RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

meghatronic said:
Thing is, if someone burst into your home while you were there and had a nosy... but didn't do anything violent, would you ask him to leave with a polite "hello sir how are you today", or would you break our your flame-thrower and roast him?

I think they would be escorted by typhoons and given every opportunity to land or **** off before they were forced down. And hopefully the pilots returned to Russia safely. We're British, not American.
Click to expand...

Wheres that lighter gone!

I'm not saying we should be all guns/missiles blazing but we are very passive military wise as a country, which is mostly a good thing. It does make me wonder exactly what would happen if push came to shove; god forbid a hijacker or crazed Russian pilot decides to come right over our land and was threatening us and ends up seeing the threat through. What i'm trying to say I suppose is I don't really feel all that safe about the security of our country, me of little faith.
 
2StepSteve said:
Wheres that lighter gone!

I'm not saying we should be all guns/missiles blazing but we are very passive military wise as a country, which is mostly a good thing. It does make me wonder exactly what would happen if push came to shove; god forbid a hijacker or crazed Russian pilot decides to come right over our land and was threatening us and ends up seeing the threat through. What i'm trying to say I suppose is I don't really feel all that safe about the security of our country, me of little faith.
Click to expand...
It is ALWAYS a good thing to be passive militarily. Don't get me wrong, if there was a threat, we would act. But, a plane flying around isn't a threat.

Over-react and you have a war on your hands. Under-react and.... you have someone flying over your country :)
 
2StepSteve said:
If these bombers came right above our soil do you really think we would have the balls to shoot them down? US - i'd say yeah without question. The UK? We would rather give them then a polite 'hello sir how are you today?' and perhaps offer them a cuppa.
Click to expand...

That's a fairly ridiculous statement. Yes we are not the US. We would send up quick reaction aircraft, if their planes were actually over UK soil, we'd also send up other aircraft. I imagine there would be dialoge, ie get the **** away from our airspace, and if they persisted, then yes they would be shot down.

The PRIMARY goal of the RAF, RN, Army etc is to protect Britain.

Our fighters carry some pretty mean weaponry these days!
 
meghatronic said:
It is ALWAYS a good thing to be passive militarily. Don't get me wrong, if there was a threat, we would act. But, a plane flying around isn't a threat.

Over-react and you have a war on your hands. Under-react and.... you have someone flying over your country :)
Click to expand...


What if that bomber we don't down drops a nuke on London?
 
meghatronic said:
I think people just have a hard time accepting Britain can still - and always has - punch(ed) WAY above it's weight.
Click to expand...

Yeah but even if you consider britain to be mike Tyson, Russia would be the equivalent of elephant. Tyson can doge and punch all he likes but it;s too big for him to take, and when it does finnaly get annoyed he;s toast.

The thread established the no nuke rule.
Click to expand...

Shame real wars arn't like that.

But they could sit in Russia and fill London with chemical weapons with only 5 or so minutes warning. same or most of Europe.
 
Tefal said:
Yeah but even if you consider britain to be mike Tyson, Russia would be the equivalent of elephant. Tyson can doge and punch all he likes but it;s too big for him to take, and when it does finnaly get annoyed he;s toast.

Shame real wars arn't like that.

But they could sit in Russia and fill London with chemical weapons with only 5 or so minutes warning. same or most of Europe.
Click to expand...
To be fair, wars are like that. Nukes would NOT get involved. And they wouldn't use mass genocidal techniques would they. You're not being realistic here.

Orcish-Horde said:
It would not supprise me if the Russians phoned up the RAF to let them now which days they had flights planned for.
Click to expand...
IIRC they do. In fact, it's in the OP.
 
Tefal said:
Yeah but even if you consider britain to be mike Tyson, Russia would be the equivalent of elephant. Tyson can doge and punch all he likes but it;s too big for him to take, and when it does finnaly get annoyed he;s toast.



Shame real wars arn't like that.

But they could sit in Russia and fill London with chemical weapons with only 5 or so minutes warning. same or most of Europe.
Click to expand...

