Connect with us

Published

on

Jeremy Hunt will unveil his autumn statement on Thursday, where he will attempt to find up to £60bn from a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to rebalance the books.

Both the chancellor and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have warned that “difficult decisions” will need to be made in order to restore the UK’s economic credibility.

But speculation continues about what exact measures will form the autumn statement.

A report from the Resolution Foundation economic think tank has suggested Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt face a thankless task to rebalance the nation’s finances, with at least £40bn needing to be found by the government.

Treasury sources have told Sky News the financial “black hole” could be as large as £60bn – which may require up to £35bn of spending cuts and an extra £25bn raised through taxation.

So what measures could the chancellor take?

Minimum wage

The UK has a legal minimum wage which all firms should pay and all workers should receive which goes up every April.

With the cost of living soaring, there have been calls for the government to increase the minimum wage – officially known as the National Living Wage – by more than was planned in the autumn statement.

At present, the National Living Wage for over-23s is £9.50 an hour, for those aged 21-22 it is £9.18, for those aged 18-20 it is £6.83 and for those under-18 or apprentices it is £4.81.

The rates are the same across all parts of the UK.

Sky News understands that Mr Hunt will announce a rise in the National Living Wage for over-23s from £9.50 an hour to about £10.40 an hour.

The rise of nearly 10% would benefit around 2.5 million people, the original report in The Times said.

The newspaper also reports that eight million households will receive cost of living payments worth up to £1,100 a year.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who should bear brunt of budget?

Council tax

The Daily Telegraph has reported the government is also considering removing the requirement for local authorities to hold a referendum before increasing council tax by more than 2.99%, allowing them to raise significantly more money.

The new threshold could be 5%, according to the newspaper, which would see households in Band D paying up to £100 extra.

It could also mean that average council tax bills exceed £2,000 a year for the first time.

Under present rules, councils responsible for social care are allowed to increase their bills by 2.99%, including a 1% levy for social care.

If a local authority wants to raise bills any further, it must hold a local referendum.

But under new plans expected to be unveiled in the autumn statement, the maximum amount councils can increase bills without holding a referendum is expected to rise to 4.99% to help pay for social care.

Most councils are expected to take advantage of the freedom to charge residents more.

The Conservative Party manifesto in 2019 pledged to keep a veto on large council tax rises, insisting local people would “continue to have the final say”.

But a Treasury source told the Telegraph that councils need “more flexibility” to raise money.

The Telegraph has also suggested that the chancellor is considering plans to reduce the amount of funding received by councils for some of the services for refugees hosted by UK families.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Cleverly: PM has ‘humility’

Freezing tax thresholds

In the 2021 spring budget, Mr Sunak, who was chancellor at the time, froze personal tax thresholds, which meant more low-income households had to pay the basic rate of income tax while those with earnings nearing £50,000 were made to pay the higher 40% rate.

The freezes were at the time forecast to last five years and raise billions for the Treasury by 2026, but it is thought this could be extended to 2028.

The Conservative Party’s winning 2019 manifesto promised to keep taxes low, so prolonging the freeze in the threshold at which workers start paying taxes is politically delicate ground for Mr Sunak’s government

However, it would send a signal the UK is committed to balancing its books over the long term.

Speaking on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme last weekend ahead of the statement, Mr Hunt said: “We’re all going to be paying a bit more tax, I’m afraid.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We don’t need another round of cuts’

Lowering 45p threshold

One of the surprise moments in Ms Truss’s mini-budget was the decision to scrap the 45p tax rate for the highest earners.

The backlash was fierce amid a cost of living crisis that is hammering the least well off, and ditching the plan became the first U-turn of her short premiership.

Now there are rumours that rather than getting rid of the top rate, more people will end up paying it.

Reports have suggested Mr Hunt would lower the threshold for paying the 45p rate to £125,000 – down from the existing £150,000.

Analysis says this would bring an extra 246,000 people into the bracket at a cost to them of around £580 each a year, which in turn would raise the Treasury £1.3bn a year.

