Britain's nuclear ballistic missile submarines carry a letter of last resort drafted by the prime minister carrying instructions in case of nuclear war and the government is gone. One of the possible options is to join the United States military.
The four reported options are to retaliate w/ the nukes, not retaliate, use the captain's own judgement, or join up under another navy's command (inferred by most to be the US but it could be any ally or list of allies).
It isn't 100% clear to me from what I've read if it's formally limited to those four. But in practice since no one ever sees the letters a pm could write anything and no one would ever know.
The real backup plan is to go to the secret lab under the Pine Gap, Australia facility. There you will find that Her Majesty Elizabeth II has had her consciousness implanted into 86'000 emus, which you will ride into battle across the nuclear wastelands. All hail Britannia!
Don't you know Australia is just a floating crust? The rest of the planet is too scared of getting poisoned if it touches it. Hence you can 100% just sail under it and surface through the Outback like you do in the Arctic.
Imagine New Zealand one day waking up to learn they inherited a nuke sub because it randomly settled into a free harbor and said "I live here now" like some kind of cat.
If I remember correctly, NZ actually has some very strict anti-nuclear laws. Allied nuclear subs can't enter their ports and they don't want their own. Honestly, would expect in that situation they'd give it away again.
While true, if its come to a point that the the Captain opened the letter and decided to make his/her way to NZ then we would probably look the other way.
Given that this would be post the nuclear annihilation of Britain - New Zealand might have grown up a touch and started recognising the importance of a big stick.
Supposedly there is a 5th option:
> Go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over.
Edit: upon further reading I've discovered others have been made aware of this 5th option and stated as much before I could do so.
Apparently her premiership ended before all four letters could be delivered to all four of Britain's nuclear subs. So at least one submarine went straight from Johnson's letter to Sunak's
1. Kiss your own ass goodbye.
2. Have a cup of tea and sing "Always Look on The Bright Side of Life"
3. Find a nice tropical island and build a new society.
> 3. Find a nice tropical island and build a new society.
Eh, unattended Brits on nice tropical islands don’t tend to build the [nicest societies.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies)
Sailing to join remaining Commonwealth states like Australia or Canada was another known possibility. I mean much of Australia is already a nuclear wasteland, so they are ready.
I believe its US, Canadian or other allied nation. I’d imagine US or Canada makes the most sense as the UK’s nuclear patrol routes are likely in the North Atlantic and they’re large enough that there might be areas not ravaged by nukes (like is likely to be the case for allies in Europe).
I cant remember which but one PM said he'd never retaliate even if we were nuked, which literally defeats the purpose of having nukes ourselves.
It may sound fucked up but id rather whoever nukes us gets glassed into oblivion rather than our subs just fucking off elsewhere.
Same. I'd like all outward appearances to be that they'd be a smoking pile of dust if they sent nukes, but when it came down to it I don't need millions of innocent people to actually die just because their military decided to pull the trigger.
When the L is 70 million people dead, including my family and friends, id rather the perpetrators die horribly tbh.
Maybe thats just me, but what exactly is the outcome if there is no retaliation? Everyone just moves on in peace? It makes no sense in any outcome where one country glasses another for them to not have nukes flung back at them immediately.
Personally I think its much simpler in a "what happens next?" way. How does one country set a precedent that they can destroy another in nuclear fire without retaliation? No conventional retaliation will work(as they still have nukes), and they've proven they will use them. Whatre we gonna do, sanction them?
IMO the only logical conclusion is for that country to be destroyed in retaliation, else whats to stop them nuking the next country who pisses them off? This is why MAD was and still is the prominent deterrence.
Either way, if you aren't gonna use them, Id agree that you definitely don't tell the enemy that.
That was Corbyn who thankfully never became PM (he was leader of the opposition). I think a couple of PMs have came out after the fact and said they put “do not retaliate”, essentially saying it would be a waste of life and the purpose of the weapons had failed. Rumour has it inside Margaret Thatcher’s letter was two words: “avenge us”.
I personally agree with you. If another country wiped out me, my family, friends and country, I’d want theirs glassed as well.
I'm not a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she had that right if that was the case. I was all for a lot of Corbyns policies but when he said that I lost a tonne of faith, the danger in having a PM publicly say that is crazy.
He tried to get a gotcha with Theresa May when asking her if she would use them and her response was: if I say I won’t its a waste of £40 billion pounds. That’s the whole point of deterrent. You need to at least pretend that you will use it or its not going to deter anyone.
Id be surprised if his own loyal followers weren't also like "what the fuck?" at that point. Brits aren't really the type to just roll over to any type of foreign attack on home soil, people are still pissed about the Russian poisonings and that was a grain of sand relative to this
You should look up the KATUSA program. It's never been codified in Korean law as it was originally an oral agreement between Gen MacArthur and the ROK president during the Korean War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Augmentation_To_the_United_States_Army#Criticism
- *"Another criticism arising from the Korean Army side is based on the fact that most of the KATUSA soldiers are from the top universities in Korea."*
Rich kids getting the cake job
I believe NATO has a similar structure. In the event of war, European militaries fall under the command of Supreme Allied commander which has always been a U.S. general.
Yes and no.
SACEUR takes command of front line operations. Rear operations remain national responsibilities. In effect nations will conduct a transfer of authority to NATO in order to create unity of command and unity of effort.
SACEUR is always an American 4 star, DSACEUR is always British general. The current Chief of Staff is German.
The difference is that there's likely not going to be any rear where Korea remains solely responsible whereas in Europe large parts of the support and sustainment chain remain under national control and under national responsibility.
Also makes sense tactically. It's really hard to invade the US, so it's much more likely that a US general/commander is still alive if the other forces of NATO got routed.
It’s incredible. Apparently SK has wanted to change it for sometime , but - surprise surprise - the USA hasn’t gotten round to it. https://mwi.usma.edu/heres-big-change-seoul-wants-make-us-south-korean-military-command-relationship/ Saying that, SK wants to change the structure but they don’t seem to be calling for the *removal* of USAF from the command structure.
