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.

 loki old fart wrote:
Except somebody tunneled under the moat

Nothing appropriately placed explosives won't fix. I actually heard a rumour that such things were actually embedded at appropriate points along the course of the Channel Tunnel during construction just in case such an eventuality is ever needed. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

So if things turn bad we'll kill ourselves eh?. Thats not Ridiculous at all.

If the Russians launch nukes as a matter of standard warfare, then we're all going to die. The whole initial concept is ridiculous for that very reason. There is no way on God's earth the Americans would allow the Russians to wipe out a quarter of a dozen fleets, and NOT incinerate most of Russia as an automatic response.

Which in turn means Russia will respond, and then we all die. MAD is a bit of a drag, but it's what would happen.

So if things turn bad we'll kill ourselves eh?. Thats not Ridiculous at all.

Do they teach you nothing in government school? Please research something called "the Cold War," "Mutually Assured Destruction," and "NATO policies on the use of nuclear weapons in the Cold War."

Remember
WWI started because of treaties.
WWII started because of treaties.

Even the current goons in Russia know this.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

squidhills wrote:


Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.

Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.

squidhills wrote:
You are too young to remember the Cold War

Don't be so sure of that...

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

squidhills wrote:


Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.

Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.

I think this gets to why Putin dusted off his nukes. He's reminding the world that "hey, look what we have, do you really want to get involved?"

 MrDwhitey wrote:

squidhills wrote:
You are too young to remember the Cold War

Don't be so sure of that...

I'm very sure Iron _Captain wasn't here for the Cold War. He's admitted to being under 18 before.

He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

squidhills wrote:


Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.

Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.

Exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

squidhills wrote:


Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.

Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.

Exactly.

All that said, I do think there is a possibility for a shooting war between Russia/USA in the somewhat near future.... BUT, if things did fall to that point, the simultaneous diplomatic efforts to end the conflict would probably be more frantic than in any war previously faced by anyone. I'd give the fighting probably 1-6 months before some sort of deal was worked out, just so that nukes weren't used.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.

Wait... so you're saying that Iron_Captain has been dishonest about his identity?

Wait a sec....

He is deliberately obfuscating his identity online... he loves Russia... he REALLY loves Putin...

Is Iron_Captain Dmitiri Medvedev?

It would explain so much.

Grey Templar wrote:The Chinese wouldn't start a war with the US because they dearly love owning our debt. A war would mean all that debt goes away.

Plus the Chinese economy would fall apart if they lost all their customers(they've got a big bubble)

Its why they're desperate to build a domestic market for their goods in case things go sour for them in the global one.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Yeah, it is not in Chinas interest at all to start a war with the western world.

They don't care whether Russia wants some little countries in Europe, they have to keep their economy going and without sales to Europe and North America....

I don't think you understand the Chinese.
There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy. Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it.
Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation. A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable. And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of succes.
Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled.
China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.

squidhills wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.

Wait... so you're saying that Iron_Captain has been dishonest about his identity?

Wait a sec....

He is deliberately obfuscating his identity online... he loves Russia... he REALLY loves Putin...

Is Iron_Captain Dmitiri Medvedev?

Darn it, I got caught! Vladimir Vladimirovich, come to my aid!

But in all seriousness. I am not supposed to be on Vkontakte anymore, as I deleted my profile quite a while ago.
But apparantly, people liked my pictures so much they stole them. When using Google image search on the picture I posted on Dakka, they show up in no less than 5 (5!) different VKontakte profiles... Stealing pictures on VKontakte does happen (really annoying, but VK is really annoying in general), and I already knew before those pictures were on the internet, which is why I posted them in the thread as I didn't have to upload them, but I didn't know they were on more than 5 different profiles... I am famous :3
In any case, I can upload plenty of pictures, videos and official documents to prove the person in the pictures is in fact, me.
Just checking now, and some of my other pictures have also been stolen... Well, it can't really hurt though, as I can prove who I am, but it does show the criticism I received in the show yourself threat is correct after all. I look way too generic, and it is time to change my hairstyle
Analysing the different profiles, two of them have pictures of lots or random guys, one is clearly an imposter, one stole half my photo album, one is the genuine, but the person standing next to me in one of the pictures, and the others have stolen just a single picture.
And come to think of it... why would you be so interested in my pictures as to search them on the internet? That is kinda... creepy.

