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.

Hey...

<-- this guy want's NATO/US to flex a bit.

I'd tell Putin to suck it as we re-build missile defense shield networks move assets a bit closer.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

yes actually. It took the Japanese to bomb the crap out of before we started.
WWI truly just a European fracas.
Baltics-who gives a gak?

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Our allies? Countries that have allowed their militaries to wither away to a couple of guys and an armed hang glider have ALREADY abandoned us. They have already foresaken their responsibility as allies to pull their weight in a conflict. You're just rent-seekers. Free Loaders. Dead Weight. Pass.

Man do you actually for just one moment believe this utter nonsense you’re spewing right now? So no one of us helped you out in the countless wars US itself has started?
Did none of us send our bombers to the civil war in Libya? Did none of us send our boys down in that dark pit of a country called Afghanistan? Are we currently not assisting you in combating ISIS?

I can’t speak for the other EU countries, but each and every time US called its allies to arms, we were there to help you out. So don’t come here and spew this ignorant bullgak about how we “are good for nothing dead weights”.

 Silverthorne wrote:


You're missing the point. You are delinquent in meeting even a fraction of your obligations as a NATO member in terms of maintaining military force. In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability.

Oh dear. It sounds to me like someone hasn't studied realpolitik or conventional military statistics.

Firstly, my particular nation lives on an island. Bar nuclear weaponry, the only power in existence who can hope to hurt us in any significant way us is America. Nobody else has the necessary airpower or seapower to do more than scratch us in conventional terms (relatively speaking). And what we retain in terms of ships and planes is more than sufficient for home defence.

With regards to nukes, we currently have an independent deterrent. Whilst we couldn't quite crack the face of the earth the way Russia and America can, we can still vaporise most major Russian (or American, if it came to it) cities and leave the country in shambles.

We're also the only power in the world bar America capable of moving an army around the world. So actually, we're not doing too badly for ourselves. Far from the 'floating vulnerability' you paint us as.

We gain nothing from a treaty with weaklings who beg for our protection but are too decadent to spend their own money and sons on defense. If you really want to not speak Russian this time two years from now, I'd recommend rebuilding your military, because the chance that America is going to come bail out your recent string of bad decision making against the nuclear armed Russian military is slim to none.

Yes. Because all of those nuclear bazooka armed infantry...waitaminute..., I mean, all of those nuclear shell armed tanks.....I mean, those nuclear guns carried by their aircraft...hmmm...you know it's almost as if nuclear weaponry has no real place in a conventional battlefield!

I don't think I'll need to learn Russian any time soon.

Silverthorne, that has just to be some of the most offensive drivel I've ever had the misfortune of reading, here on dakka.

Hundreds of British men and women died supporting your nation's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would say more, but I won't, because I quite like most of the American dakka members, and if I replied, I would inadvertently offended them, and I don't want to do that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

I don't know. Pax Americana has served your country reasonably well. It's possible (even likely) that its time is beginning to draw to a close, but it's helped the US to become the behemoth it is today.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Our allies? Countries that have allowed their militaries to wither away to a couple of guys and an armed hang glider have ALREADY abandoned us. They have already foresaken their responsibility as allies to pull their weight in a conflict. You're just rent-seekers. Free Loaders. Dead Weight. Pass.

Man do you actually for just one moment believe this utter nonsense you’re spewing right now? So no one of us helped you out in the countless wars US itself has started?
Did none of us send our bombers to the civil war in Libya? Did none of us send our boys down in that dark pit of a country called Afghanistan? Are we currently not assisting you in combating ISIS?

I can’t speak for the other EU countries, but each and every time US called its allies to arms, we were there to help you out. So don’t come here and spew this ignorant bullgak about how we “are good for nothing dead weights”.

UK did. I'll back their play, at least until Scotland secedes, then the oil is ours muahaha
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya. Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

Yeah, and I've been part of a British command before, on a joint tour. Doesn't change the fact that you are not a military player any longer. Iraq, do you really want to kick that can open? Basra? Want to talk about what happened there? Helmand province? Want to talk about that? We can talk frankly about the British Military failures in these areas without denigrating the British soldier or royal marine. You're mistaking my contempt for the overall status of the British military (which is exclusively a function of your elected politicians refusing to adequately arm and equip your forces) with my respect for British troops as individuals. Sadly, random infantry with zero combat support and like, 24 attack helicopters in the entire force does not an effective military make. You can choose to get as butt-hurt about the facts as you want, and to deliberately misread meif you please, but that's your decision.

And the idea that the Royal Navy could penetrate into enemy waters and deliver troops has been a fantasy since at least 1944, and probably earlier. No way with the pitiful amphibious lift capability left in the RN and the complete, total lack of any fixed wing navy aviation could you effect any type of amphibous operation solo. Sorry.


