IPB


Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Forum Rules Forum Rules
11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Military Discussion Thread, Discuss Military Matters In Here
D@V£
post Jul 12 2009, 13:30
Post #41


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



QUOTE(BBC)
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has rejected claims UK troops in Afghanistan are ill-equipped


Ah. Joy of joys. Another idiot in the cabinet who thinks he's fit to take on a role he clearly knows nothing about.

Well, let's see;

1. The standard issue SA80 was outdated by 20 years when it was first put into service back in the 80s. Despite being updated twice to the current model, the SA80A2, neither of these modifications have solved some of the crucial issues with the SA80. Anyone who even has a slight feeling the US should be getting rid of the M16 and M4 will agree without a shadow of a doubt the SA80 needs to go. Now. Of course, when it comes to money that could easily be lining MPs pockets, suddenly giving our troops the ability to have weapons that are of any use in a combat environment disappears. How strange.

2. Vehicles! Vehicles vehicles vehicles... the majority of causalities in Afganistan are due to IEDs. Suppose this could be solved by using transport vehicles with better armour, rather than these "snatch" landies with a few extra plates bolted on, right? Of course, where's the money for these vehicles? And how is Mr Ainsworth funding these excessive repairs on his second home? Quite. The. Conundrum.

3. Helicopters. Apparently we don't need more of these. Mr Ainsworth seems to think so anyhows. I suppose it hasn't occurred to him the Taliban don't have the facilities yet to make IEDs that fly... oh wait. Helicopters cost money. Why didn't I think of that?! Duuuuh...

Christ... at the rate these assholes are running things it won't be long before our troops are riding around on bicycles with slingshots...


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 14 2009, 08:00
Post #42


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jul 12 2009, 13:30) *
3. Helicopters. Apparently we don't need more of these. Mr Ainsworth seems to think so anyhows. I suppose it hasn't occurred to him the Taliban don't have the facilities yet to make IEDs that fly... oh wait. Helicopters cost money. Why didn't I think of that?! Duuuuh...


Too be fair theres a dozen of Merlins on the way, plus about 10 Chinooks. Helicopters arnt risk free, though they are a much safer way to get about when your main enemy is the IED. I dont understand why the forces dont unlock more of its helicopter fleet for Afganistan, then again its probably becuase half the helicopters are utterly outdated and fulfil no significant role, eg. the Gazelle and Lynx.

TBH the main way forward would be to scrap trident and a ridiculously redundant political asset, and used the 20 odd billion you save to bring the active parts of the armed forces out of the 90's.


--------------------
 
Quote Post
Blackbuck
post Jul 14 2009, 09:27
Post #43


ArmA.info Sarcasm Society's Appointed Olivia Wilde Stalker
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12-November 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 113



Wildcat will be with us soon, so new Lynxes.


--------------------

--------------------
Heed my words or risk being beaten with a stick then fed to my associate D@V£
The Rules - Most places have rules, these are ours Read them!
Moderation Feedback Thread - Let everyone know how much you don't like D@V£
--------------------
 
Quote Post
pMASTER
post Jul 14 2009, 10:28
Post #44


Gentleman Usher of the Coffee Stain
Group Icon

Group: Site Team
Posts: 677
Joined: 5-November 06
From: C18.3#C77.2#G63.1
Member No.: 19



QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Jul 14 2009, 09:00) *
TBH the main way forward would be to scrap trident and a ridiculously redundant political asset, and used the 20 odd billion you save to bring the active parts of the armed forces out of the 90's.
Good point I guess. What's the British military's budget without the nuclear submarine force included?


--------------------
Google Google and Google will google Google!



R.I.P. Jacky *1996-Ü2014
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 14 2009, 10:40
Post #45


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



£38.7 billion overall, 1.5 billion is for trident. The new trident plans may cost up to 25 billion to implement.


--------------------
 
Quote Post
pMASTER
post Jul 14 2009, 11:31
Post #46


Gentleman Usher of the Coffee Stain
Group Icon

Group: Site Team
Posts: 677
Joined: 5-November 06
From: C18.3#C77.2#G63.1
Member No.: 19



That's about 41 Bn EUR if I'm not wrong.

