Original subtitles

The following programme contains strong language,

and scenes which some viewers may find distressing.

The UK is under pressure following the sinking

of a Russian vessel in British waters,

prompting accusations that Britain is to blame.

Radar alert. One cruise missile picked up.

Give me your hand. Run!

Russia has attacked the UK in a wave of deadly missile strikes.

We are, in effect, in a state of war with Russia.

We must be absolutely sure that we're now dealing with

mass casualties.

The level of shock and panic is unbelievable.

This is a life-and-death decision that we are taking.

We currently have one operating air defence destroyer.

Just one vessel.

You guys can't be calling Washington every time

there's a problem in Europe.

We've received an ultimatum from the Russians.

Their terms are: NATO allies stop helping us

and that we all resign as a Cabinet.

This is a trap.

I want to make sure that we hit them with all of the force we can.

You have my authorisation to strike Kaliningrad and Murmansk.

40 seconds back. Kill ready. TAC.

Weapon away.

20 seconds.

Prime Minister, the attack on Russian targets was successful.

In Murmansk, the submarine struck a radar station,

which is out of action,

and a comms and planning facility on the airbase

with some aircrew accommodation.

That will have killed Russian service personnel.

And the air attack on Kaliningrad

hit the headquarters of the Baltic Sea Fleet successfully,

damaged and possibly sank two ships,

one a frigate and one a landing ship.

We lost one aircraft. One Typhoon has not returned.

I think it's very highly unlikely the pilot has survived.

But we don't have that confirmed.

Would you consider this operation to have been successful?

So, in my assessment, both missions were highly successful.

And more than that, it will have shown the Russians

that we are capable of striking important military facilities

that they rely on.

And the downside is, of course, it will have really hurt.

Yep. Of course, they will respond.

Do we have any idea...

Prime Minister, I have an update, uh, which could be significant.

It appears that the top Russian leadership

have moved from Moscow to secure facilities in the Urals,

which is a fortified underground bunker they use

in case of nuclear escalation.

That may have implications, of course, for what comes next.

CDS, what's your reading of the situation?

Sir, we're absolutely clear.

Why would you move your senior leadership?

It's either a message or it is potentially preparation

for them resorting to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Can we just, like, slow down the escalation in this discussion?

Surely, it's unthinkable that they would launch a nuclear weapon.

That is true, but I think at the very least,

we obviously need to take similar measures here.

We need to evacuate, uh, this building now...

Go. Go. Out that way. ...and go to a secure location.

A dramatic escalation tonight as Britain launch

what they describe as proportionate strikes

on military targets inside Russia.

A move officials say is aimed at weakening Moscow's ability

to attack.

Independent journalists report heavy casualties,

while the RAF confirms one of its Typhoon aircraft

has been lost, with one pilot still unaccounted for.

As world leaders urge caution and call for restraint,

the focus turns to Moscow.

The main question for British commanders is,

what will Russia do next?

I do need to remind all of us what a terrible situation we are now in.

And we have to review what exactly the Russians are up to

with this latest move to their nuclear bunker.

It could be a preparation for the very, very worst from the Russians.

But we have to be clear that the Russians are trying

to mess with our minds as well.

What we must not do is automatically rush to judgment.

Look, Prime Minister, at the moment,

there is no evidence that they are going to escalate

to nuclear weapons or anything of that kind.

What we do know, though, is that they are going to hit us again.

And we need to be ready for that.

Prime Minister, this is a moment where we have to try again...

Mm-hmm. ...to see if there's any

diplomatic route at all for this.

Just one point, Prime Minister.

If you look at the way that this is...

has already escalated and the likelihood of further escalation,

this is the moment for the Americans to put real pressure

on the Russians to stop it,

in their own interest, not to help us.

I think we need to... We need to talk to the Americans.

For the US, why this is, um...

so counterproductive to their-

to their own interests is that all it is telling the world

and their foes is that credibility is shot,

and the very thing that they purport to care about,

which is not having a war that is escalating,

they have failed on every front.

Penny's right.

I think this is about saying to them,

this is a situation that is escalating to the point,

you can't keep out of it and... And what do we want them to do?

One word from the President of the United States would end this.

One word.

What we're asking... It would.

...to do is this, to recognise that Russia's hit us,

we've hit back, but to say to Russia, enough is enough.

Make him the peacemaker. Make him the big man.

Allow him to be in control.

