comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I mean with Ukraine in particular. If it all kicked off with NATO properly being involved - say for example Russia invading Poland then surely the first thing that would happen would be the air force would take to the skies and bomb the hell out of the Russian forces to the point where they retreat. There wouldn’t need to be a mass mobilization of conscripted forces as NATO wouldn’t be trying to invade Russia, more just use force as a way of pushing them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Ukraine and Russia haven't been using missiles, drones and airforces to try to bomb military positions?
You still need forces on the ground to occupy. They will dig trenches to avoid ballistics. I think you are naive to how a war would work. There is a reason no country every establishes dominance without boots on the ground.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
The idea of wars being fought on computers without boots on the ground is still a long way off
You think Ukraine and Russia haven't been using missiles, drones and airforces to try to bomb military positions?
———-
Ukraine don’t really have an airforce to talk about so have to focus on ground troops to hold off Russians. The US have the top two air forces in the world and would be able to decimate a Russian ground force in a way that the Ukrainians can’t. I’m not saying zero NATO troops would be on the ground but I’m saying that there wouldn’t need to be any sort of conscription as NATO have enough troops and weaponry (ie planes) to push Russia back into Russia relatively quickly.
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
An invasion without troops is, by definition, not an invasion.
Not to mention the US have multiple carriers so would be able to destroy what’s left of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea and surround Russia at land and sea to the point where Russia would surrender very very quickly.
Membership of NATO probably does away with the need for conscription unless the conflict escalated to WW2 levels
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted less than a minute ago
Membership of NATO probably does away with the need for conscription unless the conflict escalated to WW2 levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what we are discussing isn't it? That's what the Defence Secretary implied by their comments about British forces.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Not to mention the US have multiple carriers so would be able to destroy what’s left of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea and surround Russia at land and sea to the point where Russia would surrender very very quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We'd all be radioactive dust before any Russian surrender, don't kid yourself otherwise.
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Polish pilots seconded to the RAF were the difference there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot the poles 🫡
The original point that was raised was regarding invasion. You cannot invade anywhere without manpower. Whether anyone would want to invade the UK is another debate.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would have no way of knowing that a missile fired at the UK didn't have a nuclear warhead. If Russia fired at us, we would fire back before waiting to find out. For that reason, it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are incredibly naive, but cannot be bothered to keep going.
All this bolsters the case for Trident
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
All this bolsters the case for Trident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The UK’s nuclear capabilities are still at the mercy of America.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would have no way of knowing that a missile fired at the UK didn't have a nuclear warhead. If Russia fired at us, we would fire back before waiting to find out. For that reason, it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if any missile fired in the direction of thr UK would be assumed to be nuclear capable and we would preemptively fire first.
Look mate I'm just saying in the increasing possibility the world is going the way it looks of course they would attack UK soil. Not necessarily nuclear as they know even of we didn't strike back any number of western allies would. A regular missile attack wouldn't get the same retaliation or reaction.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are incredibly naive, but cannot be bothered to keep going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t be bothered to argue that a superior air force would disable an enemy force very quickly? It’s what the US do very well. In Iraq they bombed the country into submission in days and then occupied the country. This time round the US would not have to occupy Poland (where they don’t do so well is occupy countries).
They would just need to bomb an invading Russia force into submission which would take days. But all of this is redundant as Putin knows this would happen which is why he never would take on NATO head first and hence why the UK is very safe from conventional warfare. It’s the cyber warfare where they’re vulnerable.
Admittedly should the proverbial hit the fan and we need to use conscription, to bolster our army in an allied force deployed abroad, I can only assume.the gobshiite patriots on social media will.be the first to sign up led by Farage & Yaxley Lennon.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 4862 of 4935
4863 | 4864 | 4865 | 4866 | 4867
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I mean with Ukraine in particular. If it all kicked off with NATO properly being involved - say for example Russia invading Poland then surely the first thing that would happen would be the air force would take to the skies and bomb the hell out of the Russian forces to the point where they retreat. There wouldn’t need to be a mass mobilization of conscripted forces as NATO wouldn’t be trying to invade Russia, more just use force as a way of pushing them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Ukraine and Russia haven't been using missiles, drones and airforces to try to bomb military positions?
You still need forces on the ground to occupy. They will dig trenches to avoid ballistics. I think you are naive to how a war would work. There is a reason no country every establishes dominance without boots on the ground.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
posted on 4/12/24
The idea of wars being fought on computers without boots on the ground is still a long way off
posted on 4/12/24
You think Ukraine and Russia haven't been using missiles, drones and airforces to try to bomb military positions?