Explains a lot.


--------------------
Google Google and Google will google Google!



R.I.P. Jacky *1996-Ü2014
 
Quote Post
D@V£
post Jul 14 2009, 14:33
Post #47


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

[/sarcasm]


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 14 2009, 15:11
Post #48


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jul 14 2009, 14:33) *
Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

[/sarcasm]


Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away £75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands, not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling there energy reserves.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 14 2009, 15:20


--------------------
 
Quote Post
pMASTER
post Jul 14 2009, 15:45
Post #49


Gentleman Usher of the Coffee Stain
Group Icon

Group: Site Team
Posts: 677
Joined: 5-November 06
From: C18.3#C77.2#G63.1
Member No.: 19



QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jul 14 2009, 15:33) *
Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...
I had something completely different in mind. Although being underfunded according to its members, the British military was able to deploy tens of thousands of troops to two theatres (Iraq and Afghanistan) were large scaled operations were carried out independently.

With a budget of 31 bn EUR (compared to aforesaid 41 bn EUR), the - larger - German military is hardly able to deploy several thousand troops to one theater.

And that explains a lot.


--------------------
Google Google and Google will google Google!



R.I.P. Jacky *1996-Ü2014
 
Quote Post
D@V£
post Jul 14 2009, 17:07
Post #50


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Jul 14 2009, 15:11) *
Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent [sic] on our behalf, thats [sic] the hole [sic] point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away £75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly [sic] nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent [sic] have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands [sic], not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling [sic] there [sic] energy reserves.


That's only because the government doesn't seem to appreciate how awesome it is to have the power to destroy up to 12 targets on earth with the press of single button...

Besides, you seem to be forgetting that this money is not only going towards the trident missile system, but also provides technological and scientific understandings that better the lives of the common citizen.

As for Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless. The UN has shown it's completely useless by their attempt to prevent war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and NATO has never tried to prevent a war. You can't tell me it's merely a coincidence that hasn't been a major war in Europe since nuclear weapons were first deployed.

As for your "other countries don't need nuclear deterrents" crap. Well... let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Korean War - Would North Korea have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
2. Vietnam War - Would North Vietnam have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
3. Chinese invasion of Tibet - Would China have invaded Tibet if they were nuclear capable?


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 14 2009, 20:35
Post #51


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jul 14 2009, 17:07) *
That's only because the government doesn't seem to appreciate how awesome it is to have the power to destroy up to 12 targets on earth with the press of single button...

As for Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless. The UN has shown it's completely useless by their attempt to prevent war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and NATO has never tried to prevent a war. You can't tell me it's merely a coincidence that hasn't been a major war in Europe since nuclear weapons were first deployed.


I didnt say "Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless", i said in terms of super power relations they were limited, Only someone with no grasp of international politics would say otherwise.

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 that NATO has not tried to prevent a war is completely irrelevant to the point i was making, NATO is a collective defence, Britain is a member and as such benefits from the nuclear deterent provided by the USA. Im not trying to deny nuclear deterrent has deferred conflicts in Europe (and in Asia), the spheres of influence that nations in Europe are alligned under have almost certinly prevented a number of open conflicts. Your showing plain ignorance to the content of my post, i really shouldnt have to repeat myself.

Im questioning the purpose of a independant British nuclear deterrent when our international political position has not moved significantly in the last 65 years, and shows no imminant threat of doing so many decades to come. Lets take the plunge like South Africa, join Austrailia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany and Holland. I dont see any Chinease, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians or French walking all over there faces.

This brings me to my next point, whats the point of spending this enormous sum of cash on a nuclear detterant when we would never use them independantly without the USA's backing anway? Its madness, its pretty much paying the USA to station an extension of there detterant in the UK.

QUOTE
Besides, you seem to be forgetting that this money is not only going towards the trident missile system, but also provides technological and scientific understandings that better the lives of the common citizen.