Right, we rely on chinese parts and the chinese rely on us buying chinese parts. What happens when they start a war? Suddenly none of the western companies are making use of their factories. Those factories close down.

This leads to mass unemployment and a lot of very pissed off unemployed people. They'd be facing the external threats of the US, Australia, Japan, Korea etc. as well as a potential revolution and at the very least protests and riots within their own country.

At a time when the communist government is already coming under strain due to a slowing economy and recent scandals involving party officials and very expensive nightclubs, a war with their main customers is not something they will want.

Also, you can view Chinas opinion on getting involved in someone else's war by looking at their responses to North Korea provoking South Korea.

<---grew up Cold War

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't think you understand the Chinese.
There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy.

It turned out to be good for one economy. That of the US. It proved to be utterly ruinous to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the French Republic, and practically everyone else involved.

Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it.

I'm not so convinced of that. There are many other economies stepping on China's toes who have been taking greater and greater shares of China's market presence in low tech low cost manufacturing. It would damage GDP all around for a short period, but the markets would restructure within a year or two.

Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.

I know as a fact you're incorrect on at least one of those. Chinese relations with Taiwan have absolutely never been better. Trade links and diplomatic links keep increasing. The Chinese have increasingly come to view Taiwan as a chunk of China that they just don't immediately control, and do not need to. A bit like Hong Kong but more independent.

Japanese/Chinese tensions have risen a great deal recently though, and that's because they're the only potential local opposition to Chinese regional domination. They have a sizeable population, a strong economy, well developed technology, and a decent sized defence force. Where Vietnam or Malaysia more or less have to shut up and put up with Chinese intrusions into their waters, you'll note you don't get hordes of Chinese surveyors and fishermen off Okinawa.

China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation.

Not really. The Chinese don't have a desire to be global police like America, or have a finger in every pie like the EU. Their foreign policy is completely insular and always historically has been for many cultural reasons. The Chinese perfect view of the world involves them having a free hand in Asia to do as they will with the other local countries subservient to them, and a large overseas market to export to. Beyond that, they have no desire to become involved in foreign affairs.

A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable.And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of success.

No. In the least patronising way that I can put it, you're stumbling into the realms of the absurd here. Leave those ideas there, because I quite frankly cannot think of a nice way to dissect them without most likely ending up sounding like I'm being insulting without meaning to do so. And I'd rather have a pleasant discussion by far.

Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled.

China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.

Extremely unlikely in the near future. And extremely unlikely in the distant future. China simply has no desire to take on America's 'position'.

I can see the US footing the bill for that 4K rapid reaction force in Europe.......and still footing the bill on our Rapid Reaction Forces in the US....

Apparently we're contributing a 1,000 men of the 4,000. The Americans don't fund the British forces, last I checked. I daresay we have enough amphibious kit and aircraft for them without relying on US supplies.

The other 3,000, I couldn't say.

An Estonian intelligence officer kidnapped?

As it happened: Ukraine ceasefire agreed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29082368
14:29:

Welcome to our live coverage as a ceasefire has been agreed between Ukraine and separatist rebels in the east of the country. We're also reporting on a key Nato summit in Wales, which has agreed to set up a rapid reaction force. We're bringing you the latest updates from our correspondents, expert analysis and your reaction from around the world. You can contact us via email, text or twitter.
14:36:

The ceasefire deal was announced at talks between representatives of Ukraine, the rebels, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Minsk, Belarus. The truce will start at 16:00 BST.
14:38:

In a tweet (in Ukrainian), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote that a "preliminary protocol" was signed in Minsk, without giving further details.
14:43:

Mr Poroshenko said he had already ordered the chief of the general staff of Ukraine's armed forces to cease fire at 16:00 BST.
14:45:

Meanwhile, Igor Plotnitsky, one of the rebel leaders of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, said the truce "does not mean the end of (our) policy to split (from Ukraine), according to Reuters.
14:51:

Details are still sketchy about the 14-point Minsk deal. Reports say it includes "all aspects of control and prisoner exchange", according to Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
14:52:

Earlier today, a new "multinational spearhead force" was announced at the Nato summit in Wales. It will be based in Poland and be able to deploy troops in two to five days.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the force would comprise of 4,000 troops and would be ready to be deployed by the end of 2015.

 loki old fart wrote:
As it happened: Ukraine ceasefire agreed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29082368
14:29:

Welcome to our live coverage as a ceasefire has been agreed between Ukraine and separatist rebels in the east of the country. We're also reporting on a key Nato summit in Wales, which has agreed to set up a rapid reaction force. We're bringing you the latest updates from our correspondents, expert analysis and your reaction from around the world. You can contact us via email, text or twitter.
14:36:

The ceasefire deal was announced at talks between representatives of Ukraine, the rebels, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Minsk, Belarus. The truce will start at 16:00 BST.
14:38:

In a tweet (in Ukrainian), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote that a "preliminary protocol" was signed in Minsk, without giving further details.
14:43:

Mr Poroshenko said he had already ordered the chief of the general staff of Ukraine's armed forces to cease fire at 16:00 BST.
14:45:

Meanwhile, Igor Plotnitsky, one of the rebel leaders of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, said the truce "does not mean the end of (our) policy to split (from Ukraine), according to Reuters.
14:51:

Details are still sketchy about the 14-point Minsk deal. Reports say it includes "all aspects of control and prisoner exchange", according to Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
14:52:

Earlier today, a new "multinational spearhead force" was announced at the Nato summit in Wales. It will be based in Poland and be able to deploy troops in two to five days.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the force would comprise of 4,000 troops and would be ready to be deployed by the end of 2015.

Is this force a rapid reaction force?

It looks like all is quiet now in E-Ukraine. Let's hope it stays that way and this peace forms the basis for negotiations for a permanent solution agreeable to both parties. At the very least they will exchange prisoners, withdraw troops and allow humanitarian aid.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Is this force a rapid reaction force?

Yes
Heard it is geared towards Putin expansionalism

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[China]'d be facing the external threats of ...Australia

Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.

I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here

 motyak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[China]'d be facing the external threats of ...Australia

Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.

I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here

You are failing to remember the giant spiders and killer drop bears

 motyak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[China]'d be facing the external threats of ...Australia

Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.

I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here

Yeah but who wants to mess with an australian who's been pulled away from their crazy long holidays because somebody decided to mess around with a random country?

 motyak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[China]'d be facing the external threats of ...Australia

Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.

I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here

Deprive them of beer and women, tell them it's China's fault, and in two weeks they will ride into Beijing on twenty five foot salt water crocs duel wielding browning heavy machine-guns, ending what historians will call the bloodiest war in the history of Asia.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[China]'d be facing the external threats of ...Australia

Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.

I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here

Deprive them of beer and women, tell them it's China's fault, and in two weeks they will ride into Beijing on twenty five foot salt water crocs duel wielding browning heavy machine-guns, ending what historians will call the bloodiest war in the history of Asia.

I repeat my previous proposition of building a huge wall around Australia. For many reasons, including a natural environment that makes Catachan look like holiday resort and a population descended from criminals, Australia is the most dangerous thing on earth and a threat to human life everywhere. We can't just sit back and rely on the ocean that seperates Australia from the rest of the world to keep us safe. Australians are devious and cunning, and their poisonous pets even more so. They will find ways of crossing that ocean in order to visit death and destruction upon the unsuspecting, innocent world. Clearly the best option is to build huge wall and quarantaine the entire area. New Zealand will be turned into a highly secret testing area where we will unleash a small number of Australians so that we may observe their behaviour and learn new ways of fighting them and preventing contamination.
The second option consists of nuclear weapons, but as these have never yet been tested on Australians, it may be entirely possible that Australians are capable of surviving a nuclear bombardment. Therefore this method is deemed insecure and potentially dangerous, as the radiation may mutate the Australians into Super-Australians (Crikey!).
It does save us from having to get near Australia to build a wall though.


Also, this article just came up on RT.
It made me go:
http://rt.com/news/185688-mrs-america-pageant-crimea-russia/

 Iron_Captain wrote:



Also, this article just came up on RT.
It made me go:
http://rt.com/news/185688-mrs-america-pageant-crimea-russia/

Just be prepared for the contestants who show up to be a bit more muscular than the pictures shown. And sporting facial hair. And wielding assault rifles.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:



Also, this article just came up on RT.
It made me go:
http://rt.com/news/185688-mrs-america-pageant-crimea-russia/

Just be prepared for the contestants who show up to be a bit more muscular than the pictures shown. And sporting facial hair. And wielding assault rifles.

The USA is a quick learner.