Mr Hunt told Sophy Ridge on Sunday that everyone will be asked to make “sacrifices” in his upcoming statement, but insisted those with the deepest pockets will bear the brunt of it – perhaps this policy idea is what he was referring to.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt says everyone will be paying higher taxes, but there is ‘only so much we can ask’ from people on the lowest incomes.

Income tax

As chancellor, Mr Sunak also promised to cut the basic rate of income tax to 19% in April 2024 and then to gradually reduce it to 16% by 2029.

While Ms Truss’s government had said it would cut 1p of the basic rate of income tax from April 2023 – given the great need to cut the country’s debt, it is unclear whether or not this will be a pledge that is kept.

The Telegraph newspaper has suggested Mr Hunt is planning on reverting to Mr Sunak’s initial policy and planning a delay in the cut to the basic rate of income tax until 2024.

The cut could be completely off the table, however the Conservative Party’s commitment to keeping taxes low where possible suggests this is a less likely outcome.

The paper has also reported that ministers have discussed slashing the rate of income tax relief that is applied to higher rate taxpayers from 40p to 20p – which would mean millions of higher rate taxpayers could face paying more income tax.

Officials are also said to have discussed raising the top rate of income tax – which was 50p until it was abolished by former chancellor George Osborne in 2013.

But this is believed to be a less likely path for Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt to choose to go down.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Patient confronts PM on pay for nurses

Public sector pay

It has been reported Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt are looking at pay rises of 2% across the board in the public sector for 2023/24 as the government attempts to fill the £40bn gap in the public finances.

An original report in The Times suggested the measure was spoken about in meetings this month between the prime minister and chancellor.

Such a pay rise would represent a real-term cut for those including nurses, teachers and police officers – as inflation is forecast to remain at up to 9% for much of next year.

The Resolution Foundation has warned the public sector would struggle to recruit and retain staff if this policy were to be adopted.

Earlier this month, a nursing union representing hundreds of thousands of nurses voted to hold the first nationwide strike in its 106-year history over pay levels and patient safety concerns.

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) had called for its members to receive a pay rise of 5% above the RPI inflation rate, which currently stands at above 12%.

The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) which represents more than 100,0000 civil servants has also recently voted to strike in a dispute over pay, pensions and jobs.

Meanwhile, the cap on bankers’ bonuses – which has limited payouts to two times executives’ salaries since 2014 – is expected to be lifted.

If so, this would be one of the few measures to survive Mr Kwarteng’s disastrous mini-budget.

However, the PM on Wednesday urged bosses to keep down their pay in order not to exacerbate inflation.

“Of course I would say to all executives to embrace pay restraint at a time like this and make sure they are also looking after all their workers,” Mr Sunak told ITV News.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘I have to choose which bills I pay’

Not raising benefits in line with inflation

Benefits are usually uprated along with inflation every April, but there have been reports ministers could switch to raising them in line with average earnings instead while inflation remains so high.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said if benefits were to increase by inflation, this would likely be a 10% rise – equating to a real-value increase of almost £500 on average per year for an out-of-work benefits claimant.

However, around £7bn would be saved if the government were to increase benefits in line with earnings instead.

The Resolution Foundation has said this move would save £5.6bn if applied to the state pension and pension credit and an additional £2.4bn if applied to working-age benefits such as Universal Credit.

It is predicted about nine million UK households would face a loss in income if benefits were to be increased in line with earnings rather than inflation.

The Resolution Foundation has estimated a single disabled adult on Universal Credit would lose £380, while a working single parent with one child would lose £478, and a working couple with three children would lose £978.

Number 10 have repeatedly refused to say whether or not they will raise benefits in line with inflation.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Pressure on Sunak to protect pensions

Pensions triple lock

The triple lock is a government policy designed to ensure people’s pensions are not impacted by gradual rises in the cost of living over time.

In practice, it means the state pension must rise in April by whichever of the following three things is highest: average earnings, inflation in the previous September or 2.5%.

It is a long-term manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party, but questions had been raised about its future amid soaring inflation, with this hitting 10.1% in the benchmark month of September.

However, it is understood the chancellor will keep the triple lock and honour the Tory manifesto commitment when he delivers his autumn statement.

