The main difference between "mainstream" news and "alternative news sources/sites is that they have standards they have to adhere too (I.E things like fact checking) so things take longer, and in the case of the BBC they are required to balance viewpoints unless the opposing side is anti-science (I.E climate change, flat earth, etc). This is why you see things on social media like "You won't see this in the mainstream media!" which basically means either that person doesn't watch any mainstream media to see it or it's unsubstantiated drivel that can't legally be put forward by a reputable news agency.
The problem is, in war things build up. I.E first shells land, then a missile salvo in response, then bombers drop guided munitions, then unguided munitions (bigger boom), then bigger and bigger bombs, cluster bombs, MOABs, FOABs, then before you know it somebody is breaking out the nuclear tipped artillery shells because we're already using bigger explosives anyway and these are cheaper, then if we're using them why not nuclear SRBMs, then MRBMs, then ICBMs.
If you think it isn't a dangerous possibility you're crazy, people were not scared during the Cuban missile crisis just because there was a possibility somebody might sink a cargo boat.
