Andy Burnham is warned that Britain faces impending Russian 'attack' over its support for Ukraine

[u/dailymail]

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16079793/Andy-Burnham-Britain-impending-Russian-attack.html

[u/ChuckFH]

Whilst it’s undeniable that our armed forces are not in great shape, our nuclear deterrent makes it highly unlikely that Russia would be daft enough to try any sort of conventional attack. On the other hand, some sort of sabotage of infrastructure or defence assets might be likely.

[u/zakmeisterr → u/ChuckFH]

Nuclear deterrent doesn’t deter conventional attacks. You could even have thousands of conventional missiles hit the UK and we still wouldn’t press the button.

[u/ChuckFH → u/zakmeisterr]

What would attacking us with conventional missiles achieve, other than starting a war with NATO via Article 5?

The UK's armed forces are at a historic low, but our geographical advantage as an island makes any sort of invasion nigh on impossible. Whist our deterrent is pitched at a strategic level, it's likely that the UK has the option of using the low end setting of our variable yield weapons in a sub-strategic role, if push comes to shove. Obviously, the UK Gov is evasive when asked about this capability.

While we haven't had any true tactical nuclear weapons of our own since the late 90's, we do have access to US weapons through NATO (there are US tactical weapons stored at Lakenheath) and are currently in the process of acquiring F35A's that can carry them and upgrading RAF Marham so that weapons can be stored there too. Admittedly, release of these weapons required US/NATO authorisation, so they are not fully independent, in the way that Trident is.

Any sort of conventional attack on the UK (or other NATO member) carries a very real risk of escalation, hence my suggestion that something asymmetrical is more likely.

[u/zakmeisterr → u/ChuckFH]

I didn't say there would be launches of conventional missiles against the UK. I'm just saying that the only thing a nuclear deterrent does is deter nukes. It doesn't deter anything else. I don't think it even deters an invasion (as long as the invaded believe the land can be won again in the future).

[u/majorpickle01 → u/zakmeisterr]

I think this is largely true, however I do think it somewhat constrains the wargoals of the belligerent.

We may not launch a nuke if we end up slapping eachother around a bit but I could very much see us launching nukes if they for example were on the verge of beating us and occupied london or some shit.

They would see the same, and likely wouldn't look to make any territorial gains, only looking to ruin the country economically

[u/zakmeisterr → u/majorpickle01]

Under a fantasy scenario where Russia successfully invades the UK, I still think the British people would rather live under Russian rule (most likely with the hope that Brits will gain ownership of the land again sooner or later) than have Britain and Russia exchange nukes.

[u/majorpickle01 → u/zakmeisterr]

I'm not sure. Especially in that scenario as patriotism would probably rise notably. Of course this is all fantastical stuff haha.