Sticking to the policy will mean the state pension rising from £185.15 to £203.85 a week from April.

Last month, during an interview with Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, the newly-appointed chancellor Mr Hunt said he could not make a commitment to keeping it in place, saying everything was on the table when it came to possible cuts to cover the fiscal black hole in Whitehall.

Getting rid of the triple lock would save the Treasury billions, with the Resolution Foundation estimating that linking state pension increases to the lower rate of average earnings, around 5.5%, rather than inflation, would save £5.6bn next year.

But charities have warned the impact on poorer pensioners, who are facing soaring food and energy bills amid the cost of living crisis, would be huge.

En route to the G20 summit in Bali earlier this week, Mr Sunak gave his strongest hint yet that the government will protect the triple lock on pensions, saying the elderly “will always be at the forefront of my mind”.

Speaking to reporters, the PM said he had demonstrated in the past he understood the particular pressures faced by pensioners unable to increase their incomes by any other means in order to cope with the cost of living.

“My track record as chancellor shows I care very much about those pensioners, particularly when it comes to things like energy and heating because they are especially vulnerable to cold weather,” he said.

“I am someone who understands the particular challenge of pensioners.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Delay best way to make right decisions’

Keeping National Insurance increase

When he was chancellor, Mr Sunak brought in a 1.25 percentage point increase in National Insurance payments in what was referred to as a “social care levy” – taking the rate up to 13.25%

The 1.25 percentage point increase in NI was supposed to raise £12bn a year.

The money was due to go to the NHS to help clear the COVID backlog before the rest was set to be used to improve the social care sector.

Ms Truss announced the increase would be reversed on 6 November as more people began to struggle with bills during the cost of living crisis, putting the rate back down to 12%.

But, in search of more savings, Mr Hunt could be tempted to reintroduce the policy or to alter it so that the cut only applies to those on the basic rate of income tax.

Last month, Downing Street suggested that the PM will not bring back a National Insurance hike in the near future.

“The former prime minister and the chancellor agreed that extra funding for the NHS to deal with the backlogs and tackling social care reform was something that was a priority,” the PM’s press secretary said.

“Obviously we’ve been through a lot since then,” she added.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Treasury minister addresses defence spending

Cutting defence spending

Mr Sunak has repeatedly declined to commit to a promise from his predecessor Liz Truss to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, compared to the NATO minimum of 2.5% as his government seeks to balance the books.

Speaking at the G20 summit in Bali, the PM downplayed concerns by some in the Tory party that ditching the target could be seen as a weakness by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We’ve got not just a current but a historic track record of being strong investors in defence and prioritising NATO. I think people can feel completely assured that we’re investing in our defences,” he said.

Mr Hunt has also refused to commit to lifting the amount of money spent on the armed forces to 3% of national income by 2030, saying the Ministry of Defence, like all other departments, would have to make additional savings.

“I’m going to ask all departments to find more efficiencies than they were planning to find,” Mr Hunt told Sky News.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has fought hard over the past three years to secure much-needed increases in defence spending at a time of growing security threats.

Asked whether any backtracking on defence spending goals would be a resigning issue, a defence source a few weeks ago said that Mr Wallace would hold the prime minister to the pledges made.

This includes a commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2026 from around 2% at present and then to 3% of GDP by 2030 in what would equate to around an extra £157billion over eight years.

But even Mr Wallace appeared to row back from that position last week, telling European defence ministers he was “taking it budget by budget at the moment” amid the need to fill a fiscal black hole in government finances.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How can government fill ‘black hole’ in nation’s finances?

Prolonging temporary cut to foreign aid

Another idea being mooted is prolonging the cut to international development aid.

While chancellor, Mr Sunak reduced foreign aid spending to 0.5% of GDP saying it would return to the baseline 0.7% when the economic situation had improved following the coronavirus pandemic.

According to The Times, Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt could now argue it will not be possible to increase aid spending until 2027 or 2028 given the economic turmoil caused by Ms Truss and former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s so-called mini-budget.

However, in his recent ministerial reshuffle, the prime minister appointed Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell as development minister, 10 years after his tenure as secretary of state for international development.