Excuse the fact that i have had to pull it from wiki, but im pretty sure the top 10 share some sort of corrolation. Now im not trying to suggest thats becuase they dont have nuclear arsenals, but it hardly hurts quality of living not too. But i have to agree with you to an extent, the internet that is allowing us to have this debate was a technological advantage that came of the back of nuclear programs. thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
As for your "other countries don't need nuclear deterrents" crap. Well... let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Korean War - Would North Korea have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
2. Vietnam War - Would North Vietnam have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
3. Chinese invasion of Tibet - Would China have invaded Tibet if they were nuclear capable?


This is comical, your asking me to look at facts by providing questions formed from completely invented hypothetical situations. Not even to bring up the fact they share no similarity with the current situation that the UK finds itself in in 2010 and that you have once again deviated with an argumant against a quote which appears no where in the content of my post. Christ start living in the here and now, Maybe we should spend that 25 Billion on helping France extend the Maginot line to the North coast of France, would Hitler have planned a Blitzkrieg through the low countries if there was an extended Maginot line? Better yet, would North Korea have invaded South Korea if the US officers (in rather junior positions it must be noted) accepted the entire surrender of the Japanease forces on the Korean penisula rather than seeking Russian involement for conveniance? Like i said, Im talking about Britain, not Tibet or Sri Lanka or Barbados. Anyway in responce :

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

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

Nuclear detterant is not a magic wand of invulnerability, is more a barganing chip on the craps table of international politics, on which Britain was never reserved a seat. The view of this Citizen is that its time for Britain to cash up that chip and improve its decade neglected military of an overdraft.

Oh i left some spelling mistakes so you could do the [sic] stuff, you seem to like playing the English teacher. Go crazy.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 14 2009, 20:45


--------------------
 
Quote Post
D@V£
post Jul 14 2009, 21:30
Post #52


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



QUOTE
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!? ohnoo.gif

(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.)


QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 14 2009, 23:34
Post #53


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jul 14 2009, 21:30) *
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

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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


--------------------
 
Quote Post
D@V£
post Jul 15 2009, 01:05
Post #54


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



Firstly, it's "Like hell I did." What you said was a question. As if you were in doubt about what you actually said.

Seriously, if you're going to attempt to argue with someone try to learn the f*cking language. I'm getting sick of your constant failures to use a keyboard properly. Do you actually understand what this mysterious device before you is? Do you think it's some kind of radio? Do you use incredibly unreliable voice detection software? Or do you just not care what people think of you as a person? To be honest, when I read your posts it only conveys to me that this is actually how you speak. I highly doubt you do talk like a caveman (though it wouldn't surprise me), so please, for the love of god, get a spell checker and just read everything through before you hit the post button in a neolithic feat of rage. Thank you.



Anyhows;

I thought Georgia was a NATO country. I know they left the Eastern Bloc equivalent (name escapes me right now) to join NATO but I wasn't aware that they hadn't been fully accepted as a member. I apologise for this mistake. They are however a prospective member of NATO, which probably gives full members more of a right to intervene. (Imagine if Russia attacked every potential member of NATO without fear of response? No one would join! ohnoo.gif )

QUOTE
Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

That's what you said. You said the point of the UN and NATO was to avoid war. Actually, you quoted that in your own post there, so I don't see why I bothered repeating you.

I fail to see how this is a description of MAD. I feel that you pasted it thinking incorrectly that it was something I posted. Why you had it on your clipboard I don't know. I can only assume you were attempting to edit your previous post to cover up that sentence. You failed at that too.



So, why should the UK maintain it's nuclear arsenal? As a deterrent. You might as well ask why we have Armed Forces as a whole, because, frankly, that's what you're argument amounts too. You're saying we should just sit back and wait for the US to come riding in whenever we're in trouble. I've already given you undeniable evidence that Nuclear weapons in Europe has stemmed the inevitable "Let's have a huge war every 20 years for no reason" school of thought in the continent.

Unless you're some kind of socialist-hippie then you can't deny that the trident system is an essential part of the UK's defence network. Because, let's face it, with the current state of our armed forces god knows we couldn't actually fight off an invasion from any competent military force...

Besides, I'm sure ever you'd agree that the power to destroy the moon with a single keystroke is pretty damn awesome.