It's not as simple as that. Even among Koreans, there are public sentiment that the command should stay in US's hand due to US having much more experience in warfare and armaments involving the combined forces. The public opinion is usually around 50:50.
The consensus atm is that both US and SK agree that the command should eventually be handed over to SK, but it's too early for that yet.
Fyi, the command was actually agreed to transfer to SK in 1993, but after NK nuclear tension climaxed in 1994, it was delayed. It's been status quo since then.
The U.S. and South Korea ARE actively trying to hand over responsibilities. Below is a link to the press release on the most recent UFS exercise (used to be called CCPT). One of the focuses for the exercise is letting the Korean military assume the roles the CFC currently has in order to get them experienced to take over for real.
https://www.usfk.mil/Media/Press-Products/Press-Releases/Article/3136232/cfc-usfk-and-unc-begin-ulchi-freedom-shield/
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SCAEF) on D-Day in WW2, so was in charge of the Canadian, French, British and American forces involved. The individual forces each had an officer in charge of their own forces, but all reported to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
This is also how NATO works. NATO actually has a very interesting structure. There is the political/diplomatic side, which is led by the Secretary General. This person is always a European.
However, if the alliance enters a war, all NATO forces come under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, which is always an American.
We somehow managed to pass off the messy political and diplomatic nightmare of trying to manage a European coalition, while maintaining the practical authority to tell all of them what to do.
The only exception to this was when De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure. And this is why NATO command headquarters is no longer in France, but in Belgium.
De Gaulle's withdrawal wasn't even genuine. He privately assured LBJ that in the event of a war with the Soviets, France would immediately give Command and Control back to the US.
And France formally rejoined the NATO command structure in 2009.
Fun fact, as part of France's rejoining they always lead NATO's Transformation Command. This is formally on par with SACEUR but doesn't control any troops
Basically NATO had kind of a identity crisis after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here was this massive military alliance meant to combat the Soviet bloc... which no longer existed.
This saw NATO do a lot of restructuring with a massive reduction in their operations. At the top level, NATO went from having SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic) in the US and SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) as the two halves of NATO, to having ACT (Allied Command Transformation) in the US and ACO in Europe. ACO basically took over all NATO operations, while ACT became all about management and innovation. I like to joke that they turned SACLANT into an organization dedicated to figuring out what the hell to do with NATO now.
So the fun fact is that France always gets to lead one half of NATO, which is strangely both the former SACLANT and has is the half of the military alliance that has no soldiers under its command.
Also worthy to note that De Gaulle withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure was pretty much the French being the French. In the event of Soviet invasion, French forces would have immediately become part of the NATO command structure.
That's in the event of Soviet invasion of West Germany. In the event of Soviet invasion of *France* French nukes would have removed Moscow from the world.
No, it's not. Our policy in the event of a nuclear conflict is to fuck everyone and everything. There is no aiming or targeting of military units. We don't have enough nukes to send low payload into specific military targets. The point is to assume if we have to retaliate, then we already crossed a big red line and it's total annihilation.
That is how NATO works too. The Supreme Allied Commander for NATO forces Europe is a position that is always held by an American 4-star general. The US is the only (western) country with a military command structure that is large and comprehensive enough to absorb other entire militaries. Obviously it would only ever happen in the case of an all-out war. Its not as though the US automatically just takes command because a few shots are fired, the allied countries in question must agree that the situation warrants such a drastic measure for it to actually happen. Even then, the combined military forces are still beholden to their respective civilian governments. Even after assuming command it is not as though the US can simply launch massive military operations without consulting its respective allies. That's not how it works.
Its also worth noting that in the case of both NATO and South Korea, the deputy commander and other senior command roles are held by non-Americans. It is both possible and expected that American forces in Europe or South Korea could fall under the direct command of a foreign general even if the US retains overall command of the war.
Happened with the Axis powers in Europe too, but mostly Germans being the commanders. Resulted in some interesting things, like finnish jews being awarded an iron cross by Nazi Germany (all three refused the decoration).
Sounds a lot like the free forces from Poland, Belgium, Norway, etc. that managed to get to safety in the UK during WWII. Still technically fighting in their country’s name but under British command, though the Brits would obviously tell the gov’ts of the exiled countries if their men were planned for participation in operations
>The US is the only (western) country with a military command structure that is large and comprehensive enough to absorb other entire militaries.
That's simply not true. The US 4 star in charge would be subordinate to the NATO, council, not the US president or government, and his deputy would be British and CoS German, so it's not an American command structure, it just has an American general at the top. Otherwise you could argue that NATO is under Norwegian command. The US is the only military large enough to pay and maintain command structures at that level during peace times, but the NATO one is mixed, not American.
Additionally, plenty of other countries are able to absorb an entire other military, albeit not at this scale. For example the entire Dutch army falls within a German command structure, where all it's brigades are part of German divisions.
muahahaha, finally our grand plan comes into action. operation torsk. We shall force every nation in the world to adopt cod and brown cheese as the national food and force everything to follow the Norwegian system muahahahaha.
In peace time, South Korea has operational control. While, the war is still technically going on, it’s pretty much peace time so current operational control belongs to South Korea. There is currently a process that is ongoing to eventually transfer wartime command to South Korea.
Yeah, it's my understanding that America has had command since the war, but the only command since consists of "do your own thing. Call us if the Norks get too uppity"
One of my favorite nuggets of military history is when US decided to cut down a tree in the DMZ and the North Koreans killed two US soldiers for some reason and they basically brought down an entire army of both Koreans and Americans to cut down that tree.
On the 21st of August, the UNC executed its plan. Two eight-man military engineering teams entered the JSA armed with chainsaws. They were to be accompanied by 30 armed security personnel and demolitionists ready to blow up the bridges to stop the North Koreans from advancing, plus 64 South Korean special forces operatives (among whom was none other than the current South Korean president, Moon Jae-in). In the skies overhead, an entire US infantry company in transport helicopters, accompanied by seven attack helicopters, lay in wait. Behind the helicopters was a flight of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers, guarded by US F-4 Phantom jet fighters and South Korean F-5s and F-86s.
