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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
If they’re full of US military personnel, does it matter who legally owns the land? 😉
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.
Sounds like US domestic policy
Sound like the American War of Independence against The British
Time truly is circular
If they invade the UK we’re just going to throw all their bud light in the sea. See how they like it.
The sea will throw it back
how should i use this info if I’m already in the us
Article 5 happens the same as if they invade Canada or even Greenland.
No one dares to ask? Or just no one needs to ask since the answer is obviously “we’re fucked”.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Long term due to maintenance…sure
…but today we have all we need to launch a strike.
