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.
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
More to the point, Russia does not have the means to launch a protracted conventional ground war deep into Europe, and any such conflict would go nuclear...very quickly, in which case all of this would be moot.
I doubt if either side would be daft enough to use nuclear weapons, especially if it's another Crimea style smash and grab by the Russians.
I know you guys have some troops and jets in Europe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of your military is obviously in the USA.
How long would it take the US military to send in the cavalry? 2-3 days for a decent sized force to assemble and get to Europe?
Britain and France, especially Britain (as we have troops in Estonia) would have to hold the fort until them.
Could be all over by the time the US military gets there...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
That's not really fair.
Our PM would also get wheeled out to stand next to your POTUS like an extra artificial limb that no one really wants.
Then we all laugh as it turns out they use the same brand of toothpaste ! --- what are the odds ?!
-- shortly before hundreds of thousands of people die.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
Vaktathi wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41026575
Frankfurt is winning the battle for Brexit spoils (Apologies if this was already posted, I didnt see it when briefly browsing the thread).
Not sure what this says about the UK, but it seems that Germany is certainly clawing its way back to the world preeminence it dreamed of a century ago at the UK's expense, albeit off the battlefield.
It'll be interesting to see where all the EU stuff formerly based in the UK will end up and where the new paradigm shifts to and who the winners and losers will be. It may be radically different than anyone thought, it may be exactlt what everyone thought. It certainly looks like Germany is going to reap some rewards however.
On the plus side, your president has promised us some magic beans, so that's good enough for me. I'll sleep easy at nights
Hopefully with a big stick at hand
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That might well be due to that whole NATO thing as opposed to the EU.
We might be leaving the EU, but Britain is still a major component of the backbone of European defence. In that regard, Brussels are not going to cast us into the wilderness. We'll still be good friends and allies.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That might well be due to that whole NATO thing as opposed to the EU.
We might be leaving the EU, but Britain is still a major component of the backbone of European defence. In that regard, Brussels are not going to cast us into the wilderness. We'll still be good friends and allies.
No we won't. They'll happily throw us under the bus when convenient, and then come crawling back begging for help when they need it.
They'll screw us over today, and expect our help tomorrow.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
If only the US had finished the star wars defense program.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 18:33:28
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 18:56:36
What is it about then? A stamp of random persons head?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
More to the point, Russia does not have the means to launch a protracted conventional ground war deep into Europe, and any such conflict would go nuclear...very quickly, in which case all of this would be moot.
I've pointed out this before, if things went South then the UK is not going to be some knight in shining armour. At best we can expect a load of radioactive feral ghouls running around - at worst the UK is likely to be a burnt, uninhabitable cinder. I've posted this before but this is a good idea of what would happen to the UK if we ever did get into a large scale conflict we are talking about here...
If only the US had finished the star wars defense program.
There never was a real star wars program. It was a bluff to persuade the USSR that it was outmatched technologically. If they had progressed it in any serious way the US would not be investing in things like the the THAAD missile defence systems.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/29 19:08:04
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
Speculation here, but no point; one missile is highly unlikely to be an attack and if you did shoot it down you've a) revealed your defence capabilities and b) given NK publicity ammunition, as it's technically their property that you've destroyed. Worse still you could miss and that's all kinds of embarrassing and encouraging to NK.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
I'd lay long odds that the UK would be near the top of Brussels' list of important phone calls to make.
For the record, I'm a Brexit supporter, but I would welcome close military links with the EU after Brexit. It's in both our interests.
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
You can still conduct ground operations without control of the air. Yeah, it ain't easy, and of course, most modern militaries do have some AA units for their armies, but ISIL still move around in Syria and Iraq, despite air strikes against them, and they've never had an air force to the best of my knowledge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 19:46:28
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
I'd lay long odds that the UK would be near the top of Brussels' list of important phone calls to make.
For the record, I'm a Brexit supporter, but I would welcome close military links with the EU after Brexit. It's in both our interests.
Finland has a mutual self-assistance MoU with NATO and had taken part in NATO exercises and the Baltic air policing.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
Speculation here, but no point; one missile is highly unlikely to be an attack and if you did shoot it down you've a) revealed your defence capabilities and b) given NK publicity ammunition, as it's technically their property that you've destroyed. Worse still you could miss and that's all kinds of embarrassing and encouraging to NK.
