From calculated nuclear ambiguity to the chilling possibility of crude, small-yield weapons, the global security landscape is entering a dangerous new phase.
As non-traditional delivery methods emerge, the threat is no longer distant or theoretical-it is evolving, unpredictable, and closer to reality than ever before. This is one area everyone should be aware of, before it becomes too late, warns VIRENDER KAPOOR, while presenting a fictitious scenario of a nuclear blast at a busy port
After the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan in August 1945, the world learnt a big lesson: A nuclear war would end in total disaster. It would lead to MAD - mutual assured destruction. The danger of total disaster has acted as deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. However, declaring to the world: 'I have it' results in a nuclear umbrella for that nation.
Israel maintains a policy of "deliberate ambiguity" regarding its nuclear capabilities, neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons. Israel is estimated to have a stockpile of 90-400 warheads. The policy aims at deterrence without triggering a regional nuclear arms race.
Iran's nuclear ambiguity is more ambiguous. This is 'nuclear hedging', having 60% enriched uranium and having capability to make 90% enriched weapon-grade uranium to make a bomb at will, keeping the world guessing about its intentions. Yet, with a sufficient amount of 60% enriched uranium, it can make a crude dirty nuclear bomb having the capacity of 5 kt, which would be one-third the power of the one dropped on Japan in 1945.
Under 'Operation Midnight Hammer', the US pounded the Iranian war machine. It could not totally obliterate the nuclear programme. Iran is said to have close to 440 kg of enriched uranium. Even 200 kg of 60% enriched uranium is enough to make a nuclear bomb. A 60% device would likely be so heavy it could only be delivered by a large truck or boat and not by rocket. The Fat Man, detonated over Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, weighed 4,656 kg. If Iran used that 60% uranium in an "implosion-type" design, it would create a genuine nuclear blast of 2-5 kilotons, roughly 1/3 the power of the Hiroshima bomb.
Houthis could deliver large bombs
Recent reports indicate that security analysts are concerned about "asymmetric" delivery methods: Iran could provide radiological materials to regional proxies like the Houthis or Hezbollah. The Houthis operate a fleet of small, fast, and agile vessels, including fast attack craft equipped with heavy weapons or repurposed as kamikaze drone boats. Theoretically it is possible to carry a large sized heavy bomb.
Iran's war cry
Iran has indicated: 'We would take down the whole world, if we go down'. In the event of a war between Iran and the US, it would be a 'dream come true' if Iran could hit the American soil with a nuclear bomb. The US could be approached through its border with Canada. But according to experts, that may be too long a shot. If war breaks out and Iran is going down, it may target the western allies of the US. The target would never be a Gulf country as that would be too close. Hypothetically a target midway may do the job. Saying this is a foolish war and cornering a nation like Iran which never started this war is wrong, may not be the right way of looking at this conflict.
Port of London scenario
An explosion of a 5-kiloton (kt) crude nuclear device at the Port of London would be catastrophic. Because the port is situated along the River Thames-potentially closer to the urban sprawl of East London-the impact would be dictated by the high population density and the industrial nature of the area. The immediate impact would be immense.
The scene
The detonation would create a blinding flash of light, followed by a thermal pulse and a massive shockwave.
• The fireball: A fireball roughly 150-200 metres in diameter would instantly vaporise everything within it. At the port, this would include shipping containers, cranes, and any vessels docked nearby.
• The shockwave: Within a radius of roughly 0.8 km to 1 km, reinforced concrete buildings would be severely damaged or demolished. In the port context, massive steel structures would be twisted, and ships would be capsized or torn apart by the pressure.
• Thermal radiation: People up to 2.5 km away would suffer third-degree burns. On a "busy day," this would include dockworkers, commuters on nearby roads and residents in neighbouring boroughs.
Estimated casualties
Estimating exact numbers depends on the specific location, but for a 5 kt blast in a densely populated riverside area of London:
Immediate fatalities: Between 15,000 and 30,000 people could be killed instantly or within hours. These deaths would result from the initial blast pressure, building collapses, and intense heat.
Injuries: An additional 50,000 to 100,000 people would likely suffer from significant injuries, including flash blindness, severe burns, lacerations from flying glass, and acute radiation syndrome.
Physical and economic damage
The "crude" nature of the device suggests it might be detonated at ground level (surface burst) rather than in the air. This maximizes certain types of local damage:
• Radioactive fallout: A surface burst at the port would suck up huge amounts of river water, silt, and debris, making them highly radioactive. This "black rain" and dust would be carried downwind. Depending on the wind direction, fallout could coat vast stretches of East London, Essex, or Kent, requiring the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people.
• Crippling of trade: The Port of London is a vital artery for UK trade. The physical destruction of berths, automated systems, and the contamination of the Thames would effectively close the port for years.
• Infrastructure failure: The blast would likely trigger secondary explosions at nearby fuel depots or chemical storage facilities common in industrial port zones. Underground utilities, including sewage and power for the surrounding area, would be severed.
Collateral damage
Long-term effects
Medical overload: London's hospitals, even those outside the blast zone, would be immediately overwhelmed. Specialized burn units would be filled within minutes, and the "invisible" injury of radiation poisoning would manifest days later.
Environmental impact: The Thames would suffer severe radioactive and chemical contamination, impacting the ecosystem and any water treatment facilities downstream.
While a 5 kt blast is "small" in nuclear terms, the complexity of London's infrastructure or any big city and the sheer density of its population mean the ripple effects would be felt globally, both economically and socially.
Fictitious scenario
Here is a fictitious scenario of what could happen if a rogue state like Iran could traverse through the sea on a boat carrying a small nuclear bomb and reach the European continent. The sea route from a major Iranian port like Bandar Abbas to the Port of London (or London Gateway) is 6,300 to 6,600 nautical miles (about 11,700 to 12,200 km). The distance from Iranian ports like Bandar Abbas to the US-UK military base at Diego Garcia - a plausible target-in the central Indian Ocean is roughly 4,000 kms. The idea of going 12,000 kms may again be farfetched, but it would be worth looking at the devastation it could cause to a large port.
Think again
The aim of this fictitious example is for all not to forget what could happen if Iran decides to go totally out of control. There is no coming back once the damage is done. The imaginative, fictitious scenario of the impact should warn the world of what could happen in case it happens. The day after will be difficult to digest and whosoever will be hit will never forgive the perpetrator.