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 15 2009, 10:23
Post #55


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



QUOTE
That's what you said. You said the point of the UN and NATO was to avoid war. Actually, you quoted that in your own post there, so I don't see why I bothered repeating you.

I fail to see how this is a description of MAD. I feel that you pasted it thinking incorrectly that it was something I posted. Why you had it on your clipboard I don't know. I can only assume you were attempting to edit your previous post to cover up that sentence. You failed at that too.


Go look up the meaning of nuclear deterrent. That post was in direct responce to :-

QUOTE
a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...


MAD is the fundamental principle behind a nuclear deterrant. I think you understand the principle philosophy that is the centre of this debate [sarcasm]. I commented that for some NATO members the fact they come under the protective branch of a military alliance is good enough for them not to need there own individual nuclear deterrant. I understand that deterrent can refer to discouraging a conventional attack, but with your referral to the current political climate (I assumed eg. N. Korea, Iran) i really think the debate orientates around the deterrent of nuclear attack as oposed to conventional attack. A conventional nuclear deterrant can work for sure, but in the case of Britain its really not a serious concideration due to the favorable position (geographically and politicly) that our nation enjoys.

QUOTE
You're saying we should just sit back and wait for the US to come riding in whenever we're in trouble.


Where did i say this? Im saying we should take advantage of some of the defence they already offer us. Once again you take my words and spin your tabloid headline. You should concider a job with the Daily Mail, you like to blow things out of all proportion in order to pursuade others to your agenda. I merely suggested when would we ever use the nuclear arsenal without the backing of the United States? Besides, The last time we flexed are muscles to any degree without US backing was in Suez, nothing short of a political disaster.

QUOTE
Unless you're some kind of socialist-hippie then you can't deny that the trident system is an essential part of the UK's defence network.


oooohhhhh, applause for bringing out the "everyone who dosnt agree with me is a leftie" agrumant, highly original. Frankly, what your saying here is a complete bunch of tosh if you take any interest in British politics. However right now im not really expecting anything better from you.

QUOTE
So, why should the UK maintain it's nuclear arsenal? As a deterrent. You might as well ask why we have Armed Forces as a whole, because, frankly, that's what you're argument amounts too.


Please elaborate. Nations who do not have nuclear arsenals dont have armed forces? I really dont understand how my argumant amounts to this, quite frankly.

QUOTE
I've already given you undeniable evidence that Nuclear weapons in Europe has stemmed the inevitable "Let's have a huge war every 20 years for no reason" school of thought in the continent.


Yes, the political map and super power relations (which includes the use of nuclear deterrant) have prevented a major war, as well as nearly potentially caused it in the early 50's. I dont dispute this. I agree, but it has nothing to do with Britains individual nuclear deterrant, its the collective arsenals of the west and east.

QUOTE
I know they left the Eastern Bloc equivalent (name escapes me right now)


They are partner members in some shape or form, it really translates to prospective members. Just to confuse things a little bit more Russia actually share similar status. ohnoo.gif

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 15 2009, 10:29


--------------------
 
Quote Post
D@V£
post Jul 15 2009, 15:01
Post #56


Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,037
Joined: 13-November 06
From: Wales
Member No.: 155



I'm aware of what a nuclear deterrent is thank you. I don't think you are though.

A nuclear deterrent is a weapon system exclusively designed to prevent a land invasion because "if you even look at me funny I'll nuke you".

Mutually Assured Destruction is the theory that if two country with nuclear deterrents went to war then there'd be nothing left at then end of it (though there's a good chance that neither group would use their devices for fear of this exact scenario, with the entire conflict becoming a ground pound)

The simple fact is that strategic weapons are so entwined in the theory behind modern warfare that simply not having them would put us in a similar situation if we suddenly got rid of our entire air force. If we don't have Nuclear weapons we couldn't effectively wage war on any country that does have them. Simple as that.



QUOTE
I commented that for some NATO members the fact they come under the protective branch of a military alliance is good enough for them not to need there own individual nuclear deterrent.