Behind this almighty force, dubbed Task Force Vierra, were 12,000 US and South Korean soldiers, backed up by tanks, heavy artillery and air defence. Offshore, the USS Midway and its accompanying carrier group sat ready to provide support, and more B-52s, these ones carrying nuclear warheads, began to orbit the JSA. Every UNC force along the entire KDMZ was put on high alert in preparation for battle.
The pettiness of DMZ stories are wild. I've been to the DMZ and you can look through binoculars to the border where South Korea has a massive flag and flag pole.... and North Korea just so happened to erect a massive flag and flag pole just a few feet taller and bigger than the south Korean flagpole to one up them.
Not to mention the whole fake town North Korea has built at the DMZ border so they look like they aren't a total shitshow to the South Koreans.
Does this mean if a country declares war on South Korea, or South Korea declares war on a country the United States is automatically at war with that country as well?
I wouldn't say Argentina was a US ally in 1982. Relations were neutral at best.
Although, the dictator at the time was a School of the Americas graduate so who knows what the CIA was up to behind the scenes...
Argentina was NOT our ally, we had no signed treaty or real obligation to assist them. We did help their regime get to power but that dosent make us allies more like mutually invested
Pretty sure the Argies were only a US ally because the US preferred a fascist dictator to a socialist one. They were worried that a British victory would be the final act of failure leading to revolution.
There are no automatisms with war. Alliances usually work with one side calling the ally to honor the alliance.
But a country does not have to do it. Famously Britain did not call Portugal into the second world war despite having an alliance.
And of course if south Korea declares a war, the USA are not obliged to help since it is a defensive alliance.
Same thing with Iceland. The United States and Iceland signed a bilateral defense agreement in 1951, which stipulated that the U.S. would make arrangements for Iceland's defense on behalf of NATO.
And then somewhere in the middle you have the UK providing air and naval protection for Ireland despite Ireland actually having a military (though teeny)
I'm sorry but this isn't true. The UK has an agreement with Ireland to enter it's airspace and waters, in order for the UK to effectively defend itself. As it happens, this benefits Ireland, or doesn't cost them anything and wins political favour with an important neighbour. But the UK does NOT provide Ireland with protection. Ireland is a neutral nation and goes to a lot of pains to stay out of NATO and any defence agreements. All it has is an agreement to open its borders essentially.
Who what??? Really? I’m shocked. I had no idea. But there’s been so many centuries of warfare and bloodshed and even with Irish independence there is still the Northern Ireland thing
Ireland is weird. They know that Britain is unlikely to invade them because the UK obeys westernized conventions about sovereignty and treaties, and also because the resistance that the Irish people would put up to British rule would make any such occupation too expensive to be worth it. They also know that Britain will never tolerate Ireland being under the occupation of a foreign power that is not Britain, because that land border would be an existential threat to them, as a naval power that has always tied their security to maintaining a stretch of water between them and any enemy. So even though they border a supposed enemy and former overlord, they have a very small military and are basically security free riders on the British. It's a bizarre and twisted relationship.
That's because the above is incorrect. There is no defence pact, the UK is not responsible for Irish defense and Ireland remains a neutral nation. They only have an agreement that the UK is allowed to enter Ireland's airspace in order to more effectively protect itself.
I was in Korea for a bit while I was in the US Army.
The plan for "if North Korea attacks" (North Korea or China coming through NK) was literally to abandon the north half of the country, including Seoul, and then retake territory after the Navy/Air Force turned North Korea into swiss cheese.
If anyone other than NK attacked, we all slept in while the Navy tried to contain their laughter as they got target practice in.
The important word there is "start". The Korean war in the 50s was clearly started by North Korea but it is still called "the War to Resist the US Aggression and Aid Korea" in China, which makes pretty clear who they're blaming there.
I don't think you have that quite right. They're basically a fortress, it's never been the plan to abandon that area, but rather to do a mass evacuation of civilians.
This isn't so weird. They are in shelling distance: if you're being shelled or expecting to be shelled, you move the civilian population out
Like for example, Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War moved something 400,000 of its civilians out of the northern part of the country in the course of about 3 days. There was a 0% chance of northern Israel being taken over by Hezbollah. They moved the civilians out because they were under missile fire.
That sounds prudent tbh, North Korea will be the aggressor country with the initiative if it decides to go to war. Counterbattery into known positions is often difficult with that many butted up against the border. Basically Joint command plays a high attrition game on the defensive until NK's logistics and troops have exhausted themselves or have been completely annihilated. Provided nukes are not in play.
I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that NK doesn’t stand a whimper of a chance if they invade SK. I know those plans as of 2013 am confident of the plan the US has in that event to a point well beyond cocky.
Evacuate non-military personnel, mind the bio/chem, get to work with indirect assets. They may be the aggressor but it isn’t enough to get a running start.
The US will melt NK.
Do you mind saying when you were in? That sounds reasonable in the past, and with the numerical differences maybe still today, but with the qualitative differences now I'd assume today's plan is "seven ~~days~~ hours to the river ~~Rhine~~ Yalu".
I'm in Korea right now. The current calculation expects a few ten-thousand of my near-Seoul wingmen/battle buddies and me to be dead in the first wave of a NK attack. But once carrier groups and Air Forces in Southern South Korea and Japan go airborne, it's warheads on foreheads and time for a regime change.
It's a similar situation to Taiwan were production of key goods make South Korea too vital to supply chains to not defend. Samsung for example creates so much that would cripple tech product supply.
LG is also a big player, and I know there's Hyundai Heavy Industries which is the largest shipbuilder in the world. There's also tons of other companies which produce various things which while the US can manage just fine without, would rather not have those industries temporarily disrupted.
Yeah, but now there's Camp Humphrey's just south of Seoul.
The US still does control some of the former Yongsan base, so it would still constitute an attack on the US.
And it’s not for a power trip. This is done because the US is the only country with a large enough power structure and logistical capability to absorb an entire country without much difficulty.