Mr Mitchell has been an ardent critic of reducing the foreign aid budget to 0.5% of GDP and his appointment could be a sign that Mr Sunak may be willing to compromise on this issue.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why do shell profits matter?

Windfall tax

Reports have suggested Mr Sunak is working on proposals to expand the windfall tax on energy companies.

The concept of a windfall tax is to target firms which are benefitting from something they are not responsible for – such as energy firms getting more money for their oil and gas compared to last year because of supply concerns following the Ukraine war and increased demand after COVID restrictions were lifted.

A number of briefings to newspapers have suggested the options could include increasing the levy, extending the deadline and expanding its remit to include renewable energy generators such as wind farms.

At present, the energy profits levy on oil and gas firms – also known as the windfall tax – is set at 25%. It is also due to expire in 2025.

With companies such as Shell recently reporting their second highest quarterly profit on record – £8bn – there is a suggestion the government should increase the levy above the 25% level.

The Financial Times has suggested the chancellor will use his autumn statement to lift the existing windfall tax on oil and gas companies from 25% to 35%, while extending it for another two years until 2028.

It is also thought the government is considering a “revenue cap” on electricity generators in line with a similar move by the European Union.

Another option being mooted is the creation of a 40% tax on the “excess returns” produced by the electricity sector above a certain price per megawatt hour.

Labour has said a windfall tax extension could raise an additional £50bn.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How to save money on energy bills

Row back on promise to cut VAT on energy bills

Ms Truss’s government capped average annual household energy bills at £2,500 for two years in an attempt to relieve the burden for households across the UK.

Entering his new post, Mr Hunt scaled this back so that it will only continue until April 2023.

As part of his campaign to become Conservative Party leader the first time around in the summer, Mr Sunak promised he would scrap VAT on energy bills if he were to be victorious in the contest.

However, it is not known whether this pledge will be followed through with or not.

The Guardian newspaper has reported that the Treasury is considering raising the energy cap from its current level of £2,500 from next April – while The Sunday Times reported Treasury officials have discussed a scenario where average annual bills go up from £2,500 to between £2,850 and £3,100 – a rise of up to £600 on current bills.

Continue Reading

World

If the IDF has nothing to hide with its military and aid operation, it should allow international journalists into Gaza

Published

on

By

If the IDF has nothing to hide with its military and aid operation, it should allow international journalists into Gaza

Escalating Israel’s military operation in Gaza to the max – which is reportedly what Israel’s prime minister is leaning towards – will stretch an already exhausted army.

No wonder Eyal Zamir, Israel‘s chief of staff, is reportedly reluctant to go down that route, however much of the messaging from the top has been that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will follow whatever the political echelon decides.

No wonder, then, that IDF spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani was reluctant to flesh out the implications of an expanded operation or what a full military “occupation” – touted now as having entered Benjamin Netanyahu‘s lexicon – will look like.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

IDF calls some aid site shootings ‘fake news’

As he pointed out, Hamas benefits from international outrage over the spectre of famine in Gaza.

It turns the tide of public opinion against Israel, taking the pressure off Hamas. That may be, in part, why the latest round of ceasefire talks collapsed.

The IDF refuses to accept responsibility for Gaza being on the brink of famine, instead accusing the UN of failing to do their part in an ongoing war of words, although Lt Col Shoshani acknowledged that distributing aid in a war zone is “not simple”.

That is why it should have been left to experts in humanitarian aid distribution – the UN and its agencies, not to US military contractors.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Gaza airdrops: ‘No one has mercy’

Given the large number of aid-related deaths reported daily, not just by Gaza’s health ministry but also by doctors who are treating the injured and tying up the body bags, there should be greater accountability.

Lt Col Shoshani said the missing link is the proof that it is IDF soldiers doing the shooting. He is right.

If international journalists were granted access to Gaza, to support Palestinian colleagues whose every day involves both the danger of operating in a war zone and the search for food and supplies for their families, then there might be greater accountability.

Read more about Gaza:
Full Israeli occupation of Gaza could massively backfire

Row over checks for Gazans who’ve earned places at UK unis
Sky News unveils pattern of deadly Israeli attacks on families

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

It is not sufficient to claim that the IDF operates “in accordance with our values, with our procedures and with international law”, which is what Lt Col Shoshani told Sky News.