Yes. That's exactly what I said you said. It's essentially saying that the US should be responsible for all the nuclear weapons in the world, and, let's face it, when you've got that argument, you might as well say let's disband all conventional armed forces and just have a combined NATO army. I shouldn't have to tell you why that's a bad idea. Now, with nuclear weapons, the same reasons still stand, only it's a lot worse.

Also, to turn your own argument upon you. A fat lot of good NATO did for us when the Argentinians made a grab for the Falklands.

We can't rely on NATO to do everything. If you think that NATO is some kind of magical military confederation, then you're clearly mistaken.


QUOTE
They are partner members in some shape or form, it really translates to prospective members. Just to confuse things a little bit more Russia actually share similar status. ohnoo.gif

No.
Russia has a partnership with NATO. Georgia is a prospective member of NATO. As I've already said Russia is a member of a similar alliance to NATO consisting of itself, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and a few others. Until recently this included Georgia, until they left with the intent of joining NATO.

This post has been edited by D@V£: Jul 15 2009, 15:02


--------------------
The Rules - Nothing too complicated, follow these and we'll have no problems.
Moderation Feedback Thread - Tell everyone how much you hate me love me secretly fear that Mark is watching you while you sleep. secretly wish that Mark is watching you while you sleep.
Site Issues Thread - Complain about site issues here. We might even fix them!
Community Chatter Thread - Furthest Mud-sling gets a free subscription to "JdB Monthly".

QUOTE(Major Mike Shearer)
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.
QUOTE(Brace Belden)
A machine gun is like a woman, I donít understand it, Iím afraid of it, and one day Iíll accidentally be killed by one.
 
Quote Post
BigglesTrevor
post Jul 15 2009, 15:24
Post #57


The Il2 Fan
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 733
Joined: 7-November 06
From: England
Member No.: 25



Ill take your points.


--------------------
 
Quote Post
Wittmann
post Jul 15 2009, 16:49
Post #58


ArmA.info Sarcasm Society's Admin Extraordinaire
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 907
Joined: 5-November 06
From: Canberra, Australia
Member No.: 18



Dave. If you get so offended that you need to rant, rave and insult another member again without calming down and just correcting the spelling or requesting the use of a spell checker, NICELY, I will be suspending your account for a good week or two.

Now, coming from 6 months studying Cold War British politics and also the Cold War for my IR major at uni, my opinion;

Nuclear Deterrence has its place. This is a given fact. Peace in Europe between two opposed ideological alliances was preserved. In any other situation such hostile acts, brinkmanship and build up of forces would have led to war. The advent of massive nuclear arsenals ensured peace was kept as both blocs adopted a defensive strategy believing the other would be the aggressor.

Both, until the 1980's, entertained the notion that a first strike would not win the war and that the retaliatory strike from the enemy would negate any gains from attacking first. So we had dťtente, MAD and then under Reagan a policy of direct confrontation in an effort to secure 'victory' via an arms race itself - using economic superiority to out-produce the opponent when it came to nuclear force.

The UK had wanted to equip itself with nuclear weapons since the Second World War. The Americans however did not want to share their nuclear monopoly. This continued until the 1960's. The UK did develop the bomb however in comparison with the US and USSR we are talking peanuts. The V-Bombers were soon outdated and would face heavy losses, Blue Streak was an abysmal and expensive failure so the UK turned to the US to save face - we want submarine based nuclear missiles. Polaris was acquired. Able but already becoming obsolete due to US advances in missile design - not to mention there is a slight issue. The UK has the missiles and no submarines that can launch them. So they have to be designed, built and fielded first...

Trident replaces Polaris. The V-Bombers are retired leaving the UKs only deterrent the SSBN force.
The 'peace dividend' following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union is of course the scaling down of the UK defence budget, which had already been cut drastically from the late 1960's until the immediate aftermath of the Falklands War. The UK is left with a military that is undergoing a drastic cut in manpower and with a doctrine focused on integration into NATO in a conflict with the Soviet Union. Almost all defence purchases were geared towards this goal which is why loses were relatively heavy in the Falklands for the RAN - the navy was designed to be the North Sea NATO ASW force in the event of war with the USSR. This is why the larger carriers were retired by 1979 and why most ships had inadequate air defence. Their primary mission was never to sail halfway round the world to reclaim a colony from an invader. Its a testament to the men of the British forces that they were able to accomplish this goal with relatively light casualties.

