We might do it later..

[JBR]

Wouldn't put it past these nutters to launch missiles at US bases though,  which could bring UK into the conflict.

Yes, to the first point.  The second point?  Well, I can't see TwoTier sticking his neck out, the coward that he is.
Even if he does manage to make a big decision, he would have to have a series of long discussions with his nearest 'advisors' before anything is decided, and by then the war will be over.  Trump won't hang about.

[klondike]

He'd been urging Trump not to bomb and Trump ignored him entirely as he has all foreign advice. Right now Trump is the most powerful leader in the world and can do just what he likes. I can't in all truth say that makes me sleep better at night though as Trump is interested in one thing only and that is the greater glory of Trump.

[Alex]

US is a member of NATO so I thought an attack on a NATO member meant other NATO members like us, were bound to offer support ? 

[klondike]

In theory yes but if Putin should nuke, say, Paris or London do you really think that any US President is going to start Armageddon by nuking the Russians? I don't. Nor will they necessarily step in if/when the Russians invade those NATO states in the Balkans. Or come to that Germany or France.

If they have boosted their militaries by the time the Balkan states are threatened then maybe other mainland European NATO states will assist but go in full time? I'm doubtful.

[Alex]

Goes back to the same old thing we were saying really, Putin having the bomb is a lot different than the Ayatollahs having it ! 

[muddy]

Why would we allow a fanatical death cult with the mores of the 7th century have a nuclear weapon .

[Michael Rolls]

Why indeed? Inviting suicide

[JBR]

In theory yes but if Putin should nuke, say, Paris or London do you really think that any US President is going to start Armageddon by nuking the Russians? I don't. Nor will they necessarily step in if/when the Russians invade those NATO states in the Balkans. Or come to that Germany or France.

It makes you wonder what, if any, membership of NATO is worth having.
It sounds like we might be on our own now, but at least we still have our own nuclear weapons.

[klondike]

IMO we have little to fear from nukes from any of the declared big players as they are aware of the possible consequences.

Even though a return launch from a single UK sub is pretty small beer the Ukrainians have already amply demonstrated that Russian air defences are little better than Captain Mainwaring and Private Pike catching the missiles in butterfly nets and Putin must surely have an inkling of that even though I doubt anybody dare tell him. He isn't completely mad and doesn't want to risk losing most of his major cities. The same is far from true of the Iranians I imagine.

[Mups]

He'd been urging Trump not to bomb and Trump ignored him entirely as he has all foreign advice. Right now Trump is the most powerful leader in the world and can do just what he likes. I can't in all truth say that makes me sleep better at night though as Trump is interested in one thing only and that is the greater glory of Trump.

I am inclined to agree with you there, Klondike.

When Trump was telling Putin to stop attacking Ukraine,  wasn't Putin supposed to have said  Trump was only after getting a  big badge? 

[JBR]

IMO we have little to fear from nukes from any of the declared big players as they are aware of the possible consequences.

Even though a return launch from a single UK sub is pretty small beer the Ukrainians have already amply demonstrated that Russian air defences are little better than Captain Mainwaring and Private Pike catching the missiles in butterfly nets and Putin must surely have an inkling of that even though I doubt anybody dare tell him. He isn't completely mad and doesn't want to risk losing most of his major cities. The same is far from true of the Iranians I imagine.

As I understand it, each of our four SLBM submarines can carry up to 16 missiles, each containing three or four warheads.
In practice, we only have one at sea and capable of launching, the other three are in refit or being kept 'at home' for some other reason.  It is possible, however, that an additional one might be sent out if things become heated!
Even accepting that we have only one on duty and capable of launching missiles, and even if it does not carry a full load for some reason (perhaps we haven't paid the Yanks for some of their missiles!), say we launch twelve missiles and each is targeted at one of twelve cities, we could obliterate Moscow and St Petersburg along with another ten cities or other locations.  That may not wipe the whole of Russia off the map, but it would completely destroy the majority of its population.
Of course, we and other allied countries would also be destroyed, probably beyond repair.
My point is that if a nuclear war took place between Russia and the UK, we would both be effectively removed from the planet, and that's without the US taking part. 
That is what is called 'the nuclear deterrent'.  The Ruskies dare not attack us with nuclear weapons or they destroy themselves too.
What we could hope for is a limited exchange, say one missile from Russia to warn us (Londonistan hopefully, no great loss!) and in return we could send one to Moscow in return.  Having experience the consequences first hand, both they and us would see a very good reason to call a halt.  I'm looking on the bright side, of course!

[klondike]

There is zero point in anybody sending a single nuke because the odds are it wouldn't be just one back. The aim with a pre-emptive strike would be to wipe out all chances of any response at all so it would be none or most of them for sure.

As an aside on that nukes apparently require a considerable amount of expensive maintenance to ensure they are in working order. Apparently the Yanks spend more on that than the entire Russian military budget. You have to ask yourseld do the Russians actually have any working nukes considering corruption uses up the bulk of their conventional military budget which is why their 3 day invasion of Ukraine is now in it's fourth year and at the current rate of progress won't be completed this century.

[JBR]

There is zero point in anybody sending a single nuke because the odds are it wouldn't be just one back. The aim with a pre-emptive strike would be to wipe out all chances of any response at all so it would be none or most of them for sure.

As an aside on that nukes apparently require a considerable amount of expensive maintenance to ensure they are in working order. Apparently the Yanks spend more on that than the entire Russian military budget. You have to ask yourseld do the Russians actually have any working nukes considering corruption uses up the bulk of their conventional military budget which is why their 3 day invasion of Ukraine is now in it's fourth year and at the current rate of progress won't be completed this century.

I'm sure there is some doubt about that.  I have more confidence in the validity of China's nukes.  They have more money and possibly more expertise.

[Scrumpy]

5 am... ceasefire...  
  I hope this is true... Well done Trump...

Until the next time... It won't last long.. Nothing ever does out there..

[klondike]

Well that didn't for sure...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-iran-ceasefire-trump-us-tehran-qatar-missiles-latest-b2775592.html

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-trump-us-strikes-israel-tehran-netanyahu-nuclear-fordow-latest-13382979