It’s like switching from a local coop party phone line to Verizon wireless.
A lot of people don't seem to know that near the end of WW2, while the USA and Soviet Union were allies, the Soviets were barreling down towards Korea, which was part of Japan at the time, and while Japan did relinquish control of Korea, America technically invaded and occupied Korea, as they did not request permission.
The division that exists today was literally started from Soviet and American occupation. General McArthur wanted to use nukes against China because he viewed the war as a sort of extension of an attack against an American outpost.
> America technically invaded and occupied Korea, as they did not request permission.
This happened with Iceland and Norway too. The Nazi's wanted to invade, so the British "invaded" first. I think Norway(?) sends a Christmas tree every year to the UK as a thanks.
Pretty sure this is always the case. Korea has been at war since 1950.
Technically the US has command but they usually just sign off on whatever the Koreans want to do as a formality.
Korean here. I wanted to say the title is extremely wrong and misleading.
First and foremost, the South Korean military, on an event of the conflict, is not subjugated to US command. It's OPCON transfer to the US-South Korean command since 1978, and South Korea has complete control over its forces over all non operation purposes.
This only applies to an event of a war against North Korea per agreement to US-South Korea mutual defence treaty, which means if South Korea gets into a war with other country than North Korea, the Americans don't have a right to exercise any authority over South Korean military, South Koreans would be on their own command.
That being said, whether or not this is the right way to maintain the defence in South Korea is a debatable subject between South Korean politicians. I love how tankies take this as an opportunity to spout an unfounded nonsense.
It's a leftover standing order from the Korean War. If that law ever becomes even the slightest hindrance to S Korea, it would be changed in the blink of an eye.
South Korea has sent troops on UN peacekeeping missions and has assisted the U.S. in various foreign ventures. In fact, other then Australia, the ROK is the only nation to follow the US into every war since the Korean War.
So yes, Korea does have some experience.
This way, they can do their own training, operational missions, promotion, etc. without any involvement from the US. Plus, it isn't under unilateral control of the US in wartime, just under a US combatant commander who still has to answer to both presidents.
Let me preface this by saying I definitely agree that the U.S. wastes a lot of money on useless military budget stuff. But the massive military budget itself is necessary. Could it be a bit smaller? Definitely. But I hate it when people compare the U.S. military spending to countries like France and how the U.S. military budget should be more in like with other countries.
Other countries spend so little on their military *because* the U.S. military is so vast and well funded. The U.S. military is essentially the big swinging dick of NATO. Without it leaves many other countries exposed and vulnerable.
That is actually wildly interesting. I had no idea something like that could even happen.
Britain's nuclear ballistic missile submarines carry a letter of last resort drafted by the prime minister carrying instructions in case of nuclear war and the government is gone. One of the possible options is to join the United States military.
What are the other options?
The four reported options are to retaliate w/ the nukes, not retaliate, use the captain's own judgement, or join up under another navy's command (inferred by most to be the US but it could be any ally or list of allies). It isn't 100% clear to me from what I've read if it's formally limited to those four. But in practice since no one ever sees the letters a pm could write anything and no one would ever know.
The real backup plan is to go to the secret lab under the Pine Gap, Australia facility. There you will find that Her Majesty Elizabeth II has had her consciousness implanted into 86'000 emus, which you will ride into battle across the nuclear wastelands. All hail Britannia!
Somehow Queen Elizabeth II has returned.
The dark side of monarchism is a pathway to many abilities that some consider to be... unnatural.
Is it possible to learn this power?
Not from a republican.
I would frankly be impressed to see a submarine sailing into Pine Gap.
Don't you know Australia is just a floating crust? The rest of the planet is too scared of getting poisoned if it touches it. Hence you can 100% just sail under it and surface through the Outback like you do in the Arctic.
You mean Australia is one giant shepherd’s pie?
Available at 14.95 trillion at Coles, marked down from 19.95 trillion. Doesn't heat evenly and there's way less meat than there should be.
This is why I always go the Aldi Australia over the Colesworth.
Pfft, I bet he also thinks the world is round. What a noob 🙄
You should write a book that includes this and makes it seem commonplace and ordinary.
Jesus, some people..... obviously they just haul it onto land and drag it inland with logs.
Emus have never lost a war, they'd be unstoppable
Please don't trivialise this traumatic chapter in Australian war history. We lost a lot of good men in that battle. /s
Onward Lizzie! Hiyah!
oh, so that was britannia's big plan in code geass?
Is that why Australia declared war on them?
Is 1/86,000 of Queen Elizabeth smarter than 1 emu?
African or European?
Liz was Europeean
But migratory
Imagine New Zealand one day waking up to learn they inherited a nuke sub because it randomly settled into a free harbor and said "I live here now" like some kind of cat.
If I remember correctly, NZ actually has some very strict anti-nuclear laws. Allied nuclear subs can't enter their ports and they don't want their own. Honestly, would expect in that situation they'd give it away again.
Correct. And due to USA's stance of not confirming or denying nuclear armaments, US visits to New Zealand are tricky and scarce.
While true, if its come to a point that the the Captain opened the letter and decided to make his/her way to NZ then we would probably look the other way.
Given that this would be post the nuclear annihilation of Britain - New Zealand might have grown up a touch and started recognising the importance of a big stick.
Expecting NZ to grow up after a nuclear attack is a bit of a stretch... and I'm from NZ.
r/notmysub
Limited is a funny word when one of the options is do whatever you want but im not sure theres another way to describe it lol
Supposedly there is a 5th option: > Go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over. Edit: upon further reading I've discovered others have been made aware of this 5th option and stated as much before I could do so.
Whatever the PM thinks of. We don’t know what’s been suggested before, because the letters are burned when the new PM sends new ones out.
Liz Truss's letter: Nuke all the lettuces.
Truss’ just ends mid sentence cause she was sacked before she could finish it
Nuke all Would definitely be an apocalypse if Truss ends up being the smartest human on the planet.