We want him to believe that this is his fight.

And if that means that he takes credit

for bringing that peace about, then so be it.

Let's get the Americans on the line.

Secretary of State, Defence Secretary,

thank you for your time.

I want to say to you sincerely,

we are not asking the United States of America to enter a war.

We are respectfully asking the United States of America

to help us stop a war,

to be the peacemaker in this situation.

Well, I want to remind you in our last call...

I told you to step down. We told you to de-escalate.

Uh, you took exactly the opposite road.

When you deep strike Russia,

you no longer are the attacked party.

You're a co-escalator.

And to use one of your British words,

I am miffed, OK? And that's to put it very politely.

Yeah, I got a couple of things.

First of all, have you people lost your minds?

I mean, how is a provocation supposed to help the process?

What happens next?

Do you think the Russians are just gonna stand by

and let Murmansk get blown to hell?

They have nuclear assets in that area for Christ's sake.

Mr Secretary, the United Kingdom has retaliated

in a proportionate manner.

The Russians are telling us a very different story.

The command structure is relocating east of the Urals.

Here's what we're- we're thinking about right now.

Our people are deeply concerned about spillage,

the danger of mistake in a situation

where we're talking about two nuclear-capable powers.

What do your studies tell you about how many casualties

are gonna happen then?

Our overwhelming priority is peace, and to step back from the brink.

What we want is a de-escalation,

but you drove it to a place where none of us wanted it to go,

and you've put us all in a terrible position.

Let us do our work without further provocation.

That went well.

Obviously, the Americans are our greatest hope right now,

but so far, they've not had any success.

If America does not broker peace, what other option do we have?

What are we going to do?

And, Prime Minister, this is important,

in addition to the nations that we already have,

France and Germany have said

that they will stand by for military assistance.

Great.

Getting these major European powers on board is massive.

We want the diplomacy to prevail,

but we must also be prepared

so that if that attack comes, we won't be on the back foot.

I agree we have got to maintain the pressure on Russia

for as long as they continue to do this,

driving them to end it.

We've got to remember this is a country that couldn't defeat Ukraine

in all of those years.

And now we've...

Later than we wanted,

but we've managed to combine and gather lots of allies.

Yeah. This is messaging.

The point of that is not just to have a bigger and bigger fight.

No. It's surely

for our allies in Europe, particularly France and Germany,

to say to Russia, this has got out of hand and stop.

Uh, Richard-There's a question we have to consider, though.

How is Russia going to see this?

A significant moment today for the British government

as two of Europe's most powerful militaries announce plans

to join the war against Russia.

The UK will hope its increased strength,

bolstered by France and Germany, will deter Russia.

Despite warnings that by hitting targets in the vicinity

of the Russian nuclear fleet, the UK has crossed a red line.

France and Germany are now backing us against Russia.

Listen, you might think that's a good thing. I don't.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't think it's a good thing at all.

I just think it's more problems now. It's more war.

So, Ange, Germany and France have joined the fight.

That feels like really good news right now.

Yeah, it does, Tom. But remember,

if Russia's overall goal is to break the NATO alliance,

they've not yet succeeded.

It's true, America hasn't rallied to help us yet,

but with major European allies and Ukraine on board,

it's surely a much bigger response

than what Russia would have anticipated.

So, what's Moscow's next move then, Ange?

Do you think they'll be feeling backed into a corner right now?

Well, you've got to get into the mindset of this Russian president.

For him to back down at this stage, I mean, it's unthinkable.

I feel we may have passed the point of no return.

So, I think there's a balance there, isn't there?

Um, about whether or not we believe that

being seen to be prepared

means that the Russians feel pressured

because they see us and our allies applying pressure to them.

Can I interject? I'm sorry, I've got an update. And I'm...

I'm afraid, as in previous updates, it's not good news.

Imagery and SIGINT, signals intelligence,

is indicating Russian preparations for large-scale strikes,

which include the movement and the arming

of the following weapon system.

Prime Minister, from satellite imagery,

we're seeing what's called a transporter erector launcher,

which is a missile launcher system loaded at a rail facility

in Krichev and moving.

The second image shows that train traveling northbound

through the Murmansk region.

The military intelligence assessment is that Russia is moving

at least one intermediate-range Oreshnik ballistic missile system

to the Kola Peninsula.

And the Kola Peninsula, shown on the map,

is significant because a missile placed there

can reach the UK.

