5 ms·
I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.
by RandomLensman 2mo ago
I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.
- nradov 2mo agoIt certainly wasn't self-sufficient in the last two large wars.
- t0mpr1c3 2mo agoBritain's last two territorial conflicts involved the Falklands, and Icelandic fishing ships in the neighborhood of Rockall. I don't recall that third party assistance was required in either dispute, thank you very much. The US the other hand is always asking for other countries to bail it out of some mess or other.
- nradov 2mo agoDid you miss the word "large"? And the UK required significant US assistance during the Falkland Islands war, so apparently you're quite ignorant about history. https://time.com/archive/6882618/just-how-much-did-the-u-s-help/ https://time.com/archive/6882618/just-how-much-did-the-u-s-h...
- t0mpr1c3 2mo agoWhen bald men fight over a comb, you need teeth. That's right: the bald man with nuclear weapons won it back. And as combs go, it was one with considerable geopolitical significance.
- illliillll 2mo agoThe UK has nuclear weapons.
- t0mpr1c3 2mo agoThe command and control systems are American. The intelligence network is American. The last time the British military acted without US support was Suez. The UK went in on NATO 100%. France took an entirely different set of conclusions from Suez.
- illliillll 2mo agoSomewhere under the sea at this very moment there is a British submarine captain who could nuke Moscow tonight if he (and his crew) wanted to. There’s absolutely nothing the Americans could do about it.
- t0mpr1c3 2mo agoNATO can and probably would shoot them out of the sky using ballistic missile defence. IIRC Britain has a total of 8 missiles. Britain's obsolete Trident subs are manufactured by Lockheed, so if they fall out with Trump they will lose access to spare parts. The replacements aren't due until 2028.
- mrguyorama 2mo agoAre you under some absurd notion that NATO has ballistic missile defense in Russia? Or can magically reach out and intercept a ballistic missile anywhere on the globe? If there was the right Arleigh Burke right next to the submarine (which there wont be), and the captain was insanely paranoid enough to contravene standing rules of engagement to already be prepared for a surprise ally launching a weapon, there's about a 50% chance they could intercept each missile.
- illliillll 2mo agoNATO has no capabilities for doing that, what you are suggesting is very very far from what is actually possible today. But yes, Britain could lose its nuclear deterrent. That’s not going to matter for any conflict which starts in the near future though.