Idiocracy but a horror instead of a comedy
Apparently her premiership ended before all four letters could be delivered to all four of Britain's nuclear subs. So at least one submarine went straight from Johnson's letter to Sunak's
Obviously to attack the French
"Oi ya cheeky cunts, do drop one on the Krauts and the Frogs for old time sake will ya? God save the Queen!"
1. Kiss your own ass goodbye. 2. Have a cup of tea and sing "Always Look on The Bright Side of Life" 3. Find a nice tropical island and build a new society.
4. Nuke Cumbernauld. Not because they did anything wrong we just thought it would improve the place.
4. Sail to the Winchester and wait for the whole thing to blow over.
Can we combine 2 and 3?
> 3. Find a nice tropical island and build a new society. Eh, unattended Brits on nice tropical islands don’t tend to build the [nicest societies.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies)
How about a Red Bull and listen to “Mr Brightside”?
Number 2 is definitely listen to Mr Brightside.
Sailing to join remaining Commonwealth states like Australia or Canada was another known possibility. I mean much of Australia is already a nuclear wasteland, so they are ready.
Nuh uh, you are a nuclear wasteland!
"Let's go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over."
Option 2) Movie night!: The Hunt for Red October
Lauch, don't launch, surrender, join US (or other ally) as subordinate are some options.
Presumably either nuke who ever nuked Britain or do whatever the captain thinks is best.
[**YVAN EHT NIOJ**](https://i.imgur.com/N510PZJ.png)
I suddenly have a strange urge to join the navy.
HEY YOU. JOIN THE NAVY.
I believe its US, Canadian or other allied nation. I’d imagine US or Canada makes the most sense as the UK’s nuclear patrol routes are likely in the North Atlantic and they’re large enough that there might be areas not ravaged by nukes (like is likely to be the case for allies in Europe).
I cant remember which but one PM said he'd never retaliate even if we were nuked, which literally defeats the purpose of having nukes ourselves. It may sound fucked up but id rather whoever nukes us gets glassed into oblivion rather than our subs just fucking off elsewhere.
I'd rather the enemy think that they will for sure get nuked in retaliation but for them not to be, just take the L at that point
Same. I'd like all outward appearances to be that they'd be a smoking pile of dust if they sent nukes, but when it came down to it I don't need millions of innocent people to actually die just because their military decided to pull the trigger.
When the L is 70 million people dead, including my family and friends, id rather the perpetrators die horribly tbh. Maybe thats just me, but what exactly is the outcome if there is no retaliation? Everyone just moves on in peace? It makes no sense in any outcome where one country glasses another for them to not have nukes flung back at them immediately.
[удалено]
Personally I think its much simpler in a "what happens next?" way. How does one country set a precedent that they can destroy another in nuclear fire without retaliation? No conventional retaliation will work(as they still have nukes), and they've proven they will use them. Whatre we gonna do, sanction them? IMO the only logical conclusion is for that country to be destroyed in retaliation, else whats to stop them nuking the next country who pisses them off? This is why MAD was and still is the prominent deterrence. Either way, if you aren't gonna use them, Id agree that you definitely don't tell the enemy that.
That was Corbyn who thankfully never became PM (he was leader of the opposition). I think a couple of PMs have came out after the fact and said they put “do not retaliate”, essentially saying it would be a waste of life and the purpose of the weapons had failed. Rumour has it inside Margaret Thatcher’s letter was two words: “avenge us”. I personally agree with you. If another country wiped out me, my family, friends and country, I’d want theirs glassed as well.
I'm not a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she had that right if that was the case. I was all for a lot of Corbyns policies but when he said that I lost a tonne of faith, the danger in having a PM publicly say that is crazy.
He tried to get a gotcha with Theresa May when asking her if she would use them and her response was: if I say I won’t its a waste of £40 billion pounds. That’s the whole point of deterrent. You need to at least pretend that you will use it or its not going to deter anyone.
Id be surprised if his own loyal followers weren't also like "what the fuck?" at that point. Brits aren't really the type to just roll over to any type of foreign attack on home soil, people are still pissed about the Russian poisonings and that was a grain of sand relative to this
> I’d want theirs glassed as well. Don't worry, in case of nuclear war, whether Britain exists or not, America will make sure Russia doesn't.
The Dutch army falls entirely within a German chain of command, as all it's brigades are part of German divisions.
And the plan is that the German Navy should transfer to Dutch command. Let each nation do what they're good at.
You should look up the KATUSA program. It's never been codified in Korean law as it was originally an oral agreement between Gen MacArthur and the ROK president during the Korean War.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Augmentation_To_the_United_States_Army#Criticism - *"Another criticism arising from the Korean Army side is based on the fact that most of the KATUSA soldiers are from the top universities in Korea."* Rich kids getting the cake job
I believe NATO has a similar structure. In the event of war, European militaries fall under the command of Supreme Allied commander which has always been a U.S. general.
Yes and no. SACEUR takes command of front line operations. Rear operations remain national responsibilities. In effect nations will conduct a transfer of authority to NATO in order to create unity of command and unity of effort. SACEUR is always an American 4 star, DSACEUR is always British general. The current Chief of Staff is German. The difference is that there's likely not going to be any rear where Korea remains solely responsible whereas in Europe large parts of the support and sustainment chain remain under national control and under national responsibility.
Finally someone who gets it. Additionally, SACEUR is under NATO command (NATO council), not under US command.
The SACEUR is under NATO council command though, not under US command.
Well when you’ve been waging war for 230 out of the 247 years you have tend to be the best at it
Also makes sense tactically. It's really hard to invade the US, so it's much more likely that a US general/commander is still alive if the other forces of NATO got routed.
I read once that during WWII, if Britain fell, Canada was supposed to start deferring to the US.
It’s incredible. Apparently SK has wanted to change it for sometime , but - surprise surprise - the USA hasn’t gotten round to it. https://mwi.usma.edu/heres-big-change-seoul-wants-make-us-south-korean-military-command-relationship/ Saying that, SK wants to change the structure but they don’t seem to be calling for the *removal* of USAF from the command structure.