"Our War" What a load of horsegak. Nobody put a gun to your head and told you that you had to come. Your boy Blair was thick as thieves with Bush. It's yours as much as ours.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Tallying the butcher's bill since 1913, and I'd call it a loss.

I don't know. Pax Americana has served your country reasonably well. It's possible (even likely) that its time is beginning to draw to a close, but it's helped the US to become the behemoth it is today.

Unemployment is worse than before 1913.
No manufacturing. Its all in China.
Lots of coffins though.
No more. We shouldn't even have advisors in the ME or Europe at this point.

Oh, and check the sortie numbers for US vs. Everyone else in the Libya and Syria campaigns. You guys burned enough gas to say you showed up.... and that's about it. We've dropped well over 95% of the tonnage over there.

Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

Couldn't agree more. Have an exalt. Now the blast effects from Libya are starting to take out Italy and Spain.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Yeah, and I've been part of a British command before, on a joint tour. Doesn't change the fact that you are not a military player any longer. Iraq, do you really want to kick that can open? Basra? Want to talk about what happened there? Helmand province? Want to talk about that? We can talk frankly about the British Military failures in these areas without denigrating the British soldier or royal marine.

America made plenty of mistakes in that war as well. I wouldn't open that can of worms.

You're mistaking my contempt for the overall status of the British military (which is exclusively a function of your elected politicians refusing to adequately arm and equip your forces) with my respect for British troops as individuals.

No, I was actually picking you up on your clear lack of knowledge of history, modern force capability, and general manners. Sorry about that.

Sadly, random infantry with zero combat support and like, 24 attack helicopters in the entire force does not an effective military make. You can choose to get as butt-hurt about the facts as you want, and to deliberately mislead you if you please, but that's your decision.

butt-hurt?



You're great. Do you do stand-up anywhere?

And the idea that the Royal Navy could penetrate into enemy waters and deliver troops has been a fantasy since at least 1944, and probably earlier. No way with the pitiful amphibious lift capability left in the RN and the complete, total lack of any fixed wing navy aviation could you effect any type of amphibous operation solo. Sorry.

You actually have no idea, do you? Go do a little research into what the Royal Navy and it's various components/subsidiaries is capable of carrying, and then match it up against the militaries of most of the world. I'll wait.

I'll admit we're a little short on the carrier front by now, and think it was a bit daft decision wise. A bit of a gamble. But that's a temporary thing, and will cease to be the case shortly.

PhantomViper wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

which is the scariest thought of all I think.


Without nukes MAD as a deterrent, war is much more possible.

Either way there is really nothing to gain from a fight, some fights just get you bloody and nothing else, even if you win.

Look, if actual no-gak PRINCES make up a measurable, integer percentage of your attack helicopter pilots.... you probably don't have enough attack helicopter pilots.

LOL-- I've freaking deployed on a UK vessel before dude. Forcible entry leading up to Amphibious Assault is no joke. The Pentagon is skeptical about whether even the USN could pull one off. You don't even have a landing dock ship. Like, not one.

What fixed wing assets can you deploy to supress enemy ASCMs as you approach the coast? How are you going to bring down SU-27 and MiG-29 with TBJ and Moskits? How are you going to punch through the diesel submarine pickets? What anti-ship weapons are you going to bring against the Sovremnys and how are you going to employ them? Harpoons? Are you for real? You guys don't even have enhanced SM missiles and those are only so so kinematically.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Look, if actual no-gak PRINCES make up a measurable, integer percentage of your attack helicopter pilots.... you probably don't have enough attack helicopter pilots.

LOL-- I've freaking deployed on a UK vessel before dude. Forcible entry leading up to Amphibious Assault is no joke. The Pentagon is skeptical about whether the USN could pull one off.

What fixed wing assets can you deploy to supress enemy ASCMs as you approach the coast? How are you going to bring down SU-27 and MiG-29 with TBJ and Moskits? How are you going to punch through the diesel submarine pickets? What anti-ship weapons are you going to bring against the Sovremnys and how are you going to employ them? Harpoons? Are you for real? You guys don't even have enhanced SM missiles and those are only so so kinematically.

Oh dear. You seem to be mixing together two things I've said. Allow me to set you straight.

I said that Russia was no threat to us due to not possessing the necessary seapower/airpower to do any serious conventional damage to the British mainland (due to the comment about us being a 'floating vulnerability'). I also said later on, that we maintain an amphibious assault capability (because you slated our general capabilities).

At no point did I make any crazy statements about us launching an amphibious invasion of Russia. Because that would be stupid.

Do try to keep up.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Libya should not have been started at all. So the countries who did not help should be the ones you must thank.

Couldn't agree more. Have an exalt. Now the blast effects from Libya are starting to take out Italy and Spain.