If that missle had ran out of fuel, or the engine had cut out, and it hit a civilian area, it would be a whole different ball game, regardless of it being only one missle...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash .
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
NATO, due to the fact that Finland is a major supporter of NATO (despite technically not being a NATO member), both in providing training to NATO forces but also participating in NATO-led operations. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49594.htm
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
You can still conduct ground operations without control of the air. Yeah, it ain't easy, and of course, most modern militaries do have some AA units for their armies, but ISIL still move around in Syria and Iraq, despite air strikes against them, and they've never had an air force to the best of my knowledge.
And ISIS is losing. Massively. Take from that what you will as to the importance of air superiority when you want to move large quantities of men and material around.
Without air superiority you can carry out small manoeuvres and deployments which are difficult to detect and stop. Russia invading eastern europe would not be small manoeuvres and deployments. It would require large mobilisations of infantry and armour which would be instantly picked up by the intelligence communities. And when those forces are on the move, they are vulnerable unless you can give them air cover.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/29 19:58:26
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
The US POTUS has generals in his leadership team. Primarily Chief of Staff Kelly, NSA McMaster and Sec of Defense Mattis.
If there's one constant about the POTUS, is that he seriously considers his general's input... all you have to do is look at the US' re-engagement of war in Afghanistan.
So, if Finland asks for help, I'd bet that the US will be there to prevent another Crimea event.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player..
Finland might not be a starter but it sure is a player.
But in any case we're so deep in the if game to be a moot point. Kuwait wasn't a member of anything and still a coalition was formed when Saddam went there for a walk.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
The US POTUS has generals in his leadership team. Primarily Chief of Staff Kelly, NSA McMaster and Sec of Defense Mattis.
If there's one constant about the POTUS, is that he seriously considers his general's input... all you have to do is look at the US' re-engagement of war in Afghanistan.
So, if Finland asks for help, I'd bet that the US will be there to prevent another Crimea event.
I'd bet good money that Trump probably has a golf course in Finland, so yeah, I suppose you could argue self-interest on Trump's part.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Kilkrazy wrote: That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
I have a harsher view. She views him as a threat to her leadership. Appointing him Foreign Secretary keeps him under tabs and under control. She's thrown him a bone to keep him placated. She's keeping her enemies close, putting her own personal political interests ahead of the national interest.
I don't believe you think Bozza would make a good PM. He's made of pig's ear of everything else he's done apart from writing anti-EU lies for the right-wing press.
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Of course the City of London as the world's foremost financial centre for foreign exchange, particularly the Euro (soon to be the world's fourth foremost) would have nothing to say in regards to valuation of the Euro and stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 21:09:05
Kilkrazy wrote: That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
I have a harsher view. She views him as a threat to her leadership. Appointing him Foreign Secretary keeps him under tabs and under control. She's thrown him a bone to keep him placated. She's keeping her enemies close, putting her own personal political interests ahead of the national interest.
I don't believe you think Bozza would make a good PM. He's made of pig's ear of everything else he's done apart from writing anti-EU lies for the right-wing press.
Which made him rich.
Well no gak, of course I don't think he'd make a good PM, I think he's an utter gakker. When have I ever indicated otherwise?
But that doesn't mean he's not still a rival and potential threat to Theresa May's leadership. And worse gakkers than Boris Johnson have been elected into positions of power, you just need to look across the Pond to see that.
My point is that May suppressing Bozza is in the country's interest because the guy is a clown.
It may be in her interest too, of course, though remember that Bozza notably failed to impress in the real Tory leadership race that followed Cameron's abrupt departure and got May into the hot seat.
The key question is how much damage Bozza is doing as Foreign Secretary and why May can't eject him now. The answer appears to be "some or lots, depending," and "because he's pro-Brexit."
Is there anyone who would genuinely say Bozza is a great Foreign Secretary? Traditionally, Home Secretary is the poisoned chalice that PMs allocate to their enemies.
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course the City of London as the world's foremost financial centre for foreign exchange, particularly the Euro (soon to be the world's fourth foremost) would have nothing to say in regards to valuation of the Euro and stuff.
I'd rather have the currency under the control of our own government and central bank and not a third party who answer to nobody but themselves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/30 11:23:17
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
.. soo all the things we do whilst in the EU. then.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