That may suffice for Israeli audiences who see very little on their screens of the reality on the ground, but it is not enough for the rest of us – not after 61,000 deaths.

If the IDF has nothing to hide, it should allow international journalists in.

That would alleviate the burden of reporting on Palestinian journalists, at least 175 of whom have lost their lives since the war began.

It would also allow a degree more clarity on what is happening and who is to blame for the hell inside Gaza now.

Journalists demand access in Gaza

More than 100 journalists, photographers and war correspondents have signed a petition demanding “immediate and unsupervised foreign press access to the Gaza Strip”.

Signatories include Sky News’ special correspondent Alex Crawford.

They are renewing calls for both Israel and Hamas to allow foreign journalists into Gaza to report independently on the war, something they have been barred from doing since the start of the latest conflict in 2023.

The petition goes further to say if “belligerent parties” ignore the appeal, media professionals will be supported to enter Gaza without consent “by any legitimate means, independently, collectively, or in coordination with humanitarian or civil society actors”.

Read the full story here.

Continue Reading

World

This man survived Hiroshima bombing – and has a stark warning for us all

Published

on

By

This man survived Hiroshima bombing - and has a stark warning for us all

Toshiyuki Mimaki is exhausted when we meet him.

The 83-year-old sinks into his chair, closes his eyes, and asks us to keep it brief.

But then he starts talking, and his age seems to melt away with the power of his stories.

He is a survivor of Hiroshima’s atomic bomb, a lifelong advocate for nuclear disarmament and, as of last year, a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Why do these animals like war so much?’

But now, on the 80th anniversary of the bombing, he comes with more than just memories – he has a message, and it is stark.

“Right now is the most dangerous era,” he says.

“Russia might use it [a nuclear weapon], North Korea might use it, China might use it.

“And President Trump – he’s just a huge mess.

“We’ve been appealing and appealing, for a world without war or nuclear weapons – but they’re not listening.”

Read more:
The ‘destroyer of worlds’ who built the atomic bomb

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump issues nuclear sub order

‘I didn’t hear a sound’

Mr Mimaki was three years old when the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima.

It was the first time a nuclear weapon had been used in war, and it’s remembered as one of the most horrific events in the history of conflict.

It’s estimated to have killed over 70,000 people on the spot, one in every five residents, unleashing a ground heat of around 4,000C, melting everything in its path and flattening two thirds of the city.

Horrifying stories trickled out slowly, of blackened corpses and skin hanging off the victims like rags.

“What I remember is that day I was playing outside and there was a flash,” Mr Mimaki recalls.

“We were 17km away from the hypocentre. I didn’t hear a bang, I didn’t hear a sound, but I thought it was lightening.

“Then it was afternoon and people started coming out in droves. Some with their hair all in mess, clothes ragged, some wearing shoes, some not wearing shoes, and asking for water.”

Hiroshima Survivor Toshiyuki Mimak, 83, speaks to Sky News
Image:
Toshiyuki Mimaki

‘The city was no longer there’

For four days, his father did not return home from work in the city centre. He describes with emotion the journey taken by his mother, with him and his younger bother in tow, to try to find him.

There was only so far in they could travel, the destruction was simply too great.

“My father came home on the fourth day,” he says.

“He was in the basement [at his place of work]. He was changing into his work clothes. That’s how he survived.

“When he came up to ground level, the city of Hiroshima was no longer there.”

‘People are still suffering’

Three days later, the US would drop another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, bringing about an unconditional Japanese surrender and the end of the Second World War.

By the end of 1945, the death toll from both cities would have risen to an estimated 210,000 and to this day it is not known exactly how many lost their lives in the following years to cancers and other side effects.

“It’s still happening, even now. People are still suffering from radiation, they are in the hospital,” Mr Mimaki says.

“It’s very easy to get cancer, I might even get cancer, that’s what I’m worried about now.”