The Oreshnik is the latest Russian missile system.

It's hypersonic, so it travels at Mach 10.

So the missiles that have been fired into Ukraine

have had several high-explosive warheads on them.

It's dual-capable. It can be conventional or it can be nuclear.

And we need to be really clear about that. It can be one of either.

What is the time between the launch order being issued

and impact of this missile?

22 minutes.

And we have nothing that can shoot this down.

There's incredible echoes here in this latest piece of intelligence

of them using exactly the same weapons,

exactly the same sort of targets as they did in Ukraine.

Mm-hmm.

What do you think the chances are that the Russians might

actually put a nuclear warhead on this missile?

I think it's very small, but I can't exclude it.

Prime Minister, we...

I hope Richard is right,

but if it does have a nuclear warhead,

what damage will one of these weapons do?

So, this is the conundrum. Yeah.

So Russia has tactical nuclear weapons where they are...

I'm gonna use this word carefully, locally devastating.

For the sake of argument, Hiroshima-sized nuclear destruction.

That was 15 kilotons. Yeah.

These can be bigger. Could be 15 to 50.

But... Hiroshima?

Hiroshima? Yes. So, a city is destroyed.

Jesus. Give us a, you know, what would-

What would it do to Inverness?

So, Inverness is the sort of size of target

that will be destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon.

But what we're not talking about is a strategic weapon,

although, as you know, Russia has a lot of those,

where you are looking at the destruction at once

of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and others.

A country destroyer.

A tactical nuclear weapon.

That's like a nuclear warning shot.

And life in the country would go ahead pretty much

everywhere else unmolested.

Russia knows we don't have those weapons.

We do not have a tactical nuclear response.

Mm-hmm.

We only have strategic weapons of mass destruction.

So, the challenge here, in my view,

is whether if Russia were to resort to using a tactical nuclear weapon,

they will be assuming

that you would not escalate to the use of strategic weapons,

using a Trident missile.

Prime Minister, can I just inject some realism here?

Uh, the nuclear weapons, and,

you know, you can use the word tactical,

we're still talking about nuclear weapons,

have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And we have had a series of very, very serious wars

around the world where nations have been nuclear armed

and have failed, thankfully, to use nuclear weapons.

All the evidence points so far that they are not going

to use these kinds of weapons. But...

...if this escalates and we start to get new intelligence through

that their position is shifting,

this Cabinet needs an extremely clear view

because you will have moments to decide

what you are going to do in response.

I just want to add one thing from a comms point of view.

We obviously don't know exactly what Russia's going to do.

I'm just conscious that this is escalating. People are...

...are just anticipating what's coming next.

The question that people are now asking is raging on social media,

"Are we heading to the use of nuclear weapons?"

Yeah, you lot, I've never seen this in my 22 years of living.

As the crisis escalates,

reports of looting and civil disorder are widespread.

While volunteer groups have sprung up

to get supplies to the most vulnerable.

This is just a message to all the people that ransacked

the water in the supermarket.

Please think about the other people out there.

There's elderly people that need water.

There's families that have children that need water.

The ports of Dover, Harwich and Hull are in chaos

with thousands attempting to board ferries

as people scramble to leave the country.

I just want to take my family and just get

all the way into the countryside.

Prime Minister, I just want to dial down a little the- the-

the nuclear rhetoric here.

So Russia is much more likely to deliver a-

a conventional attack,

so ballistic and cruise missiles in the UK

in at least the same numbers that we saw before.

And make no mistake, this could be utterly devastating.

I agree with CDS's analysis,

but we do have a window of opportunity at this moment

to try and deter that attack and deter future aggression.

The correct response from us is to, I think, increase our options

for a conventional response.

Do we have your permission to produce that target list

and make ready with our allies to respond?

Yes.

I've got all your messages.

I haven't been able to reply, but we have...

What we now need to construct for the Secretary of State

are the targeting options of the next round

of military strikes with our European allies.

I think the nations that will be able to help us out most quickly

are going to be Finland with F-35s, and, I suspect, Norway.

In addition to Germany and France? Correct.

I'm gonna message him. I'm gonna message him first.

OK. I'll do that.

We can hit the Oreshnik site, because the TLAM shooter we used

for that initial package is still around the top.

And is the TLAM shooter in range? We...

- Yes. - Yes? - Yeah.- OK.

