Military Discussion Thread, Discuss Military Matters In Here Options

[Blackbuck]

Same as the politics thread really, new thread for matters of a military nature because the Politics part of the P&M thread was such a hit it's got it's very own thread now

So...

In this thread members can discuss any new developments in the field of warfare, discuss current and past conflicts etcetera. Please keep it civil, no "What Gun Am B35T etcetera"


Please Conform To the Forum Rules!


Also keep in mind that posts from a staff member of our website do not represent the whole site. They are posting their personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to!

[D@V£]

I have suggested Nuclear Deterrent has been useless to Britain, which when you look at the political circumstances the past 35-40 years is not exactly unfair to suggest. The argumant [sic] that NATO has not tried to prevent a war is completely irrelevant to the point i [sic] was making, NATO is a collective defence, Britain is a member and as such benefits from the nuclear deterent [sic] provided by the USA. Im [sic] not trying to deny nuclear deterrent has deferred conflicts in Europe (and in Asia), the spheres of influence that nations in Europe are alligned [sic] under have almost certinly [sic] prevented a number of open conflicts. Your showing plain ignorance to the content of my post, i [sic] really shouldnt [sic] have to repeat myself.

1. That's not what you said. You implied that NATO would prevent wars in the same manner as the UN. Which is the sort of thing I'd expect from someone who doesn't fully understand what NATO is.
2. NATO clearly aided Georgia, a NATO member, with their entire nuclear arsenal, didn't they? Wow. I'm surprised Russia was that dumb, but, hey, they aren't any more now that Moscow's been reduced to a pile of rubble. And man, did that really show China. They instantly surrendered and let the Kuomintang just walk back in from Taiwan. Who could have seen this happening!?

(That was me pointing out that NATO did exactly jack-sh*t to prevent Russia's "liberation" of South Ossetia and "the other one". And don't say "well the relation between the US and the UK is different". Because, yes, it is, they like us less than the Georgians.)

Falklands War - Would Argentina invade an overseas territory of the United Kingdom if it was nuclear capable? Yes

That's not really a comparison to what I said. Argentina at the time wasn't a huge world player and had no fear of nuclear attack, as they knew any attempt by us would be construed as an act of war by the Soviets.

China - Did all the prowess of a nuclear deterrant [sic] prevent an invasion of North Korea occupied by UN forces or the consistance [sic] shelling of Taiwan islands? No

Again, not really a comparison. Because South Korea wasn't nuclear capable. Neither was Taiwan.

As for your spelling... I'm merely pointing out your flaws so that you might learn from them. A lot of members don't speak English as a first language, if at all, and would have difficulty with words if they're misspelt. Especially if the spelling means something completely different.

[BigglesTrevor]

1. That's not what you said. You implied that NATO would prevent wars in the same manner as the UN. Which is the sort of thing I'd expect from someone who doesn't fully understand what NATO is.

Like hell did i

Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO.

This is the theory of MAD, Preventing nuclear attack on nuclear attack. Its has nothing to do with preventing conventional warfare. The US act as out on our behalf as the nuclear detterant through NATO.

2. NATO clearly aided Georgia, a NATO member, with their entire nuclear arsenal, didn't they? Wow. I'm surprised Russia was that dumb, but, hey, they aren't any more now that Moscow's been reduced to a pile of rubble.

Somone who dosnt fully understand what NATO is? Gerogia is not a NATO member.

I cant help but feel your completely missing the point and jumping in favour of watery argumants. Give me some decent reasons why Britain should maintain its nuclear arsenal, they are some pretty convincing ones.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 14 2009, 23:43