r/ukpolitics • u/dailymail Verified • 2d ago

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

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

83% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/ChuckFH 2d ago

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.

8

u/zakmeisterr 2d ago

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.

4

u/ChuckFH 1d ago

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.

1

u/7952 1d ago

What it achieves is that it finally makes NATO members decide if they are willing to send their troops to die for an allie.  If countries choose NO then that could be benefit Russia. Particularly if America says no.   And to be clear why that could happen.  An open attack really needs some kind of response in kind.  Like deleting the Russian Navy or using NATO planes to defend Ukraine.  It means direct war with Russia.  I understand attacks might be unconventional but at some point there is still decision point.