The RAF was geared towards supporting NATO in Europe and Norway once the V-Bombers were retired. The Army was no different. My point is; the entire force had one primary mission in mind. Deterring the USSR via integration with NATO. The nuclear deterrent was no exception.

With so few submarines and a relatively small nuclear arsenal the deterrent is hardly one at all. Those nations who pose a credible strategic arms risk to the UK continue to be the old adversaries anyhow. And any nation likely to attack NATO with nuclear weapons would face retaliation from the still vast US arsenal which consists of not only naval based nuclear missiles but the retaining of many ICBMs and two nuclear capable B52 wings at Barksdale and Minot alongside B1s and B2s.

North Korea has no weapons capable of hitting the UK.
Iran, unlikely and with the proposed NATO missile shield in Eastern Europe any such threat will soon be negated or else would be followed, once more, by swift US action.
Deterring the Russian Federation is a losing game, they retain enough Nukes to send us all to Jesus several times over.

If anything retaining a nuclear force is a 'status symbol' in the modern world. Its the implication - 'look what we have' rather than the threat of their use. So who is Britain deterring? I cannot imagine the submarine force deploying outside the Atlantic and I cannot imagine the Russians seriously contemplating a nuclear strike on Europe or the UK - once more, if they did who would be the ones to really hurt them? The US.

Why nations such as the UK and France retain their nuclear deterrent force is beyond me. Its expensive and the funding could best be routed elsewhere into defence - its a Cold War hangover from the days of realist theory and the need for a nuclear deterrent throughout NATO in the event of sudden attack from the Soviet Union.

The weapons are outdated and any conceivable nuclear exchange involving the UK is almost guaranteed to also involve the United States and its massive arsenal. If anything the UK should consider investing in tactical nuclear weapons capable of being delivered via cruise missile or aircraft - why blow a city to hell when you can level a military base, the organs of power or an industrial target? This can be as much of a deterrent, is far more easily deployed and less lethal when it comes to massive civilian casualties and fallout; not to say it is not also extensively destructive in its force despite being a smaller weapon of far less yield.

Just my two cents and something to think about.


--------------------


Junglewraiths Clan - GAU
Evil Director of Forum Resources
 
Quote Post
Blackbuck
post Aug 7 2009, 11:12
Post #59


ArmA.info Sarcasm Society's Appointed Olivia Wilde Stalker
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12-November 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 113



3 soldiers from the Parachute Regiment have been killed and one more not to my knowledge from the paras are in a critical condition after being blown up by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. My guess is they were in a Jackal or similar. Will have to see what news comes through from the MoD.
Get the news the day after it happens.
Poor sods. sad.gif


--------------------

--------------------
Heed my words or risk being beaten with a stick then fed to my associate D@V£
The Rules - Most places have rules, these are ours Read them!
Moderation Feedback Thread - Let everyone know how much you don't like D@V£
--------------------
 
Quote Post
pMASTER
post Aug 9 2009, 15:28
Post #60


Gentleman Usher of the Coffee Stain
Group Icon

Group: Site Team
Posts: 677
Joined: 5-November 06
From: C18.3#C77.2#G63.1
Member No.: 19



It's been a very tough year for ISAF. The situation in entire Afghanistan has turned worse over the months, possibly indicating that a crucial and decisive phase of the war lies ahead. Another interesting aspect is that all regional commands have launched offensives of noteworthy size now, taking on the Taliban in all parts of the country at the same time. If the elections in August go off relatively smoothly, it would be a major blow for the insurgency.

Speaking of it, you just gotta love good German machinery kicking Taliban assess...

Clickety Click

Unfortunately it's only a very short clip, but you can see some MG3s and GMGs firing a couple of rounds.


--------------------
Google Google and Google will google Google!



R.I.P. Jacky *1996-Ü2014
 
Quote Post

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th July 2018 - 11:09