this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
87 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4427 readers
165 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
87
The question no one dares ask: what if Britain has to defend itself from the US? | George Monbiot (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Indoril@feddit.uk 2 points 10 hours ago

Our militaries are inextricably linked at this point. But it would be the immediate capture and seizure of all American personnel in the country, then a rapid return of British troops to national soil. The EU and Commonwealth would join us, and we would smash the Americans. Their morale would be zero, half of them would desert/rebel/defect and they'd be fighting a world war on multiple fronts. We would just have to hope Trump doesn't press the red button. In that situation that would trigger a second strike of UK & French nukes straight back at them, and the USA and Europe would be glass. Russia and China achieve world domination.

Regarding Trident, that would be an incredibly sticky situation. Immediately our deterrent would be diminished, long term (2-3 years) it would be gone. There would have to be lightning fast deal made with the French, full refit of the subs and warheads for their missiles.

[–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 42 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Lemming421@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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…

[–] wiccan2@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week 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.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lemming421@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

If they’re full of US military personnel, does it matter who legally owns the land? 😉

[–] Khrux@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 week ago

The chances of a future where the UK and USA go to war where those military bases aren't long since gone is nearly impossible.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds like US domestic policy

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sound like the American War of Independence against The British

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Time truly is circular

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

The sea will throw it back

[–] match@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago

how should i use this info if I'm already in the us

[–] Khrux@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 week 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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah best get building your rainforest back up

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 1 week ago

us person here and every commercial segment of crunchy roll has a military recruitment ad and the ads are nuts. Granted this was made two years ago but its so orwellian. Massive effort to defund social safety nets here to give kids from poor backgrounds few options. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9gTAjbiQEM

[–] Teknikal@eviltoast.org 6 points 1 week ago

Article 5 happens the same as if they invade Canada or even Greenland.

[–] snaprails@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago

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

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

guess I'll just be invaded

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

Long term due to maintenance...sure

...but today we have all we need to launch a strike.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week 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?

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week 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.