comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 7 minutes ago
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 They are fighting with scraps and outdated weapons sent by NATO.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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I can't be bothered. Sure a superior air force gives an advantage, but if it were this simple the US would have won every war it faced.

It's pointless going any further though. You speak with all the confidence on the subject of someone whose knowledge is at the lower end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it's the way of the world that the idiots shout the loudest with absolute certainty and then end up unprepared for the consequences.

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why that is controversial. It's the reason Russia had to notify other superpowers prior to firing a long range missile at Ukraine.

Firing at the UK would trigger Article 5 within Nato and when the trajectory was determined to be at the UK, an immediate decision would need to be made about a strike back.

Any strike would have to be so preplanned that everyone knew about it or it would risk a retaliatory strike before it even hits. Russia would not want to risk that type of escalation.

I would guess that there are protocols in place on what to do if Russia launched a long range missiles strike at the UK. There would only be a few minutes to react, so they would have to minimise the time to make a decision.

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Battle of Britain was 1940, there was no nuclear option

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Battle of Britain was 1940, there was no nuclear option
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS. Who's gonna use it now?
Putin keeps threatening it but he knows he'll get hammered if he goes that route. People on here ITK about it are all full of schitt. It won't happen.

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why that is controversial. It's the reason Russia had to notify other superpowers prior to firing a long range missile at Ukraine.

Firing at the UK would trigger Article 5 within Nato and when the trajectory was determined to be at the UK, an immediate decision would need to be made about a strike back.

Any strike would have to be so preplanned that everyone knew about it or it would risk a retaliatory strike before it even hits. Russia would not want to risk that type of escalation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The thought our nuclear deterrent is prefaced on assumption any missile heading our way is nuclear made me laugh.

How has nuclear war not accidentally broke out due to the same assumption elsewhere?

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 19 minutes ago
The thought our nuclear deterrent is prefaced on assumption any missile heading our way is nuclear made me laugh.

How has nuclear war not accidentally broke out due to the same assumption elsewhere?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Has a country with a nuclear arsenal had a long range missiles capable of holding a nuclear warhead fired at it?

There have been multiple points during the Cold War where these decisions had to be made. The most famous one is this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

This sort of decision making is the reason why Iranian strikes on Israel are flagged before they happen.

If someone just fired a rocket like this without pre-warning, the whole of the developed world is on alert.

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted about an hour ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are

comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted about an hour ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarity we’d stand on the beach as the invading forces approach shouting fook off yis cants

comment by Ruben The King Amorim Tim Tagi Dim (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's still a deterrent and it would make us 4th choice behind say Spain, Germany or Italy.

comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted about an hour ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 53 minutes ago
Nah Battle of Britain was all us (and we'd have probably lost it if not for Chamberlain's appeasement)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the lend-lease. And colonial armies and allies.
And nucular option?
Who's gonna use theirs first?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a chance

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ruben The King Amorim Tim Tagi Dim (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's still a deterrent and it would make us 4th choice behind say Spain, Germany or Italy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this has been shown not to be true hasn't it? The UK's nuclear deterrent is operationally independent.

Well that’s up for debate whether it’s a deterrent. But again, the issue is that the UK is effectively a proxy for America’s nuclear strategy.

And unless the UK becomes a pariah state and leaves NATO, that it would become a target for nuclear attacks without there being repercussions for the aggressors You think if Russia nuked Germany that nothing would happen?

comment by Ruben The King Amorim Tim Tagi Dim (U10026)
posted 4 hours, 48 minutes ago
I’m not one to defend Boris, but I don’t think he’s blaming China for their problems. I don’t know enough about the region, but it looks he’s saying mining companies are increasing exposure to the areas where there’s lots of infectious diseases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, my comment was a reply to Oscar's, in which he rushed to push the China narrative.

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I can't be bothered. Sure a superior air force gives an advantage, but if it were this simple the US would have won every war it faced.

It's pointless going any further though. You speak with all the confidence on the subject of someone whose knowledge is at the lower end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it's the way of the world that the idiots shout the loudest with absolute certainty and then end up unprepared for the consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct Tamwolf. Otherwise the whole approach of Combined Arms Operations would not exist. Having air superiority is a huge advantage to clear out positions, but you will still need armoured and support infantry (to protect armoured and other hardware) to weed out remaining enemy forces (like in buildings, etc).

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Ruben The King Amorim Tim Tagi Dim (U10026)
posted 4 hours, 48 minutes ago
I’m not one to defend Boris, but I don’t think he’s blaming China for their problems. I don’t know enough about the region, but it looks he’s saying mining companies are increasing exposure to the areas where there’s lots of infectious diseases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwiw, my comment was a reply to Oscar's, in which he rushed to push the China narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


To be fair, I’m surprised you even dignified him with a proper response.

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 7 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I can't be bothered. Sure a superior air force gives an advantage, but if it were this simple the US would have won every war it faced.

It's pointless going any further though. You speak with all the confidence on the subject of someone whose knowledge is at the lower end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it's the way of the world that the idiots shout the loudest with absolute certainty and then end up unprepared for the consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct Tamwolf. Otherwise the whole approach of Combined Arms Operations would not exist. Having air superiority is a huge advantage to clear out positions, but you will still need armoured and support infantry (to protect armoured and other hardware) to weed out remaining enemy forces (like in buildings, etc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Look no further than the Israelis, their Gamer-boys and their drones did a powernof damage in Gaza but they weren't taking any ground in Lebanon with just air power and when they did put boots on the ground they met their match and agreed a ceasefire.

Teslas r mosed dangerus cars on road

Knot necessarily the behicle itselve butt the way there drivers drive.

comment by Robben Amorim (U22716)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ukrainians don't even have F35s.

Barnier kicked out

France a mess AGAIN

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 21 seconds ago
Barnier kicked out

France a mess AGAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just want Le Pen to manage them already