Prime Minister, if- if I may,

we know that train with Oreshnik launch platforms

has arrived in the Kola Peninsula.

My advice to you is we send a message to them

by destroying it with a Tomahawk land attack missile.

Now, there are complications with doing this.

It's not NATO.

It'll take time to orchestrate. About 24 hours.

I think the Deputy Prime Minister may be worried

that what we're doing is escalating,

but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

No, I- I am worried. How's America going to see this?

- Mm-hmm. - We've asked Americato be the peacemaker.

Does this action basically put us back into the position

of the aggressor?

I know the Deputy Prime Minister has concerns about the messaging

to the US, but I do think it is in our interest

to put ourselves more in the driving seat of this situation.

What- Well, I think, if I'm right, CDS, what you're doing is asking

for permission to prepare for this,

but that this action would not take place for 24 hours.

So, at the very least,

we have a self-imposed 24-hour window for diplomacy.

That's exactly right.

One of the virtues of air power

is that it can be turned off at very short notice.

What it can't be done is constructed at very short notice.

You can't conjure it up like that. But I can't conjure it up.

And we have to hope they don't launch before then.

This morning, Europe is standing shoulder to shoulder

with the UK. Military officials have arrived

at a major NATO air operations centre in Germany.

The base is a state-of-the-art complex tasked with defending

Europe's airspace from air and missile attacks.

France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

has also been spotted in the North Sea,

its deck loaded with Rafale fighter jets.

Could this public show of force be designed to bring Russia back

to the negotiating table?

Or is Europe edging towards a far more dangerous confrontation?

So, we will continue to work with Chinese and others to try

and shape the environment

so that the Russians do not attack us... Sir, update.

Thank you.

Um, more news.

It's just, um, reading through this right now, Prime Minister.

The Russian president has now gone on television to announce

that Russia has raised its nuclear threat level

to full in their national alert system...

...which is the highest possible level,

which means full nuclear military mobilisation.

The president of the Russian Federation has raised

the country's nuclear forces to the highest level possible.

Full nuclear readiness.

This means nuclear forces have been placed on maximum alert

and are being ready to strike.

Prime Minister... this is a significant, uh, move.

Paranoia is never far from the surface with Russian leaders,

but, uh... but doing this at this stage looks really ominous.

They're upping the ante, but in doing so,

that also indicates that the climb down from this position

is going to be much harder.

But I do think that them making these moves

does require a reset of the work that Jim has been doing

in trying to get them to stand out.

This, for me, this is a remarkable Russian overreach

that gives us a genuine diplomatic opportunity

to re-energise an off-ramp.

I mean, I agree entirely.

But in my view, we have no evidence so far

that Russia is remotely interested in de-escalation.

All of the evidence before us right now

points in the opposite direction,

that Russia is rolling out a plan that has been long in the making,

and that they have an end point in sight.

Russia ratcheting up the nuclear threat.

The president publicly admitting he is considering

the use of nuclear weapons.

Fucking hell, guys, this is World War 3 seemingly on the cards

in the very near future.

I'm not ready for this. I can't be dealing with this right now.

No, no, no, I can't do this.

The public appears to be losing faith that the Russia crisis

can be solved diplomatically.

Look at this.

Many Britons are preparing for the previously unthinkable,

a nuclear war.

This is mind-blowing.

If you do see a bright flash, you've got eight to ten seconds

to lie on the ground and close your eyes.

Keep your mouth open and breathe through your teeth

because closing it can burst your lungs,

rupture your eardrums and cause other organs to explode.

Get out there now before it gets crazy, and stock up on water,

canned food, medical supplies.

We've got a pile of clothes, battery packs, phone chargers,

stuff like that.

The panic's starting to set in.

Guys, I'm at Finsbury Park right now, and I'm scared, bro.

I think this is, like, the place where everyone's kind of sheltering

tonight because it's probably one of the biggest stations, right?

But I don't even know if it's a safe place to be at.

Oh, my days.

I mean, just look at that.

Prime Minister, I do think it would be sensible to plan on the-

on the worst-case scenario.

I agree.

We need to look at the consequences of what we're contemplating.

Um, we've got our nuclear adviser on the line.

Thank you very much. Hello.

I've been asked to set out the context in which your decisions

will be applied in the instance of a nuclear blast in the UK.