-FILE PHOTO MARCH 1946 - This general view of the city of Hiroshima showing damage wrought by the atomic bomb was taken March 1946, six months after the bomb was dropped August 6, 1945. The 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and the end of World War II is August 1995
Image:
This image shows the city in March 1946, six months after the atomic bomb was dropped on 6 August 1945. Pic: Reuters

Tragically, many caught up in the bomb lived with the stigma for most of their lives. Misunderstandings about the impact of radiation meant they were often shunned and rejected for jobs or as a partner in marriage.

Many therefore tried to hide their status as Hibakusha (a person affected by the atomic bombs) and now, in older age, are finding it hard to claim the financial support they are entitled to.

And then there is the enormous psychological scars, the PTSD and the lifelong mental health problems. Many Hibakusha chose to never talk about what they saw that day and live with the guilt that they survived.

For Mr Mimaki, it’s there when he recounts a story of how he and another young girl about his age became sick with what he now believes was radiation poisoning.

“She died, and I survived,” he says with a heavy sigh and strain in his eyes.

He has subsequently dedicated his life to advocacy, and is co-chair of a group of atomic bomb survivors called Nihon Hidankyo. Its members were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024.

Pic: Reuters
Image:
The city is marking 80 years since the blast. Pic: Reuters

‘Why do humans like war so much?’

But he doesn’t dwell much on any pride he might feel. He knows it’s not long until the bomb fades from living memory, and he deeply fears what that might mean in a world that looks more turbulent now than it has in decades.

Indeed, despite advocacy like his, there are still around 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world in the hands of nine countries.

“In the future, you never know when they might use it. Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Iran – there is always a war going on somewhere,” he says.

“Why do these animals called humans like war so much?

“We keep saying it, we keep telling them, but it’s not getting through, for 80 years no-one has listened.

“We are Hibakusha, my message is we must never create Hibakusha again.”

Continue Reading

World

The chilling document that traces nuclear weapons back to Britain – and the threat we now face

Published

on

By

The chilling document that traces nuclear weapons back to Britain - and the threat we now face

Eighty years ago today, an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

It was the dawn of the atomic age, but the birth of the bomb can be traced beyond the deserts of New Mexico to Britain, five years earlier.

A copy of a hand-typed document, now in the Bodleian library in Oxford, is the first description of an atom bomb small enough to use as a weapon.

The Frisch-Peierls Memorandum was written by two nuclear physicists at the University of Birmingham in 1940.

Frisch-Peierls Memorandum
Image:
The memorandum is the first description of an atom bomb small enough to use as a weapon

Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls don’t feature in the film Oppenheimer, but their paper is credited with jump-starting the Manhattan Project that ultimately built the bomb.

Both Jewish scientists who had both fled Nazi Germany, they built on the latest understanding of uranium fission and nuclear chain reactions, to propose a bomb made from enriched uranium that was compact enough to be carried by an aircraft.

The document, so secret at the time only one copy was made, makes for chilling reading.

The Frisch-Peirels Memorandum
Frisch-Peierls Memorandum

Not only does it detail how to build a bomb, but foretells the previously unimaginable power of its blast.

“Such an explosion would destroy life in a wide area,” they wrote.

“The size of this area is difficult to estimate, but it will probably cover the centre of a big city.”

Radioactive fallout would be inevitable “and even for days after the explosion any person entering the affected area will be killed”.

Both lethal properties of the bombs that would subsequently fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing around 100,000 instantly and more than 100,000 others in the years that followed – most of them civilians.

Read more:
Hiroshima survivor’s stark warning
The ‘destroyer of worlds’ who built the atomic bomb

The US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on 6 August 1945
Image:
The atomic bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above Hiroshima

‘The most terrifying weapons ever created’

Those bombs had the explosive power of around 16 and 20 kilotonnes of TNT respectively – a force great enough to end the Second World War.

But compared to nuclear weapons of today, they were tiny.

“What we would now term as low yield nuclear weapons,” said Alexandra Bell, president of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which campaigns for nuclear disarmament.

“We’re talking about city destroyers…these really are the most terrifying weapons ever created.”

Five square miles of the city were flattened
Image:
The atomic bomb flattened Hiroshima – but is much less powerful than modern nuclear weapons

Many of these “high yield” nuclear weapons are thermonuclear designs first tested in the 1950s.

