Agreed. We would be into a whole new uncharted territory if either a nuke or a dirty bomb was utilised.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agreed. We would be into a whole new uncharted territory if either a nuke or a dirty bomb was utilised.No, but the US and UK could well do so if they decided to -- not that I think they would, mind you. I think a dirty bomb would result in a no-fly zone, though, which would either end the invasion or spur Russian escalation, which is why it's not been applied yet. Keep in mind that Biden has already warned of catastrophic consequences of Russia setting off a nuke, and Petraeus has already outlined a possible non-nuclear response as well.
It's hard to say what the Western response would be to a simple dirty bomb
One thing this war has brought to the fore is just how underfunded and equipped the British armed forces are. There is a huge submarine deficit, for example, where Britain once had more than a dozen nuclear attack boats (SSNs) they now have six. On escorts, they have a total of ten frigates and six destroyers. The new QE class carriers have less than two dozen F-35s between them. Britain does not have the ability to undertake any bilateral moves with the US against Russia, beyond the smallest supporting role.No, but the US and UK could well do so if they decided to -- not that I think they would, mind you.
One thing this war has brought to the fore is just how underfunded and equipped the British armed forces are. There is a huge submarine deficit, for example, where Britain once had more than a dozen nuclear attack boats (SSNs) they now have six. On escorts, they have a total of ten frigates and six destroyers. The new QE class carriers have less than two dozen F-35s between them. Britain does not have the ability to undertake any bilateral moves with the US against Russia, beyond the smallest supporting role.
One thing this war has brought to the fore is just how underfunded and equipped the British armed forces are. There is a huge submarine deficit, for example, where Britain once had more than a dozen nuclear attack boats (SSNs) they now have six. On escorts, they have a total of ten frigates and six destroyers. The new QE class carriers have less than two dozen F-35s between them. Britain does not have the ability to undertake any bilateral moves with the US against Russia, beyond the smallest supporting role.
That is a great contribution. The Ukrainians might have to paint out the red crosses. They're Russian aiming points.Rheinmetall from Germany to provide Ukraine with a modern field milita
With backing from the German government, Rheinmetall will soon be supplying the Ukrainian armed forces with a turnkey modern field hospital. The Ukrainianwww.armyrecognition.com
I don't, therefore, think the Brits would work outside of the context of full NATO involvement, but they may if they know the US is on the same page. They clearly don't have the power to work unilaterally and haven't for several decades, but in concert with the US and perhaps Canada they'd feel better about it.
One SSBN at sea is sufficient, so whatever is needed to maintain that. But those are a never use platform. I was referring to the SSNs, the attack boats. One of my good friends was the chief designer of the RCN's Halifax class frigates and well founded in British warship construction, and his word is that the RN is dramatically short on SSN capability.I wouldn't say six SSBNs is a shortfall, though it depends on capabilities.
Tanks, Rheinmetall, Ukraine needs your Leopard 2 tanks. IK, it's not up to you, but damn I hope you've got contingency plans for when/if Berlin finally gives the go ahead.Rheinmetall from Germany to provide Ukraine with a modern field milita
With backing from the German government, Rheinmetall will soon be supplying the Ukrainian armed forces with a turnkey modern field hospital. The Ukrainianwww.armyrecognition.com
One SSBN at sea is sufficient, so whatever is needed to maintain that. But those are a never use platform. I was referring to the SSNs, the attack boats. One of my good friends was the chief designer of the RCN's Halifax class frigates and well founded in British warship construction, and his word is that the RN is dramatically short on SSN capability.
Tanks, Rheinmetall, Ukraine needs your Leopard 2 tanks. IK, it's not up to you, but damn I hope you've got contingency plans for when/if Berlin finally gives the go ahead.
If Britain intervenes in Ukraine it's essentially declared war, if on a limited scale (initially) on Russia in all theatres, not just within Ukraine or the Black Sea. We must then expect the Russian navy, including its twenty-five SSNs and SSGNs plus twenty SSKs to sail into the North Atlantic to destroy undersea communications cables and otherwise disrupt trade. Russia's only means of hitting back at Britain is through the air and sea, so it will be a RN and RAF home defence affair, much less the army. That's why the decline of the RN is worrisome.Right, but as noted above this isn't really relevant to Ukraine. The UK's best response to this ongoing crisis is making sure the RAF is tip-top, and as they've been doing for a while now, training Ukrainians in basic military tactics. Attack boats cannot transit the Dardanelles to be useful.
How many times must we address this:Tanks, Rheinmetall, Ukraine needs your Leopard 2 tanks. IK, it's not up to you, but damn I hope you've got contingency plans for when/if Berlin finally gives the go ahead.
How many times must we address this:
It's possible that if Belarus does invade Ukraine, then that might tip Poland into supporting Ukraine.The whole idea that any European nation--UK included--will take unilateral military action in Ukraine is nonsense. The French have undertaken some unilateral ops in Africa in recent years but they've been small-scale. The only way European nations will do anything is (a) as part of a NATO operation, or (b) within a US-led coalition of the willing. Any other scenario is cloud-cuckoo land, I'm afraid.
If you think there is a shortfall now, wait until the next UK budget. I would be amazed if one of the new carries doesn't get mothballedI wouldn't say six SSBNs is a shortfall, though it depends on capabilities. I think they're Trident II? If so, that's a credible deterrent against any nation on Earth. The escort craft is definitely an issue, barely enough to put together a credible screen for the carriers even when only one is sailing -- the escorts will be undergoing refit etc as well.
But the economy of the country seems to be struggling to maintain even that, and with the new PM it looks like more austerity is in the cards.
I don't, therefore, think the Brits would work outside of the context of full NATO involvement, but they may if they know the US is on the same page. They clearly don't have the power to work unilaterally and haven't for several decades, but in concert with the US and perhaps Canada they'd feel better about it.
Nor would Lithuania. That puts Russia much closer to the Suwalki Gap as well.It's possible that if Belarus does invade Ukraine, then that might tip Poland into supporting Ukraine.
There is a good chance that the last thing Poland wants is Russia on its border.