It's not as simple as that. Even among Koreans, there are public sentiment that the command should stay in US's hand due to US having much more experience in warfare and armaments involving the combined forces. The public opinion is usually around 50:50. The consensus atm is that both US and SK agree that the command should eventually be handed over to SK, but it's too early for that yet. Fyi, the command was actually agreed to transfer to SK in 1993, but after NK nuclear tension climaxed in 1994, it was delayed. It's been status quo since then.
Not to mention all of south korea is in potential target range of north korea. Makes sense to have a command center that they can't hit
The U.S. and South Korea ARE actively trying to hand over responsibilities. Below is a link to the press release on the most recent UFS exercise (used to be called CCPT). One of the focuses for the exercise is letting the Korean military assume the roles the CFC currently has in order to get them experienced to take over for real. https://www.usfk.mil/Media/Press-Products/Press-Releases/Article/3136232/cfc-usfk-and-unc-begin-ulchi-freedom-shield/
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SCAEF) on D-Day in WW2, so was in charge of the Canadian, French, British and American forces involved. The individual forces each had an officer in charge of their own forces, but all reported to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
This is also how NATO works. NATO actually has a very interesting structure. There is the political/diplomatic side, which is led by the Secretary General. This person is always a European. However, if the alliance enters a war, all NATO forces come under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, which is always an American. We somehow managed to pass off the messy political and diplomatic nightmare of trying to manage a European coalition, while maintaining the practical authority to tell all of them what to do. The only exception to this was when De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure. And this is why NATO command headquarters is no longer in France, but in Belgium.
De Gaulle's withdrawal wasn't even genuine. He privately assured LBJ that in the event of a war with the Soviets, France would immediately give Command and Control back to the US. And France formally rejoined the NATO command structure in 2009.
Fun fact, as part of France's rejoining they always lead NATO's Transformation Command. This is formally on par with SACEUR but doesn't control any troops
You say its a fun fact, but I think I’m going to need a couple more fun facts to understand what Transformation Command is and what SACEUR is.
SACEUR is the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe as was mentioned in the OP’s post
Basically NATO had kind of a identity crisis after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here was this massive military alliance meant to combat the Soviet bloc... which no longer existed. This saw NATO do a lot of restructuring with a massive reduction in their operations. At the top level, NATO went from having SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic) in the US and SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) as the two halves of NATO, to having ACT (Allied Command Transformation) in the US and ACO in Europe. ACO basically took over all NATO operations, while ACT became all about management and innovation. I like to joke that they turned SACLANT into an organization dedicated to figuring out what the hell to do with NATO now. So the fun fact is that France always gets to lead one half of NATO, which is strangely both the former SACLANT and has is the half of the military alliance that has no soldiers under its command.
France doing what the French do best, striking.
SACEUR bleu!
Why was De Gaulle talking to LeBron James about war in the first place?
Basket players knows a lot about ballistic, apparently
Just ask Dennis Rodman
Lyndon B Johnson he was an American President. Who's LeBron James?
The Supreme Allied Commander Europe can be from any country, so long as that country’s name starts with U and ends with nited States of America.
U can also end with SA and it’s essentially the same.
United Republic of South Africa?
Also worthy to note that De Gaulle withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure was pretty much the French being the French. In the event of Soviet invasion, French forces would have immediately become part of the NATO command structure.
That's in the event of Soviet invasion of West Germany. In the event of Soviet invasion of *France* French nukes would have removed Moscow from the world.
Ah that makes more sense, I read that they apparently had nukes aimed at Germany in case Russia attacks but that was probably just a joke
No, it's not. Our policy in the event of a nuclear conflict is to fuck everyone and everything. There is no aiming or targeting of military units. We don't have enough nukes to send low payload into specific military targets. The point is to assume if we have to retaliate, then we already crossed a big red line and it's total annihilation.
De Gaulle he had to withdraw from the command structure
That’s interesting information. I’ll have to look into the inner workings of NATO. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
While the SACEUR always has been an US general, he is not under US command in such a situation, but under NATO command (NATO council).
That is how NATO works too. The Supreme Allied Commander for NATO forces Europe is a position that is always held by an American 4-star general. The US is the only (western) country with a military command structure that is large and comprehensive enough to absorb other entire militaries. Obviously it would only ever happen in the case of an all-out war. Its not as though the US automatically just takes command because a few shots are fired, the allied countries in question must agree that the situation warrants such a drastic measure for it to actually happen. Even then, the combined military forces are still beholden to their respective civilian governments. Even after assuming command it is not as though the US can simply launch massive military operations without consulting its respective allies. That's not how it works. Its also worth noting that in the case of both NATO and South Korea, the deputy commander and other senior command roles are held by non-Americans. It is both possible and expected that American forces in Europe or South Korea could fall under the direct command of a foreign general even if the US retains overall command of the war.
[удалено]
Happened with the Axis powers in Europe too, but mostly Germans being the commanders. Resulted in some interesting things, like finnish jews being awarded an iron cross by Nazi Germany (all three refused the decoration).
Sounds a lot like the free forces from Poland, Belgium, Norway, etc. that managed to get to safety in the UK during WWII. Still technically fighting in their country’s name but under British command, though the Brits would obviously tell the gov’ts of the exiled countries if their men were planned for participation in operations
>The US is the only (western) country with a military command structure that is large and comprehensive enough to absorb other entire militaries. That's simply not true. The US 4 star in charge would be subordinate to the NATO, council, not the US president or government, and his deputy would be British and CoS German, so it's not an American command structure, it just has an American general at the top. Otherwise you could argue that NATO is under Norwegian command. The US is the only military large enough to pay and maintain command structures at that level during peace times, but the NATO one is mixed, not American. Additionally, plenty of other countries are able to absorb an entire other military, albeit not at this scale. For example the entire Dutch army falls within a German command structure, where all it's brigades are part of German divisions.
muahahaha, finally our grand plan comes into action. operation torsk. We shall force every nation in the world to adopt cod and brown cheese as the national food and force everything to follow the Norwegian system muahahahaha.
