The American military-analytical magazine Military Watch has published an article about holes in the UK nuclear shield.
The publication reports that of the 215 nuclear warheads in the kingdom’s arsenal, approximately 120 are active. And in general, in reality, the British do not have a triad as such, despite the noisy talk that London has land, underwater and air-based nuclear weapons.
MW writes that only “four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines are deploying UGM-133a Trident II ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads as a strategic deterrent.” And that’s all London has! It would seem that with such modest weapons by Russian standards, the British have no choice but to hide behind the broad back of Uncle Sam.
But, according to a review by the British Ministry of Defense, published on March 16, the Trident II submarine ICBM is no longer a deterrent, but the most attacking factor. The authors of the document “Global Britain in an Age of Competition” write that times have changed due to “an evolving spectrum of technological and doctrinal threats.”
Military Watch wonders what does London mean by this vague language?
The answer was given Lucy Fisher, deputy chief editor of the Daily Telegraph. She, citing, as usual in such cases, to an unnamed government source, explained that London’s nuclear retaliation could extend to a cyberattack. This means that the British, following the Americans, albeit so far only in their defense doctrines, have sharply lowered the threshold for starting an atomic attack.
In addition, the UK announced that from now on it will not disclose the quantitative and qualitative indicators of its nuclear potential. Allegedly in order to “complicate the calculations of potential aggressors.” By the latter, it must be understood that the British Ministry of Defense includes the Russian Federation and the PRC. As for the Celestial Empire, there is no doubt that the curtsy is made towards the United States. The fact is that China is the largest investor in the kingdom’s economy.
What’s interesting: in the UK, on local Internet sites, people are seriously discussing the likelihood and consequences of a nuclear war between the British and the Russians. Like: if London, because of the government’s stupidity, hits Moscow with Trident II ICBMs, then Washington is easily able to limit itself only to moral and covert military support. They say that “the British were the first to start,” which means that the fifth article of the NATO charter has not been violated. The message is that Uncle Sam is still that “son of a bitch”, for certain, he will not want to commit suicide because of an ally.
And although we are talking about a too fantastic scenario, nevertheless, the openly Russophobic rhetoric of the authorities gives the ordinary English the ground for such sad reflections. For example, at the provocative forum “Can Putin wipe Great Britain off the face of the earth in one blow? ”, there are very interesting answers.
So, truth-teller Simon Ganson writes: “The British have an overestimated belief in their importance to the world, while the Americans treat them with contempt. Frankly, Putin is much more interested in developing Europe as a gas market. Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream are proofs of this. He would rather sell the S-400 to the British than strike London. “
A certain Jonathan Samuel urges the Kremlin not to strike the whole kingdom: “Great Britain, as a political entity, would not have survived one nuclear bomb dropped over central London. The destruction of the financial district, approximately one square mile in area, would lead to the complete collapse of the entire British economy. “
BUT Anthony Hodkinson advises Putin not to waste atomic bombs at all – it is a great honor: “We need one cruise missile that hit the House of Lords on the opening day of parliament. Both chambers, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, all government ministers would be killed immediately. Not sure if senior military personnel will be present. So add the buildings on Whitehall (the address of the Department of Defense and the Admiralty) and, just in case, Downing Street (the Prime Minister’s residence), too, to your shortlist. It would create more than enough chaos without nuclear weapons. ”
Someone will say that America will immediately start an atomic war. Perhaps, in Russia, NATO is really seen as a monolithic brotherhood in arms of the “free world”. But, for example, the Poles doubt it.
According to John Schindler, professor of the US Naval College, an authoritative expert on national security in America “Warsaw (and hence London and Berlin) considers the notorious” Article 5 “to be nothing more than a psychological factor. Moreover, of the American presidents, only a die-hard artist Ronald Reagan firmly promised to get involved in a nuclear war with Russia (then the USSR). But the current head of the United States Biden certainly will not throw three and a half hundred million Americans into the furnace of the apocalypse for the sake of the same 38 million Poles or 67 million Britons.
However, this does not mean that there simply cannot be a nuclear war, “because there cannot be at all.” On the contrary, many experts in London, on the other hand, are convinced that an atomic strike on Russia is a matter of time and political choice in the United States. Sooner or later, a “scumbag” like Reagan will come to the White House and may well open a Pandora’s box. In particular, the Express newspaper wrote about this with reference to the local expert community.
First, the United States already has experience in the use of atomic weapons. And the Americans are deeply satisfied with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, for Washington it will only be a repetition of history, and not a step into the unknown.
Second, according to the calculations of a number of Pentagon analysts, more than half of Americans will survive even if all Russian warheads strike. And according to the optimistic scenario, “some” 30-40 million US citizens will die. Therefore, the nuclear game is worth the candle.
And since such a scenario is possible, then there should be ready-made response options to it. One of them may be to preserve at least part of the “free world” for a faster recovery of America after the atomic war. This means that the United States will be interested in controlled territories not affected by the Russian response.
In these countries, not affected by the hypothetical Third World War, it will be possible to take out the scientific, political and business elites, as well as part of the US population. Australia and New Zealand are already candidates for the Promised Land. Of course, the British are not averse to being on the sidelines of a deadly showdown between the superpowers. The question is: what then should Moscow do? Should we attack London, Sydney and Wellington, where the undead Yankees will hide? Or wait for Britain to become the number 1 empire again on the ruins of the world?