In the immediate fallout from the blast,

with a small payload of around 50 kilotons,

within a second,

there would be a flash intense heat and the immediate burns

and ignition of fires throughout the area.

A powerful blast wave would destroy buildings,

shatter windows and throw debris.

We estimate there would be between 50,000 and 100,000 fatalities

and between 100 and 200,000 injuries.

In the immediate hours after a strike,

we should plan for the emergency services

to be completely overwhelmed,

for water, power and communications to fail.

For contingency planning,

we should already be thinking about

a single clear line of communication

containing simple messages

of what people need to store for the coming days.

We do not have a national system of shelters.

People should be advised to shelter in their homes

or in their places of work or other public buildings.

In one to three days,

severe radiological exposure

will start causing acute sickness among some of the survivors.

The consequences would go on for weeks and months,

possibly years and decades,

with long-term health impacts, including cancer.

The NHS will be stretched beyond all relevant contingency planning

to date.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

If you have anxiety...

...turn off the news, stop reading it, stop listening.

If there's anything important, you'll find out.

Don't worry, somebody will tell you.

In the meantime, don't feed your anxiety.

We're getting ready for it, the big buttons, as it were.

We'll start sending...

...big lumps of radioactive waste to one another, it seems.

And it makes my teeth itch.

Grown-up white men monumentally screwing things up

for the planet and their children.

It just feels so wrong. So, so wrong.

We're applying every ounce of diplomatic pressure

this country can muster in every embassy,

in every capital city all across the world

to try and find a diplomatic solution.

Because, look, we have these weapons.

We never want to use them. No.

I think we should talk to the NATO Secretary General,

to see if he has any new advice on how to halt this escalation.

Secretary General, I just wanted briefly to update you.

As you know, there is evidence of Russian preparation for escalation,

including the deployment of ballistic missiles,

which could have a tactical nuclear payload.

What I need from you is a clear indication

about where you believe NATO can secure peace.

Prime Minister, um... These are very, very serious times.

First of all, I have made a statement

declaring that Russia's attempt to place the United Kingdom

as the aggressor is completely wrong.

But I will continue with my efforts to make sure

that there is not any further escalation.

If it is the case that the Russians continue to escalate,

what is an appropriate defensive military response?

Well, Prime Minister, there is a heavy responsibility lying on

your shoulders at the present moment.

Britain's nuclear weapons are allocated to NATO,

but, of course, the Trident missile system

is a sovereign United Kingdom capability.

So you are in the position of being able to react.

But the Kremlin know that as well.

If they make a decision to attack, then it's to risk Armageddon.

At the end of the day, uncertainty is the basis of deterrence.

But it's a very heavy responsibility.

If it all goes wrong,

then I don't think most of us are going to be around

to pick up the pieces.

Secretary General, that's very sombre.

While I do appreciate your efforts,

I hope that in calmer times

we'll be able to resume this conversation. Thank you.

I hope so.

That's pretty clear.

Is there anyone who doesn't think that we should begin

preparation for the very, very worst from the Russians?

I come to this table as someone with a lifelong opposition

to nuclear weapons.

But I am aware that we're in a position

where we can't afford to discount any potentially credible option.

Prime Minister, we're depending on our allies here,

and we're using our diplomacy.

And if we start even threatening

that we'll respond disproportionately,

I will respond with a strategic nuclear weapon,

we'll be undermining the agreements

that we've reached about how we should all behave.

The message that they want to send is that they can toy

with a country like the United Kingdom.

But Prime Minister... Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Parliament has vested power in us, the executive, to take action.

We cannot abrogate our responsibility

and we have to show the Russians we are prepared

to launch a nuclear missile.

The reason why I want to make that clear

is because they might think we're mad enough to do that.

They might not want to risk it.

No, they know we're not mad enough. That's the point.

Well, quite. They know we're not mad enough.

But they have to believe that we're mad enough.

Precisely.

They have to believe we're mad enough.

Even if we're not serious about using our nuclear weapons,

the Russians have to believe that we're serious.

Prime Minister, I genuinely do not think that this is the moment

when we need to start to think about...

Well, I- ...launching nuclear Trident.

I 100% don't want to get involved in a nuclear exchange.

But the main way to avoid the destruction of our planet

is for the Russians to believe that we will strike them.

I mean, it's just... it's just...

I just feel like we're starting to hypothesise

rather than having conversations on actually the situation

that we're in.

I mean, this is going to be resolved diplomatically.

