Is the usage of "should" correct in this sentence on the BBC web site?

The use of "should" in that sentence is grammatically correct and actually quite common in formal or slightly dramatic English. While it might sound unusual if you are used to modern, casual conversation, it serves a specific purpose here. In this context, "should" acts as a subjunctive mood marker. It expresses a hypothetical possibility or a fear about a future event, rather than a simple statement of fact. When someone says "God forbid we should," they are essentially saying "God forbid that it ever come to pass that we end up." By using "should," the speaker is distancing themselves from the outcome, making it sound more like an abstract, dreaded possibility rather than a concrete prediction. If they had used "might" or "could," the sentence would sound more like a realistic assessment of probability. Using "should" adds a layer of emotional weight and formality, which is typical for political commentary or reporting on serious international affairs. You are seeing it on a major news site because it is standard, elevated English. It is not a mistake made by a non-native speaker, but rather a deliberate stylistic choice to convey apprehension. You can feel confident using this structure yourself if you want to emphasize the gravity of a potential situation. It is a perfectly valid way to express a deep-seated worry about the future.