NATOs that now want a Nuclear capability.
My personal view
First I would say that NPT is dead and has been for a long time, essentially half the nuclear powers on the planet are not recognised as Nuclear powers under NPT. So essentially it should not be a consideration in regards to our national interest. So:
1) I think Putin would take a hit on Moscow if pushed..Russian has faced the loss of Moscow before and was willing and able to see it lost and still fight on so I think our deterrent needs to be MAD. So that’s 500 warheads and the ability to launch at least 300 of them at Russia or another potential enemy ( china )
2) we need to be able to answer a Russian escalation to de escalate..so if Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon we need the ability to be realistically able to escalate that, without going strategic or putting our strategic forces at risk. Russian know the likelihood is that we are not going to go strategic and end nations in response to a single tactical nuclear weapon..so we need a deterrent that covers that thought process and if the UK has an easy option for responding with a single 100kt sub strategic response, it should act as a deterrent, because Putin is likely to believe more that we would respond with a sub strategic strike than with a nation ending strategic strike.
3) As The nuclear none proliferation treaty is dead we should offer all support to TRUSTED European nations getting access to nuclear weapons.
4) I believe in the long term we need full sovereign control of the development and maintenance of all our nuclear delivery methods.
So from this maybe we should be moving to
1) Each ballistic missile submarine should have a full load of 12 missiles with 8-10 warheads per missile for 100-120 warheads per boat. We should would with the French to essentially share the load and make sure at least 3 boats are out at any one time and one boat ready to surge. We would have 300-360 warheads on boats 1-3 with boat four in bits.
2) work with France on a next generation SLBM
3) join France in its next generation air launched hypersonic nuclear missile and ensure we have 100 of these that can be launched from typhoon. This would provide our sub strategic response as well as another arm to the strategic response.
4) work with France to make sure all the large European nations have access to an air launches nuclear missile.
The Soviet Union had put aside 60 nuclear warheads to attack Britain. I assume Russia has the same plan. Therefore we should have 60 (not the current 40) on each of our current boats. Plus an air launched tactical nuke in the 6kt to 25kt range.
Russia is vast and has GBAD. We are small and we don’t. Parity of effect isn’t parity of numbers.
Sorry that’s just irrelevant 60 warheads will completely destroy our nation and leave it an unliveable radioactive nightmare. We fire 60 warheads at Russia it is still a functional nation..for it to be a truly effective we need be able to destroy Russia as a nation..that’s warheads in the hundred. Even to get past Moscows ABMs defences ( that are designed to take on two ICMs worth of warheads ) we would probably need 30 warheads.
In the Cold War the UK considered 1 full resolution class submarine with max load as the min requirement to guarantee the destruction of Moscow…but it was aiming to fire 2 full boats at Moscow if it could.
Siberia has miles & miles of b*gg*r all. Why nuke that? 60 warheads will see off Moscow, St Petersberg, Sochi, Arkangel, Murmansk, volgograd, Samara, Saratov, Yekaterinberg, Chelyabinsk, etc.
60 warheads might see off Moscow, but that’s about it. Because of GBAD, it’s not a case of one nuke one city. During the Soviet era Moscow reputedly had the most extensive anti-missile defences of anywhere in the world. I don’t know what the defences are like these days.
ABM defences around Moscow are thick as thieves.. I believe it’s designed to repel around 30 IRBMs and or 20+ warheads from ICBMs..and it’s due an upgrade..a full vanguard was considered the min requirement to guarantee destruction of Moscow..our whole Cold War force was only there to hold Moscow at risk.. nothing else.
Cheap Ukraine drones get through Moscow defences. Have you noticed that 60 warheads on each Trident boat would be a 50% increase on the 40 that are on them now?
We need to return to an air-launched capability to backstop the SSBNs.
Post has been vacant since WE177 was retired.
Agreed.
I wonder if there’s value in designing/building a super-EMP high altitude bomb, to test how well hardened or not Russian infrastructure is. If Russia is diverting much of its spend to defence, I wonder what state its civilian infrastructure is. Even knowing that we possess this ability could cause Russia to spend money hardening critical infrastructure, money that would otherwise go on attack capability.
I have read that Russian military doctrine regards EMP attack as “the ultimate cyber weapon” and the key to decisive victory in a future war. (Nuclear EMP Attack Scenarios and Combined-Arms Cyber Warfare Pry, July 2017.) Some claim the practical effect of a single warhead could be deadlier than a ground strike, taking out all power stations within a 600km radius as well as local infrastructure! Death would be due to the breakdown of a society without power and eventual starvation as there would be no way back. I’m not so sure, but as a contibution to MAD, it seems quite cost effective.
Are you stark staring bonkers
A High Altitude Nuclear Explosion over Russia to test if Russian infrastructure is immune to EMP ! If it fails we have breached the NTBT and fallout is descending on Russia.
If it works you just started a Nuclear war with Russia and I doubt the US would join in ! And daft as it sounds most military silos etc are hardened against EMP (Faraday cages etc).
Either way you just started WW3.
Britain has no credible nuclear deterrent for scenarios short of Cold War style mutual assured destruction. Launching Trident missiles is a one-time-only, final revenge option.
Tactical nuclear weapons are needed for plausible deterrence. The UK isn’t going to nuke Russian cities in response to a moderate conventional attack, but it would be extremely helpful to be able to nuke Russian bases and formations on land and at sea. At the moment, NATO nuclear weapon sharing fills that gap. If those weapons are no longer available for use, then the UK has a serious credibility gap.
Russia will not nuke the UK mainland in response to tactical weapon use, because doing so will be seen as a strategic all-out attack and trigger the use of Trident and MAD.
Bring back the WE.177!
Right so Central Europe is being turned into a radioactive wasteland by ‘tactical’ nukes,our forces along with the majority of NATOs would cease to exist,and you think that us and France will sit there and not threaten to nuke Moscow if they don’t stop? Mind you I can’t see much of Russian forces surviving either but let’s assume they could still advance,Germany with nuclear capable F35 s decide enough is enough and goes for Moscow,see where this is going? Once Pandora’s box is opened by either side there is NO going back!
Maybe, maybe not. Each scenario has a different ending.