This is not going to be resolved militarily.

Jim, do we have any feedback at all

from the much-vaunted back channel of which the Americans have spoken?

I'll go talk to the Americans, Prime Minister.

I really need to understand the situation.

What if they were to use nuclear weapons against us?

Where does that leave us?

The only scenario in which it could be lawful

is an extreme circumstance of self-defence

where the very existence of the state is at stake.

Right, I need to use those words then.

Those are the key words. OK. OK.

If a nuclear weapon drops, there is nothing we can do.

Absolute fear that's going to go through the country is absolute-

Well, you know, I've given permission to the regional

directors of the NHS to have these nightingale hospitals for

dealing with the extra casualties. ...from a human level

in terms of the public. Yeah, I know, but don't say-

don't say nothing can be done and nothing's going to be done-

No, we're just talking privately in this room.

We're talking as human beings. I'm talking to my team privately

in this room in terms of-

Be aware of what is being done on the ground.

Yeah, it's inadequate, but actually steps are being taken.

And we've been doing that. We've absolutely doing that.

But we're just talking on a human level, nothing has ever happened

to this country like this, and we just need to be honest about that.

There is no moderation in the Russian mindset.

We need a coordinated effort by the US to help the United Kingdom.

We've tried every diplomatic avenue to get the Russians to de-escalate.

But I have to tell you, as yet, we're not making any headway.

Do you get any sense from them

that they're readying for an escalation to nuclear?

Not explicitly.

POTUS has made his position crystal clear to the Russians.

We have no intelligence that would confirm or deny preparations

for a nuclear launch. I'm sorry, Jim.

OK, Secretary. Thank you.

Jesus Christ.

Oreshnik has been launched. Sorry?

Unable to detect the nature of the missile warhead.

Prime Minister, I can confirm from our satellites

that an Oreshnik missile has been launched in the Kola Peninsula.

Has been launched? Has been launched,

within range of the UK, and it's not clear

at the moment whether it's carrying a nuclear warhead

or a conventional warhead.

This is a life-threatening national emergency.

The United Kingdom is at imminent risk of attack.

Go indoors immediately.

Do not travel. Do not attempt to leave your area.

Do not leave your shelter to check on others.

Close all windows and doors.

Continue listening for further instructions.

Go in. Stay in. Stay tuned.

Prime Minister, we know that an Oreshnik missile is going to land

somewhere in the UK inside 22 minutes.

We cannot intercept it.

It flies over some of our allies. Right.

Can they do anything? No.

We do not know whether this missile has a conventional

set of warheads on it,

in which case it will feel like a normal ballistic missile attack,

or if it has a nuclear warhead on it.

Inside 22 minutes now, we will lose a British city.

Oh my God.

When do we know which city it will hit?

Just one second, just one second. So, there is...

We won't know where it's going until it's landed.

When it's arrived, only then will I know

whether it had a nuclear weapon on it or not.

We'll all know at that point. I cannot tell you in advance.

The major decision that you have to take

because this missile could land on us

is whether you believe if this is a nuclear attack,

whether it warrants a strategic nuclear response,

and you know the consequences of that for both ourselves and Russia.

Yeah, uh... We can't.

We can't. No, we can.

No, no, no, hold on. We can't, Prime Minister, we can't.

Even if we were to have a tactical nuclear weapon

fired at us,

we cannot launch a nuclear weapon in response.

The law on this is very clear.

Unless the very existence, the very survival of your state

is at stake, the nuclear option is not an option.

If a nuclear weapon was to be used,

Russia would be fully aware that they were committing a war crime.

Well, there would be many of us left around to prosecute them.

No, no, but... No, no, no. Well, just one second.

Michael, Michael, Michael, we're talking about using

weapons of mass destruction.

I'd like to hear from our legal adviser.

Even if we lost one million of our own citizens,

our families,

the laws in relation to using a nuclear weapon are very clear.

I will not sacrifice 67 million for one million,

and I will not sacrifice the law

because we become gung-ho in a bunker.

Prime Minister, there is a missile hurtling towards this country.

What we need to do is go off

and get prepared for the human impact of this missile.

If we're going to lose a city,

do you think that firing a Trident missile,

our independent strategic nuclear deterrent,

at Russia is the right response?

Prime Minister?

We've all had our say...

...it's for you to decide.

Subtitles by Sky Access Services www.skyaccessibility.sky