Ukraine Invasion: Part 21

[MagicFox]

Another thread, thank you to all

And how would that even be possible given how nuclear deterrence works?

@notimagain

So I'm seeing something different from other posters in this nonsense TV claim that the UK has a secret plan of aggression to nuke Russia.I would sincerely hope we had and still have one. If not several. That's what we pay all those clever people for isn't it ?

FWIW it's absolutely no secret at all that the UK had at least two such plans, one to do the job in coordination with the US, one to do the job if the UK decided to act alone.......

Are you quite sure about that, bearing in mind the word ‘aggression’ in the quote? I would expect us to have had plans for retaliation should they attack us first but aggressive attacks on Russia are not something that has ever been part of our foreign policy afaik.

@MagicFox

And how would that even be possible given how nuclear deterrence works?

I would hope part of the deterrence is the other side being made aware of what you could do first.

These past 43 years we could have built a brand new hospital and school combo every week - and staffed them - to the present day with all the money we have spent on Polaris and then Trident and Trident II. I'd be a bit peeved if it turned out to be wasted.

aggressive attacks on Russia are not something that has ever been part of our foreign policy afaik.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't have been planned out.

I would hope part of the deterrence is the other side being made aware of what you could do first.

Exactly...

notimagain

Not true. The UK had no aggressive plans to use nuclear force anywhere, and never had, and never will have. That has never been part of UK policy, with or without the US.

I'd like to know where you think you got your information.

Yea I'd like to know too if it's 'absolutely no secret'

The UK had no aggressive plans to use nuclear force anywhere, and never had, and never will have. That has never been part of UK policy, with or without the US.

Because Boris said so ?

On the basis you can't prove a negative and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, then this won't be resolved this afternoon on Mumsnet.

However as a taxpayer, I would damn well hope that someone, somewhere - no matter how insane it sounded - did look into the issues of a first-strike on Russia, if not a full blown "plan"

So is the opinion here is that NATO / UK has a "No First Use" policy when it comes to nuclear weapons?

No, but to be fair @notimagain you said that "it is absolutely no secret at all that the UK had at least two such plans, one to do the job in coordination with the US, one to do the job if the UK decided to act alone". We're just asking where the evidence is/how you know this?

Also, yes I did think that no first use is the policy

DGRossetti

As I guess you know as well as me, nuclear policy predates Boris Johnson by decades.

Though I see that's not strictly true and the policy is more aligned with Russia's/us? But anyway, it's the point about a planned attack on Ru that we're talking about

@notimagain

So is the opinion here is that NATO / UK has a "No First Use" policy when it comes to nuclear weapons?

The UK has around 200 war heads, enough to devastate Russia, if they were all launched but they wouldn't be before Russia responded.

Any PM really would have gone Full Tonto if we were to independently attack Russia or whoever.

Look Putin isn't going to use a Nuclear weapon, he is a very long way from the nuke trigger, much less the UK attack Russia.

All this talk is just scare mongering, there is enough real problems in Ukr to discuss without making stuff up & if i'm wrong, we'll have 8 mins to argue the point :)

If you're in charge of forecasting the future, you have to develop many, many 'what-if' scenarios. Out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of scenarios, the govt would be highly remiss if they did not play out possible nuclear options. If nothing else so that the Disaster Planners in every council have something to work with.

Feet on the ground!

As for most of the Russian soldiers I'm sure Hills is right. We hear the worst, just as I'm sure not all Ukrainians are shining white knights and Russia broadcasts their less-admirable comments.

And if we're lucky, Johnson will be gone first.

@MagicFox

Though I see that's not strictly true and the policy is more aligned with Russia's/us? But anyway, it's the point about a planned attack on Ru that we're talking about

....Last time I looked at this subject in any detail, and as I recall it, the UK wasn't prepared declare what it''s policy on "first use" was, one way or the other, and US has openly stated they what to keep the option open for "first use"....

...and if you have a policy, there will be a plan/plan(s) even if it's highly highly highly unlikely to be used.

@strawberriesarenot

DGRossetti

As I guess you know as well as me, nuclear policy predates Boris Johnson by decades.

You mean it's remained unchanged since Britain was first a nuclear power ?

Maybe it's in need a of a refresh. Nadine Dorries is probably well placed to pick up that job.

@Ijsbear

If you're in charge of forecasting the future, you have to develop many, many 'what-if' scenarios. Out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of scenarios, the govt would be highly remiss if they did not play out possible nuclear options. If nothing else so that the Disaster Planners in every council have something to work with.

Feet on the ground!

As for most of the Russian soldiers I'm sure Hills is right. We hear the worst, just as I'm sure not all Ukrainians are shining white knights and Russia broadcasts their less-admirable comments.

There is no disaster planning for councils to work with in the event of nuclear war and you certainly wouldn't tell a council your nuclear launch plans.

Point here is no one knows, its pure speculation, pointless when there are very real concerns over what Russia does next in Donbas & should it win there, what that means for the rest of Ukraine.

When you wrote Nadine Dorries I started thinking of the rest of them. Rees Mog. Patel. Sir Gavin. Liz someone-pass-me-at-atlas Truss.

I don't know what we've done to deserve this shower.

I hope you're joking about Dorries?! Might be a better option the Patel though.

strawberries I console myself that I didn't vote for any of them and that Zelenskyy seems to have a good working relationship with Johnson.

Patel and nuclear defence system in the same sentence. Have you taken leave of your senses? The whole world would be dead.

Johnson just hopes a bit of the Zelensky shine will rub off on him, I suspect. I don't think he cares what's happening in Ukraine.

Certainly not - there's a typo in my post. Dorries would be better than Patel. That really would be a death wish. That awful woman's response to critics of the Rwanda policy confirmed everything I've ever thought about her, none of it good.