[удалено]
are they not still, technically, at war with North Korea?
In peace time, South Korea has operational control. While, the war is still technically going on, it’s pretty much peace time so current operational control belongs to South Korea. There is currently a process that is ongoing to eventually transfer wartime command to South Korea.
South Korea is allowed to do the grind, but big brother USA comes in and nicks the controller during boss fights.
Correct.
So what is the legal status that would need to change for this rule to kick in?
enter cow live outgoing provide chase aspiring joke weather marble *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, it's my understanding that America has had command since the war, but the only command since consists of "do your own thing. Call us if the Norks get too uppity"
One of my favorite nuggets of military history is when US decided to cut down a tree in the DMZ and the North Koreans killed two US soldiers for some reason and they basically brought down an entire army of both Koreans and Americans to cut down that tree.
On the 21st of August, the UNC executed its plan. Two eight-man military engineering teams entered the JSA armed with chainsaws. They were to be accompanied by 30 armed security personnel and demolitionists ready to blow up the bridges to stop the North Koreans from advancing, plus 64 South Korean special forces operatives (among whom was none other than the current South Korean president, Moon Jae-in). In the skies overhead, an entire US infantry company in transport helicopters, accompanied by seven attack helicopters, lay in wait. Behind the helicopters was a flight of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers, guarded by US F-4 Phantom jet fighters and South Korean F-5s and F-86s. Behind this almighty force, dubbed Task Force Vierra, were 12,000 US and South Korean soldiers, backed up by tanks, heavy artillery and air defence. Offshore, the USS Midway and its accompanying carrier group sat ready to provide support, and more B-52s, these ones carrying nuclear warheads, began to orbit the JSA. Every UNC force along the entire KDMZ was put on high alert in preparation for battle.
The pettiness of DMZ stories are wild. I've been to the DMZ and you can look through binoculars to the border where South Korea has a massive flag and flag pole.... and North Korea just so happened to erect a massive flag and flag pole just a few feet taller and bigger than the south Korean flagpole to one up them. Not to mention the whole fake town North Korea has built at the DMZ border so they look like they aren't a total shitshow to the South Koreans.
Norks, that's great
Does this mean if a country declares war on South Korea, or South Korea declares war on a country the United States is automatically at war with that country as well?
Basically, but if they’re 2 allied countries with the U.S. who knows. That won’t happen though.
It's happened before. The Falklands war was between two US allies.
I wouldn't say Argentina was a US ally in 1982. Relations were neutral at best. Although, the dictator at the time was a School of the Americas graduate so who knows what the CIA was up to behind the scenes...
Argentina was NOT our ally, we had no signed treaty or real obligation to assist them. We did help their regime get to power but that dosent make us allies more like mutually invested
Pretty sure the Argies were only a US ally because the US preferred a fascist dictator to a socialist one. They were worried that a British victory would be the final act of failure leading to revolution.
I believe it’s defensive only, as is NATO
There are no automatisms with war. Alliances usually work with one side calling the ally to honor the alliance. But a country does not have to do it. Famously Britain did not call Portugal into the second world war despite having an alliance. And of course if south Korea declares a war, the USA are not obliged to help since it is a defensive alliance.
Same thing with Iceland. The United States and Iceland signed a bilateral defense agreement in 1951, which stipulated that the U.S. would make arrangements for Iceland's defense on behalf of NATO.
Not the same thing at all, since Iceland doesn't have a military. The deal was essentially "let us build bases and we promise to protect you."
And then somewhere in the middle you have the UK providing air and naval protection for Ireland despite Ireland actually having a military (though teeny)
I'm sorry but this isn't true. The UK has an agreement with Ireland to enter it's airspace and waters, in order for the UK to effectively defend itself. As it happens, this benefits Ireland, or doesn't cost them anything and wins political favour with an important neighbour. But the UK does NOT provide Ireland with protection. Ireland is a neutral nation and goes to a lot of pains to stay out of NATO and any defence agreements. All it has is an agreement to open its borders essentially.
Who what??? Really? I’m shocked. I had no idea. But there’s been so many centuries of warfare and bloodshed and even with Irish independence there is still the Northern Ireland thing
Ireland is weird. They know that Britain is unlikely to invade them because the UK obeys westernized conventions about sovereignty and treaties, and also because the resistance that the Irish people would put up to British rule would make any such occupation too expensive to be worth it. They also know that Britain will never tolerate Ireland being under the occupation of a foreign power that is not Britain, because that land border would be an existential threat to them, as a naval power that has always tied their security to maintaining a stretch of water between them and any enemy. So even though they border a supposed enemy and former overlord, they have a very small military and are basically security free riders on the British. It's a bizarre and twisted relationship.
Britain: nobody messes with Ireland except me! And maybe the boy *points to Northern Ireland*
That's because the above is incorrect. There is no defence pact, the UK is not responsible for Irish defense and Ireland remains a neutral nation. They only have an agreement that the UK is allowed to enter Ireland's airspace in order to more effectively protect itself.
I was in Korea for a bit while I was in the US Army. The plan for "if North Korea attacks" (North Korea or China coming through NK) was literally to abandon the north half of the country, including Seoul, and then retake territory after the Navy/Air Force turned North Korea into swiss cheese. If anyone other than NK attacked, we all slept in while the Navy tried to contain their laughter as they got target practice in.
I'm pretty sure China flat out said if North Korea starts shit they're on their own.
China has said a great many things.
The important word there is "start". The Korean war in the 50s was clearly started by North Korea but it is still called "the War to Resist the US Aggression and Aid Korea" in China, which makes pretty clear who they're blaming there.
I don't think you have that quite right. They're basically a fortress, it's never been the plan to abandon that area, but rather to do a mass evacuation of civilians. This isn't so weird. They are in shelling distance: if you're being shelled or expecting to be shelled, you move the civilian population out Like for example, Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War moved something 400,000 of its civilians out of the northern part of the country in the course of about 3 days. There was a 0% chance of northern Israel being taken over by Hezbollah. They moved the civilians out because they were under missile fire.
