• FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    This may need to start very soon. On 24 February, the UN general assembly voted on a Ukrainian resolution, co-sponsored by the UK and other European nations, condemning Russia’s invasion. Unsurprisingly, Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Hungary and several small and easily cowed states voted against it. But so did the US andIsrael. This, more clearly than any other shift, exposes the new alignment. An axis of autocracy, facilitating an imperial war of aggression, confronts nations committed (albeit to varying degrees) to democracy and international law.

  • snaprails @feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    No one dares to ask? Or just no one needs to ask since the answer is obviously “we’re fucked”.

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’ve been asking this since Trump declared for Russia. UK has nukes, they lease the missiles from the US, and those missiles supposedly have a shelf life, but in a pinch, push comes to shove, they probably can be extended use for decades, also, France makes missiles that would carry British nuclear warheads, so there’s that. Donald Trump, Making The European Union Great Again

    • zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Trident’s functionality is entirely reliant on the US.

      Our nuclear deterrent is the US’s nuclear deterrent but it’s parked in Scotland to have access to Russia’s western front.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I don’t really understand this.

        The subs are British and are commanded by Royal Navy Officers. They can launch autonomously as target sites autonomously as that’s the whole point of the UKs deterent, to operate after first strike has occurred and all friendly infrastructure / command structure has been destroyed.

        A RN officer will not take orders from a US officer, so how is Trident sub or weapon under control of the US?

        • zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          https://www.ft.com/content/762cd291-2a62-4e00-b69f-c60f9ee31a6e?sharetype=blocked

          The “functionality is entirely reliant on the US”. I.e. in order for Trident to function we need missiles from the US to carry the atomic warheads and we need to spend money every few years to replace old and out of date missiles. If the US decided to stop selling us the missiles Trident would cease to function. Ergo they have outsized control over our nuclear deterrent.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            If we wanted to launch the missiles today we could. So in your mind the plan on the part of the US is to wait about 20 years until the missiles don’t work and then invade?

  • MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The best way to defend a country from the US is to not engage them in traditional warfare but use guerilla tactics until they give in and go home. They’ve lost multiple wars this way.

    • Khrux@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is what the US have encouraged Taiwan to do. Taiwan wanted to purchase a few incredibly expensive fighters and ship from the USA, but basically all war simulations just had China target these and secure a fast win. The USA instead encourage Taiwan to take the “porcupine” technique, spreading many small weapons, particularly handheld anti-aircraft type weaponry across the country. The plan is to make invasion too inconvenient. The flip side is that without a reliable way to show a display of strength, anywhere the larger aggressor does pick on (USA to UK China to Taiwan) can focus on one part of the country and reliably cause massive damage there.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If they invade the UK we’re just going to throw all their bud light in the sea. See how they like it.

    • Lemming421@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      But also to not have multiple US military bases already on British soil.

      I’m not a military person, but I feel that could be seen as tactically unwise…

      • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        Dont they technically own those bases? They ones i remember were very explicitly named RAF (Royal Air Force), don’t know about other US branches presence

      • wiccan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is what I was saying to someone a couple of weeks ago when Musk was talking about liberating the UK.

        They don’t need to invade us, they’re already here.

    • MurrayL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Unfortunately even then the M.O. is to flatten half the country, dismantle any existing government, then half-heartedly declare victory before leaving any survivors to clean up the mess.