The terrifying lack of missile defence leaving Britain open to attack

We haven’t really invested at all in homeland air and missile defences as our assumption was that war would be expeditionary...Also, our military would not deploy on an expeditionary mission without a Type-45 destroyer to cover them so, in the event of war, there might be that additional demand on our Type-45 resources.” Dr Kaushal does point out that the airspace between Russia and Britain is not some uncontrolled no-man’s land. Incoming missiles from Russian territory would still cross through the airspace and defences of Britain’s European Nato allies, whose own defences might intercept them first. What might be more likely, he argues, is a missile launched from a strategic bomber or a submarine, which would get closer to Britain’s shores first. However, after any opening exchange, the attacking military force would lose the element of surprise, and likely be targeted themselves either by fighter jets, battleships or submarines. “That is where a risk-reward ratio for the Russians would come in. If they were losing valuable assets like bombers or submarines, they might think twice. At the moment, I think they would probably only be able to afford to take out key military assets rather than civilian infrastructure.” Were Russia to mount such attacks from its own soil, Dr Kaushal adds, it would likely use its new Oreshnik intermediate missiles, which were also used last year on the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Those are currently in short supply, but could pose a threat if Russia presses ahead with plans to upscale production. “At present, they only have a few Oreshniks, and you’d need hundreds to achieve a significant effect."