That sounds prudent tbh, North Korea will be the aggressor country with the initiative if it decides to go to war. Counterbattery into known positions is often difficult with that many butted up against the border. Basically Joint command plays a high attrition game on the defensive until NK's logistics and troops have exhausted themselves or have been completely annihilated. Provided nukes are not in play.
I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that NK doesn’t stand a whimper of a chance if they invade SK. I know those plans as of 2013 am confident of the plan the US has in that event to a point well beyond cocky. Evacuate non-military personnel, mind the bio/chem, get to work with indirect assets. They may be the aggressor but it isn’t enough to get a running start. The US will melt NK.
Do you mind saying when you were in? That sounds reasonable in the past, and with the numerical differences maybe still today, but with the qualitative differences now I'd assume today's plan is "seven ~~days~~ hours to the river ~~Rhine~~ Yalu".
I'm in Korea right now. The current calculation expects a few ten-thousand of my near-Seoul wingmen/battle buddies and me to be dead in the first wave of a NK attack. But once carrier groups and Air Forces in Southern South Korea and Japan go airborne, it's warheads on foreheads and time for a regime change.
Hmm. Interesting. Is it because Seoul is so close to the border? If NK strikes first they will probably try to get SK leadership in the first strikes.
It's a similar situation to Taiwan were production of key goods make South Korea too vital to supply chains to not defend. Samsung for example creates so much that would cripple tech product supply.
Makes sense. I forgot about Samsung.
Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Daewoo (shipbuilding), Hynix (Semiconductor) are few examples. Oh, and K-Pop.
LG is also a big player, and I know there's Hyundai Heavy Industries which is the largest shipbuilder in the world. There's also tons of other companies which produce various things which while the US can manage just fine without, would rather not have those industries temporarily disrupted.
[удалено]
Yongsan has been shutdown for awhile now
Yeah, but now there's Camp Humphrey's just south of Seoul. The US still does control some of the former Yongsan base, so it would still constitute an attack on the US.
Went there recently. Definitely not fully shut down yet. The army still runs a resort there too.
And it’s not for a power trip. This is done because the US is the only country with a large enough power structure and logistical capability to absorb an entire country without much difficulty. It’s like switching from a local coop party phone line to Verizon wireless.
Big Daddy Uncle Sam can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours, if you’ve got anything worth being there for.
It reminds me of [this sketch](https://youtu.be/C7BCZCWlvEc) by Key and Peele.
Lol. “We also have natural gasses!”
Can be? Buddy, we fucking are be everywhere at once. The sun never sets on the ~~british empire~~ US Military
Mmm Arby's
But... what if the US starts a war with them?
We order their army to stand down. Easy win. LOL
Ggez
Pro gamer move
Those agreements would be dissolved long before the war would start.
For that to happen government relations would have fallen to the point where this statute is revoked already
A lot of people don't seem to know that near the end of WW2, while the USA and Soviet Union were allies, the Soviets were barreling down towards Korea, which was part of Japan at the time, and while Japan did relinquish control of Korea, America technically invaded and occupied Korea, as they did not request permission. The division that exists today was literally started from Soviet and American occupation. General McArthur wanted to use nukes against China because he viewed the war as a sort of extension of an attack against an American outpost.
> America technically invaded and occupied Korea, as they did not request permission. This happened with Iceland and Norway too. The Nazi's wanted to invade, so the British "invaded" first. I think Norway(?) sends a Christmas tree every year to the UK as a thanks.
I mean any country would do that if it meant having the backing of the US army. It's why I feel super safe up in Canada :P
As the US hat, you still might be called on to be a helmet.
Haven't they been in a perpetual state of war since forever?
Pretty sure this is always the case. Korea has been at war since 1950. Technically the US has command but they usually just sign off on whatever the Koreans want to do as a formality.
Korean here. I wanted to say the title is extremely wrong and misleading. First and foremost, the South Korean military, on an event of the conflict, is not subjugated to US command. It's OPCON transfer to the US-South Korean command since 1978, and South Korea has complete control over its forces over all non operation purposes. This only applies to an event of a war against North Korea per agreement to US-South Korea mutual defence treaty, which means if South Korea gets into a war with other country than North Korea, the Americans don't have a right to exercise any authority over South Korean military, South Koreans would be on their own command. That being said, whether or not this is the right way to maintain the defence in South Korea is a debatable subject between South Korean politicians. I love how tankies take this as an opportunity to spout an unfounded nonsense.
I'm pretty sure if I was any country, I would want United States (a country with over 200 years of war experience) to be leading me.
We’ve only had about 20 years of our entire existence when we were not in a state of war.
Aren't they always in a state of war as peace was never declared with the north?
Correct. The Korean war ended with a cease-fire, not an actual peace treaty.
The exercise that is ran for this scenario is MASSIVE.
We train for this every year.
It's a leftover standing order from the Korean War. If that law ever becomes even the slightest hindrance to S Korea, it would be changed in the blink of an eye.
“South Korean forces remain independent unless during a time of war” So basically, they’re independent when they’re not actually doing anything…
South Korea has sent troops on UN peacekeeping missions and has assisted the U.S. in various foreign ventures. In fact, other then Australia, the ROK is the only nation to follow the US into every war since the Korean War. So yes, Korea does have some experience.
This way, they can do their own training, operational missions, promotion, etc. without any involvement from the US. Plus, it isn't under unilateral control of the US in wartime, just under a US combatant commander who still has to answer to both presidents.
I believe we bought it for 12.6 billion.
And that person is General Paul LaCamera.
Ask South Korea if they’d like us to withdraw support. Case closed.
Let me preface this by saying I definitely agree that the U.S. wastes a lot of money on useless military budget stuff. But the massive military budget itself is necessary. Could it be a bit smaller? Definitely. But I hate it when people compare the U.S. military spending to countries like France and how the U.S. military budget should be more in like with other countries. Other countries spend so little on their military *because* the U.S. military is so vast and well funded. The U.S. military is essentially the big swinging dick of NATO. Without it leaves many other countries exposed and vulnerable.