Britain’s nuclear infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to military attack as global tensions rise, a worrying new report has warned. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) study, published on Friday, highlights the growing risk of nuclear power plants being targeted deliberately or incidentally during armed conflict.

While the threat is not new, Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has shown how such facilities can become strategic objectives in modern warfare, with devastating consequences for civilian populations. Written by RUSI research fellow Darya Dolzikova, the report examines the “strategic and operational logic” behind targeting nuclear installations and urges military and political leaders to prepare for scenarios in which nuclear infrastructure comes under direct threat. It further warns that the use of military force near or against nuclear facilities represents an under-addressed threat to international peace and civilian safety.

Key motivations for attacks include disrupting an enemy’s energy supply, generating public fear, denying access to contested territory through radioactive contamination and halting nuclear weapons programmes.

In each case, the consequences for civilian safety, the environment and regional stability are severe.

RUSI also points to the likelihood of increased targeting as more countries adopt nuclear power.

Ms Dolzikova explains: “The expected growth of nuclear power in the global energy mix may increase the likelihood that future armed conflict will see greater targeting of nuclear energy infrastructure."

The report outlines several recent examples of nuclear facilities being exposed to military activity, with Zaporizhzhia cited as the most significant.

It warns that even where nuclear plants are not the primary objective, they may lie on key axes of advance and become flashpoints by default.

In response, the think tank calls for urgent measures to improve such sites' physical protection and operational resilience.

Recommendations include reinforcing legal prohibitions on attacks, integrating counter-CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) and air defence capabilities, and decentralising energy systems through smaller, modular reactors.

Crucially, the report highlights the psychological impact of nuclear threats.

It points out: “Such threats may be used as a ‘half-step’ between conventional and nuclear weapons - despite key differences in their normative and operational significance."

The UK operates several nuclear power stations, including Sizewell B and Hinkley Point B, with new projects under development.

While no specific intelligence suggests they are under imminent threat, the report stresses the need for military planners to take the risks seriously and integrate safeguards into all aspects of defence strategy.

RUSI also urges governments to engage the public, building trust and preparing communities for possible emergencies without causing panic.

The report concludes: “Efforts must prioritise the establishment of trust between the population and authorities, and offer clear information and instructions."