———-
Ukraine don’t really have an airforce to talk about so have to focus on ground troops to hold off Russians. The US have the top two air forces in the world and would be able to decimate a Russian ground force in a way that the Ukrainians can’t. I’m not saying zero NATO troops would be on the ground but I’m saying that there wouldn’t need to be any sort of conscription as NATO have enough troops and weaponry (ie planes) to push Russia back into Russia relatively quickly.
posted on 4/12/24
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
posted on 4/12/24
An invasion without troops is, by definition, not an invasion.
posted on 4/12/24
Not to mention the US have multiple carriers so would be able to destroy what’s left of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea and surround Russia at land and sea to the point where Russia would surrender very very quickly.
posted on 4/12/24
Membership of NATO probably does away with the need for conscription unless the conflict escalated to WW2 levels
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted less than a minute ago
Membership of NATO probably does away with the need for conscription unless the conflict escalated to WW2 levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what we are discussing isn't it? That's what the Defence Secretary implied by their comments about British forces.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Not to mention the US have multiple carriers so would be able to destroy what’s left of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea and surround Russia at land and sea to the point where Russia would surrender very very quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We'd all be radioactive dust before any Russian surrender, don't kid yourself otherwise.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Polish pilots seconded to the RAF were the difference there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot the poles 🫡
posted on 4/12/24
The original point that was raised was regarding invasion. You cannot invade anywhere without manpower. Whether anyone would want to invade the UK is another debate.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would have no way of knowing that a missile fired at the UK didn't have a nuclear warhead. If Russia fired at us, we would fire back before waiting to find out. For that reason, it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are incredibly naive, but cannot be bothered to keep going.
posted on 4/12/24
All this bolsters the case for Trident
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
All this bolsters the case for Trident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The UK’s nuclear capabilities are still at the mercy of America.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
Surely in modern wars using manpower is obsolete if you have a functioning air force. Which is why I never quite get the weird obsession with people saying ‘they’ll conscript young British men to go fight in Ukraine if Putin fights NATO directly.
If that were to happen NATO would establish air superiority within days and there would be no need for some WW1 style inch by inch trench warfare.
As for defending the UK - as above has said, if you have a nuclear deterrent no one would dare invade. Hence why you have one. And why no one would invade Russia or the US etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower is incredibly important in an invasion to be able to take and control land. Man power and trenches are still important in Ukraine.
You can't occupy new territory from the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think, Russia for example, would want to invade?
Their motive would be to decimate by missiles, air & naval attack whilst also embarking on hybrid methods of war they've already deployed on UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think they would do either of those things to be honest. They would fear the retaliation and escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't already embarked on mass disinformation on social media and fomenting division on contentious subjects on UK citizens? The recent race riots are a prime example of this.
They've deployed chemical weapons on UK soil twice without much consequence. Kicking out a few oligarchs and spying sanctions aside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will continue with those things, but you claimed they would decimate by missile, air and naval attack when question of they would try to invade.
I don't think they would do either of those things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't they if a large scale/world war broke out and we are one of their adversaries given what they've already done on UK soil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because our nuclear charter states that we can fire first if we are under threat? The nuclear deterrent likely prevents Russia targetting UK soil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From regular, non nuclear, long range missiles?
It makes sense to take out our biggest threat, our air and naval forces. Easiest way to do it, target air bases, airports, ports, and naval bases at home, which could be done with regular missiles.
What is the state of our missile defences other than nuclear deterrent? Do we even have air defence batteries dotted around the country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would have no way of knowing that a missile fired at the UK didn't have a nuclear warhead. If Russia fired at us, we would fire back before waiting to find out. For that reason, it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if any missile fired in the direction of thr UK would be assumed to be nuclear capable and we would preemptively fire first.
Look mate I'm just saying in the increasing possibility the world is going the way it looks of course they would attack UK soil. Not necessarily nuclear as they know even of we didn't strike back any number of western allies would. A regular missile attack wouldn't get the same retaliation or reaction.
posted on 4/12/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
I find it nuts that people can watch a war in Europe play out where there is mass conscription and despite ballistic missiles and drones being used, still see manpower being key to the efforts and still claim we wouldn't need manpower or conscription if there was a mass war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine is not NATo though. They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO. NATO have so much weaponry that would pummel the Russians to the point where long, drawn out fights by manpower would be redundant. Putin knows this which is why he would never risk taking on the might of NATO as he has no chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia are also using manpower though. Why don't they just do what you said? They have the hardware to do it.
Is it because manpower is important?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia don’t have anywhere near as much (modern) hardware on the scale NATO has. And at the beginning of the war they did try and establish air superiority but their planes were being shot down by anti missile devices.
And as I said before, I’m not saying zero manpower would be used, just that how things are in Ukraine would not be how things would be in Poland as the Ukrainians aren’t allowed to use F35s whereas if NATO were taken off the leash so to speak they’d annihilate what planes Russia has and then that would leave the Russian troops defenseless to the point Putin would have to either sue for peace or just withdraw forces and stay in his borders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are incredibly naive, but cannot be bothered to keep going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t be bothered to argue that a superior air force would disable an enemy force very quickly? It’s what the US do very well. In Iraq they bombed the country into submission in days and then occupied the country. This time round the US would not have to occupy Poland (where they don’t do so well is occupy countries).
They would just need to bomb an invading Russia force into submission which would take days. But all of this is redundant as Putin knows this would happen which is why he never would take on NATO head first and hence why the UK is very safe from conventional warfare. It’s the cyber warfare where they’re vulnerable.
posted on 4/12/24
Admittedly should the proverbial hit the fan and we need to use conscription, to bolster our army in an allied force deployed abroad, I can only assume.the gobshiite patriots on social media will.be the first to sign up led by Farage & Yaxley Lennon.
Page 4862 of 4935
4863 | 4864 | 4865 | 4866 | 4867