They use the power of nuclear fission that destroyed Hiroshima to harness yet more energy by fusing other atoms together.

Codenamed “Mike”, the first test of a fusion bomb in 1952 yielded at least 500 times more energy than those dropped on Japan.

Impractically devastating, but proof of lethal principle.

Variants of the W76 thermonuclear warhead currently deployed by the US and UK are around 100Kt, six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

gfx still from Clarke explainer

Just one dropped on a city the size of London would result in more than a quarter of a million deaths.

The largest warhead in America’s current arsenal, the B83 has the explosive equivalent of 1.2 megatonnes (1.2 million tonnes of TNT) and would kill well over a million instantly.

gfx still from Clarke explainer

But modern intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are designed to carry multiple warheads.

Russia’s Sarmat 2, for example, is thought to be capable of carrying 10 megatonnes of nuclear payload.

They’re designed to strike multiple targets at once, but if all were dropped on a city like London most of its population of nine million would be killed or injured.

gfx still from Clarke explainer

If that kind of power is incomprehensible, consider how many nuclear warheads there now are in the world.

Nine countries – the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – have nuclear weapons.

Several others are interested in having them.

The US and Russia have around 4,000 nuclear warheads each – 90% of the global nuclear arsenal and more than enough to destroy civilisation.

map from Clarke explainer

According to analysis from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China us thought to have around 600 warheads, but has indicated a desire to catch up.

Beijing is believed to be building up to 100 new warheads a year and the ICBMs to deliver them.

Five more nuclear powers, including the UK, plan to either increase or modernise their existing nuclear stockpiles.

The nuclear arms race that created this situation was one imagined by Frisch and Peierls in their 1940 memorandum.

Given the mass civilian casualties it would inevitably cause, the scientists questioned whether the bomb should ever be used by the Allies.

Chinese soldiers simulate nuclear combat
Image:
Chinese soldiers simulate nuclear combat

They wrote, however: “If one works on the assumption that Germany is, or will be, in the possession of this weapon… the most effective reply would be a counter-threat with a similar bomb.”

What they didn’t believe was that the bomb they proposed, and went on to help build at Los Alamos, would ever be used.

Devastated by its use on Japan, Peierls disavowed the bomb and later campaigned for disarmament.

But that work is now as unfinished as ever.

Non-proliferation treaties helped reduce the expensive and excessive nuclear arsenals of Russia and the US, and prevent more countries from building nuclear bombs.

Russian air force crew member oversees an instrument panel on board a Tu-95 nuclear-capable strategic bomber
Image:
A Russian airman on a nuclear-capable strategic bomber

‘Everything trending in the wrong direction’

But progress ground to a halt with the invasion of Ukraine, as nuclear tensions continued elsewhere.

“After all the extremely hard, tedious work that we did to reduce nuclear risks everything is now trending in the wrong direction,” said Alexandra Bell.

“The US and Russia refuse to talk to each other about strategic stability.

“China is building up its nuclear arsenal in an unprecedented fashion and the structures that were keeping non-proliferation in place stemming the spread of nuclear weapons are crumbling around us.”

A White House military aide carries the so-called nuclear football as U.S. President Donald Trump boards Marine One.
Pic: PA
Image:
The US president is always in reach of the ‘nuclear football’ , a bag which contains the codes and procedures needed to authorise a nuclear attack

‘New risks increasing the threat’

The world may have come closer to nuclear conflict during the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, but the fragmented and febrile state of geopolitics now is more dangerous, she argues.

Conflict regularly flares between nuclear armed India and Pakistan; Donald Trump’s foreign policy has sparked fears that South Korea might pursue the bomb to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat; some states in the Middle East are eyeing a nuclear deterrent to either nuclear-wannabe Iran or nuclear armed Israel.

Add to the mix the military use of AI and stressors like climate change, and the view of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the situation is more precarious than in 1963.

“It’s more dangerous, but in a different way,” said Alexandra Bell. “The confluence of all these new existential risks are increasing the threat worldwide.”

Continue Reading

Trending