U.S. comments about Britain have “pissed Thatcher off” and the conservative House of Commons will of course stand by their Prime Minister. They go so far as to express their love for the PM by ending their statements with “I love Thatcher!” However, Prime Minister Thatcher sent a secret memo to the members of the conservative party in the House of Commons addressing unnamed party members that have “failed on their promises of loyalty to the United Kingdom.” The memo contains a thinly veiled threat to “take care of” potential “traitors”. The Labor Party and Conservative Party have always been at odds, but now the division in the House of Commons has seeped so deep that the close knit party is starting to divide.

It is confirmed by a House of Commons member that the U.K. is working to “preemptively” attack Argentina. The only justification for this is Argentina’s supposed antagonizing of the U.K., which was merely a question of Argentina defending their rightful territory. This proposition of extreme violence serves as a statement to establish that the U.K. is “the greatest country in the world” and that “if war is what it takes to prove it, so be it.”

The Conservative Party in the House is working on a paper named “Beating Argentina Badly Efficiently” to begin militarizing the Falklands in an attempt to intimidate and bombard Argentina. The aggressively named paper is being kept under wraps to avoid attention from other nations—especially the U.S. The U.K. is looking to convert current residents of the Falklands to British citizens and extend U.K. infrastructure. Establishing a 45,000 strong military presence in the Falklands will serve to help Britain maintain its dictator-like control over the islands. The paper goes so far as to condone lethal violence and “extermination” against those “invaders” who oppose their reign.

A House of Commons member accused a U.S. delegate of plotting to veto a U.K. proposal in relation to fighting against communism.

The House of Commons’ reactions to certain topics discussed between the two countries during the signing of a new public treaty alludes to present conflicts, perhaps within the House itself.

The U.K. received extremely mixed reactions from the House when speaking about abolishing unions. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher initially declined to comment on future union plans, but later established plans to rid the U.K. of all union organizations.

Accusations were thrown at the U.K. Secretary of Energy, with a member of the House calling them a potential “conservative traitor”. This was met with anger from Prime Minister Thatcher, who swiftly denied such a thing.

Despite all the evidence that points towards antagonism on these multiple levels, the U.S. Central Intelligence Director vehemently denies all accusations of conflict between the U.S. and the U.K.. President Ronald Reagan also firmly dismisses any such ideas. The bond between the two countries is only further strengthened by their mutual desire to end communism across the globe. Though the meeting between the two cabinets was initially hectic, their common goal and strong partnership prevailed.

“Let Japan’s pain serve as a lesson to all countries considering nuclear warfare.”

As evidenced by the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no other country is as uniquely positioned to understand the significance of nuclear weapons as Japan. The UNSC Representative of Japan discusses the need for a revision in the globe’s attitude towards nuclear warfare in an exclusive interview. The rapidly growing desire of many nations to increase their nuclear stockpiles is more than enough cause for concern. Instead of addressing how to control the usage of such destructive weaponry, Japan argues that the focus should be on abolishing the use of nuclear weapons entirely.

“Japan has experienced the wrath of atomic warfare firsthand. Turning to nuclear violence is always the worst possible option; all nations, whether they are directly involved in the conflict or not, suffer from the consequences.” To state the issue plainly, Japan believes that no countries should have access to nuclear weaponry at all. The general reason behind nations working to increase their collections of arms is because said nations are seeking ways to defend themselves from other countries with nuclear weapons. As one country’s arsenal increases, another country does the same out of the fear of attack.

If the possibility of nuclear attack is negated entirely, then there would be no need for any state to fear such a large scale attack. The back and forth paranoia would greatly diminish. Some may argue that nations need to have access to nuclear weapons in order to deter others from attacking, but if there are no weapons to attack other countries with, then the threat reduces greatly across the board. Any country who actively stands by nuclear proliferation must have an ulterior motive—what other reason is there to support such violent methods?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently admitted to Russia’s willingness to utilize such significant weaponry if deemed necessary. This looming threat has begun to draw closer with new conflicts arising within the realm of arms control.

Trust between nations is incredibly crucial in times of high tension. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II) establishes a nation’s obligation to consent to inspection by foreign authorities.  Despite having agreed to the treaty, Russia refuses to comply with regulations and is actively prohibiting U.S. officials from conducting inspections on Russian nuclear weaponry. The significance of this rebuff has not gone unnoticed by the global community. Communication between these countries in regards to an issue so volatile is essential in order to avoid further escalation and conflict.

“[the United States] is committed to ensuring the safety and security of our allied countries and citizens,” the White House press secretary said. “Our dedication to maintaining peace on our globe requires us to verify that foreign states are complying with the international standards of arms control.”

The potential for nuclear catastrophe becomes increasingly serious as the Russia/Ukraine conflict continues to grow. With the violation of the START treaty, the almost 6,000 nuclear warheads that Russia possesses become a huge liability. To restore peace of mind to all, U.S. officials are pushing for Russia to simply comply with foreign inspection activities.

“[Russia’s] nuclear power serves as a very necessary deterrent to those that may wish us ill, Russia’s FSB director said. “The safety and future of our country depends on our strength; we will continue to defend our priorities and assets as necessary.”

The futures of the U.S. and Russia are not the only ones threatened by this conflict. The future of global arms control could be seriously affected. The disregard that has been displayed for the START implies that this treaty could be endangered in the future. As the only current regulation in relation to the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, the conflict regarding the START must be quickly terminated to prevent further nuclear proliferation.