Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RandomLensman 12 days ago
I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.
2 comments

It certainly wasn't self-sufficient in the last two large wars.
Britain'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.

Did 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-h...

When 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.

The UK has nuclear weapons.
The 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.

Somewhere 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.

NATO 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.

Are 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.

NATO 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.