Current Most Read

Nuclear Tensions Today: Understanding the Risks and Diplomatic Efforts

The Naked Truth About Britain’s Most Exposed Toilet

VoltAero HPU 210: The Future of Hybrid Flight Takes Off

Back to normal, back to the grindstone…

Diane Hall
Jul 14, 2021
3 min read

In a matter of days, most of the restrictions we’ve been living under will be lifted. One of these is the recommendation to work from home; the government will leave it up to employers to decide whether they continue with remote working, a hybrid arrangement, or if they insist that the entire workforce returns to the office.

Of course, there are many industries whose employees have never changed their working arrangements, because they cover key services or they’re front-facing/work directly with the public. Office workers and employees in other sectors, however, have been able to work from home during the pandemic, though this may now change.

So, are we all raring to return to the office?

Opinion is still divided. There are those that relish being back in the office, whilst others are counting down the days to returning with a sense of dread. There have even been some who have handed in their notice when asked to return to their employers’ headquarters, such is their desire to continue working from home.

I read about one household, where the husband had been working remotely for the last fifteen months. There wasn’t much space in their home, and he’d been working from a desk in the corner of their lounge. He was in no rush to go back to his employer’s; however, the rest of the family were desperate for things to return to normal. The kids, who were instructed not to make any noise during working hours. The wife, who wanted to use the lounge during the day as a family room, but who was instead relegated to the kitchen. In their situation, the husband/father permanently working from home would be disastrous, even if he couldn’t see it himself. Few people, back in March 2020, would have foreseen the length of time the pandemic would impact our daily lives. Initially, arrangements like this family had to endure may have been tolerable, because they were deemed to be short-term—but living like they do, day in, day out, year upon year…it’s not realistic.

I’ve also seen a number of discussions online about employers who promised a hybrid approach to working when things returned to normal, i.e. a few days at home and a few days in the office, but who have now reneged on such agreements. Other companies have gone as far as to ask their employees what they would like, with regards to their working situation, before deciding that everyone must be office based—despite the fact their employees had overwhelmingly plumped for remote/hybrid working. You would, in their position, think, ‘What was the point of all that?!’

As someone who isn’t as productive when working from home (I have a lovely, separate office, and no kids to keep quiet—I’m just very easily distracted), I’m happy to work from my employers’ offices. I just need scientists to invent teleporters to get rid of my commute, then life would be perfect. This is my personal choice from a privileged position; had my girls still been toddlers that needed to be silenced for eight hours a day, or I was required to be productive, sat on my bed, my laptop on my knees, for the full working day, I’m not sure I’d want to be a homeworker. I truly sympathise with the family mentioned above, and many others across the country who may be at loggerheads over the issue. The question of whether to return to the office, in my opinion, is not just one for the employee, but of their whole family if the decision is likely to impact everyone in the house.

If an employee doesn’t agree with their employer’s decision to return to the office, of course, they are free to vote with their feet and find another position that is happy to accommodate them; that said, the job market is not quite as easy to conquer as it may have been, pre-pandemic.

Whether a key worker or home worker, it’s not really a case of ‘back to the grindstone’. It’s been bloody hard work for most people these last fifteen months…did we ever leave the grindstone to return to it?

Nuclear Tensions Today: Understanding the Risks and Diplomatic Efforts

All Articles

19 June 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

In recent years, global tensions involving nuclear-armed states have drawn comparisons to the Cold War era. With renewed rivalries, advanced weapons technology, and evolving military doctrines, many wonder how close the world is to a potential nuclear crisis. Understanding the current landscape helps put these risks in perspective without causing undue alarm.

Mushroom cloud over a city landscape, fiery orange and gray tones dominate the scene. Dramatic sky and barren foreground enhance the impact.

The Devastating Power of Modern Nuclear Weapons

Modern nuclear weapons remain among the most destructive forces on Earth. Unlike the bombs used in the 1940s, today’s warheads can be hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. Their precision delivery systems and multiple warheads allow for targeted strikes on key military or civilian infrastructure.

However, despite their immense power, a single nuclear weapon would not be capable of destroying an entire country like the United Kingdom. While one bomb could devastate a major city and cause catastrophic loss of life, the broader population and infrastructure beyond the blast zone would remain intact. The risk of widespread destruction grows with multiple weapons targeted at various locations.

Current Geopolitical Flashpoints

Several regions today are at the centre of nuclear tensions:

The conflict between Russia and NATO, highlighted by the war in Ukraine, has raised concerns. Russia’s doctrine allows for nuclear use if it perceives an existential threat, adding a layer of unpredictability. While a large-scale nuclear exchange remains unlikely, the risk of limited use is a serious consideration.
South Asia remains a hotspot with a longstanding rivalry between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed countries. Their history of conflict and territorial disputes means that escalation risks persist.
North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. Its leadership’s rhetoric and testing program contribute to regional tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
China, while maintaining a no-first-use policy, is modernising its nuclear forces amid rising tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

How Do Modern Nuclear Doctrines Influence Risk?

Some military strategies and technological developments may increase the chance of nuclear use in a limited conflict. Tactical nuclear weapons, smaller and more ‘usable’ than strategic bombs, lower the threshold for deployment. Concepts like “escalate to de-escalate” suggest some countries might use limited nuclear strikes to force adversaries to back down.

At the same time, improvements in missile defence and early warning systems can either deter or accelerate the risk of a pre-emptive strike. Cybersecurity threats to command systems also add complexity.

The Role of Diplomacy and Arms Control

Despite these risks, diplomatic efforts and arms control agreements remain vital to reducing nuclear dangers.

The extension of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia in 2021 stands out as a key achievement. It limits deployed strategic warheads and fosters transparency through inspections and data sharing. This helps build trust and prevents unchecked arms build-up.

International agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty create global norms against nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament, even if progress can be slow.

Efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal aim to prevent new states from acquiring nuclear weapons, contributing to regional and global stability.

Additionally, crisis communication channels, nuclear risk reduction centres, and regional security dialogues all play roles in managing tensions and preventing misunderstandings.

Challenges to Global Nuclear Stability

The breakdown of some treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, has undermined parts of the arms control framework. Renewed missile deployments and reduced transparency have increased uncertainty.

Ongoing conflicts and geopolitical distrust make negotiations more difficult. Modernisation of nuclear arsenals and new technologies often outpace diplomatic efforts.

North Korea’s continued nuclear testing and missile launches further complicate efforts to reduce risk in East Asia.

A Balanced View

While the nuclear threat today carries unique challenges, it is important to remember that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war act as a powerful deterrent. Most nuclear-armed states understand that use would be devastating for all parties involved.

Diplomatic tools and international norms remain key to managing risks. Continued dialogue, treaty renewals, and confidence-building measures help keep the possibility of nuclear conflict low.

Understanding the complexity of nuclear tensions without fear allows for informed public discussion and supports the efforts aimed at a safer future.