Agreed.

From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

AS I said I have Britain's back until Scotland secedes, then the Texas puts to sea baby. Mmm smell that oil.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

AS I said I have Britain's back until Scotland secedes, then the Texas puts to sea baby. Mmm smell that oil.

I'm not having a go at you, Frazz.

I will say one thing, though. I have been a vocal critic of American foreign policy for years, but I would never dance on the graves of dead American service men and women.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

Thanks for that, Strombones. Could a MOD come in and lock this thread before somebody says something they regret. On a scale of 1 too 10, with 10 being massively OT, I fear this thread is sitting around the 29 mark!

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of the dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

 Ketara wrote:

 Strombones wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From where I'm standing, it sounds as though one American in particular is spitting on the graves of dead British servicemen and women...

Think I'll step in acknowledge that the British service member has shouldered a very large burden in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I fought alongside British units in Misa Q'aleh in 2009 and I must attest that they are as capable and competent as the best of them. I'm not sure where we are going with trying to suggest otherwise.

I think the point he was trying to make was that they're underequipped. Which is and isn't true. They weren't equipped well for Iraq. Some of the shortages they had then were absolutely ludicrous, and much of their equipment performed poorly in the heat. On the flip side, this does not mean that they're underequipped generally. You can be badly equipped to fight a desert war, and be exceedingly well-equipped to fight a war somewhere else.

He also is trying to state that compared to America, we don't have much in the way of forces. Which is true. He says we're poorly equipped to launch an invasion of Russia. This is also true. But this is primarily because America spend ten times what we do, and we have no plans to invade Russia (and have structured our forces accordingly as a result).

What our forces ARE well equipped to do, is overawe/fight a war against the majority of the rest of the nations on the planet (who are terribly equipped compared to Russia/America). We could launch a successful amphibious strike on Guatemala in defence of Belize, for example. Or Argentina. Or any one of thin Iraq. e dozens of african/south american/middle-eastern/asian countries who don't even begin to compare to us militarily.

We're not the US. That doesn't mean we're incompetent, or ill-equipped, or useless.

Fair points Ketara, but he undermines his own argument. I'm sitting next to my bookshelf, and reaching over, I have in my hands, a book about the 101st Airborne in Iraq. They well equipped, highly trained, and as hard a bunch of men as you're ever likely too see, but they were hampered in their operational area because they didn't have enough men...

It wasn't just a British problem.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

Why would we want to die to defend your land, AGAIN? The idea of one drop of American blood being shed on yet another idiotic European power struggle is too tragic to contemplate.

I love the way that helping to eliminate the Nazi's (responsible for the concentration camps) and the Japanese Empire (who tested chemical weapons on civilians, the Bantam death march, and more) is painted as an 'idiotic European power struggle'.

I like to think that should the horrors of such industrial level atrocities arise again, America would help to do something about it, regardless of how 'tragic' you might consider it.

Not to mention the fact that America did exceedingly well out of both wars financially. And takes on the defence burden it does because it's terrified of the idea of militaristic European powers rising to the fore again.

No, no. Just you guys helping out of generosity. Right?

You're missing the point. You are delinquent in meeting even a fraction of your obligations as a NATO member in terms of maintaining military force. In WW2, the British military was, materially, almost a match for Germany by itself. Now you're just a massive, floating vulnerability. We gain nothing from a treaty with weaklings who beg for our protection but are too decadent to spend their own money and sons on defense. If you really want to not speak Russian this time two years from now, I'd recommend rebuilding your military, because the chance that America is going to come bail out your recent string of bad decision making against the nuclear armed Russian military is slim to none.

Tell you what: if you start regulating your banking sector so it doesn't blow the world economy up, we'll have more money to spend on, among other things, defense.

Then again, considering that in 2009 10 out of 20 of the biggest spenders in the world on military per capita were European countries,I think it's safe to assume that you're never going to be pleased.

Rule 1 is important, don't break it again.

It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

 Frazzled wrote:
Denmark didn't send bombers to Libya.

Incorrect, we sent six F-16 over there. Maybe this type of plane doesn't fit your definition of "bombers"? Whatever, you have now been informed about our commitment to America, so don't spread anymore misinformation about us.

Thank you.

 Frazzled wrote:
Further, Libya wasn't started by us, but by Europe. Try harder.

We had your back in Afghanistan and now too in Iraq. Don't play games with me Frazz I don't like games.

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the British Armed forces were able to invade and retake a group of islands thousands of miles away from the UK with arguably less well-equipped and prepared forces than we have now...

You did have a carrier though, but as mentioned that's about to get fixed.

 Ketara wrote:
we have no plans to invade Russia

You do. You are just hiding them very well. Everyone wants to invade Russia.