Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.

Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.

Here's an interesting question.

Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

Shipping container on a freighter. London harbor.

Or for more fun, sitting on top the new Tequila Sunrise ICBM. (visions of Southpark)

Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.

Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?

Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.

Albatross wrote:Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?

Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.

Why not?
Literally. Chavez says, stay out of the Falklands or we'll nuke you or give the nuke to Argentina. Are you going to risk that, for some island?
Edit: why are you getting angry?

Another scenario. What if Argentina says it now has a nuke? What do you do?

Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.

And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.

That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.

You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.

Ketara wrote:Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.

And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.

That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.

You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.

I meant after Argentina invades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a better scenario.

What if the Argentians ally themselves with Cthulu and unleash an undead/squiggly army to invade the Falklands and blockade it from your navy?

Well, considering they'd never make it to the beaches, I think the latter scenario is more likely.

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.

And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.

That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.

You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.

I meant after Argentina invades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a better scenario.

What if the Argentians ally themselves with Cthulu and unleash an undead/squiggly army to invade the Falklands and blockade it from your navy?

Won't happen.

Kid_Kyoto has a Cthulhu statue and me and him have got an understanding based on the fact that both our wives are Japanese. I think you'll agree that is a pretty sound basis for a military deterrent foreign policy.

Works for me.

Frazzled wrote:Here's an interesting question.

Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?

I see you plan to stop reading the news and base your beliefs about the world entirely on Tom Clancy novels is beginning to pay dividends.

We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.

Frazzled wrote:
Here's an interesting question.

Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.

What does the UK do?


Shipping container on a freighter. London harbor.

Or for more fun, sitting on top the new Tequila Sunrise ICBM. (visions of Southpark)

Send in a group of 'negotiators'.


A while later Kirshner asks 'Chavez, where is your nuke.'

Chavez replies ' stuff the nuke I cant find my balls.'

The weiner dog legions are onside with that conflict resolution scenario also.

Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-

-Overall spending cuts of 8%

-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.

-Cut 7,000 troops.

-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;

-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious

-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000

-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;

-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.

-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;

-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.

You should just buy one of our fancy new Super Carriers....

Its sad to see any country have to scale back defense spending :(

Ketara wrote:Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-

-Overall spending cuts of 8%

-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.

-Cut 7,000 troops.

-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;

-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious

-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000

-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;

-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.

-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;

-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.

Ketara wrote:Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-

-Overall spending cuts of 8%

-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.

-Cut 7,000 troops.

-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;

-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious

-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.

- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000

-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;

-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.

-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;

-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.

That last item shows one of the basic problems. We currently have about one civil servant for every two actual armed forces personnel.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
We could mothball the tanks and artillery in case they are needed in the future.

I think we should keep the Harriers. It is an excellent aircraft and can be flown off helicopter carriers, plus, we won't have any F35s for years.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?

Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.

Why not?
Literally. Chavez says, stay out of the Falklands or we'll nuke you or give the nuke to Argentina. Are you going to risk that, for some island?
Edit: why are you getting angry?

Another scenario. What if Argentina says it now has a nuke? What do you do?

We (The U.S.) would be occupying either of those countries the day before the nuke was delivered. This is a ridiculous and hairbrained example and I can't tell if you're just having fun or as paranoid as you seem.

Having fun. I think the Cthulu discussion would have given it away.

Two words.

Stealth. Haggis.

No one except the French can stand against them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Two words.

Stealth. Haggis.

No one except Leichtenstein can stand against them.

Corrected your typo. I think we've proven France can't stand against them.

France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.

Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.

What is that?

Ketara wrote:
-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.

Thats interesting, I wonder if they are going to purchase the C instead of the B then? Or possibly purchase an altogether different aircraft?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.

What is that?

Trust me, you really don't want to know.

They are delicious, though.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.

What is that?

Small andouille sausages made with tripe instead of normal meat.

I think its been proven that terrible food is not a correlate of being difficult to conquer. Look at Poland.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.

What is that?

Small andouille sausages made with tripe instead of normal meat.

I think its been proven that terrible food is not a correlate of being difficult to conquer. Look at Poland.

Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.

Erm, erm, erm, things I ate in Miami.

Pirogi!

Frazzled wrote:
Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.

Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.

I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.

We make good trucks, not good food.

Ketara wrote:

-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120,

120 MIRVs is hardly a credible deterrent. Time for Attack Plan R.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.

Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.

I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.

We make good trucks, not good food.

I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:

Ketara wrote:

-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120,

120 MIRVs is hardly a credible deterrent. Time for Attack Plan R.

Don't forget to confiscate all the personal transistor radios.

Frazzled wrote:
I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish?

Sometimes, but not very often. Unless you buy it at an ethnic deli its almost always just some random smoked sausage.