What if Mike Tyson had an elephant gun?
 
meghatronic said:
To be fair, wars are like that. Nukes would NOT get involved. And they wouldn't use mass genocidal techniques would they. You're not being realistic here.
Click to expand...

you're talking about Russia going to war with nato here, it would be a nuclear war from the get go. because sooner or later one side would start losing then they'd fire their nukes, so the only way to win if you're the attacker is hit them first.

As for chemical weapons, sure they'd use em maybe not on civilians but defiantly on military places.

If you honestly think Russia would hold up it's hands and say "ok no WMD's and no hitting the face?" you're sorely mistaken.

Besides, Russia uses thermobaric weapons regularly they aren't exactly known for their humanitarian tactics.
 
Tefal said:
you're talking about Russia going to war with nato here, it would be a nuclear war from the get go. because sooner or later one side would start losing then they'd fire their nukes, so the only way to win if you're the attacker is hit them first.

As for chemical weapons, sure they'd use em maybe not on civilians but defiantly on military places.

If you honestly think Russia would hold up it's hands and say "ok no WMD's and no hitting the face?" you're sorely mistaken.

Besides, Russia uses thermobaric weapons regularly they aren't exactly known for their humanitarian tactics.
Click to expand...
I just can't see Russia flipping out and going mad.

If you're so bent on nukes, if Russia fires first, Britain fires everything she has at every major Russian city. UK is pretty much totally destroyed and Russia will be a wreck that NATO will finish off. So, they won't use nukes, seriously.... I can't see why you can't comprehend the concepts of MAD. It's one thing if she fired them in defence.... but in offence, against a similarly armed nation, it's signing death warrants for potentially billions of people. Not even Hitler was that pyscopathic.
 
Tefal said:
well that would be the equivalent of britain having a dooms day device.
Click to expand...

Not really. A man with a gun can shoot before you even know he is there.

An RAF Typhoon can get airborn and fire its missiles at a Russian TU-160 bomber before the Russian aircrew even knew about it. It wouldn't even need to be in sight....

Same difference really.

The russians only have a small handful of TU160s anyway.
 
I think your wrong Tefal, I think the first stage would be an almighty ariel battle. The Russians would lose 80% of their airforce pretty much right off the bat, with western forces loosing around 25% of their strength. Germany would likely be the first real opponent to Russian forces, backed up with heavy British, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek and Turkish forces the Russians would be stopped. Then comes the counter attack from the EU countries, their superior tank numbers would dwindle in months due to the massive superiority of aircraft numbers. They'd then have a choice, go nucelar and get wipped of the face of the planet but have their 5 minutes of glory or go back. China would never back Russia in that situation. Firstly they'd have 200 jets from Taiwan to defend against and Japan. Then Pakistan and India would back NATO too. Russia would find itself in a corner with no mates bar north Korea and Iran. And Israil would love it love it if that was the case.
 
meghatronic said:
I just can't see Russia flipping out and going mad.
Click to expand...

Well hen the question of them attacking us conventionally is void too.


If you're so bent on nukes, if Russia fires first, Britain fires everything she has at every major Russian city. UK is pretty much totally destroyed and Russia will be a wreck that NATO will finish off. So, they won't use nukes, seriously.... I can't see why you can't comprehend the concepts of MAD. It's one thing if she fired them in defence.... but in offence, against a similarly armed nation, it's signing death warrants for potentially billions of people. Not even Hitler was that pyscopathic.
Click to expand...

Except Russia could nuke us France and America simultaneously, and probbably take out at least 2 of our 4 vanguards before they can fire from port, which means we'd have less than 50-100 nukes at very best.

But you;re the one going on about how russia's equipment makes us militarily superior when it's total BS, their nuclear arsenal completely negates both sides army's.
 
Over Clocker said:
Not really. A man with a gun can shoot before you even know he is there.

An RAF Typhoon can get airborn and fire its missiles at a Russian TU-160 bomber before the Russian aircrew even knew about it. It wouldn't even need to be in sight....

Same difference really.

The Russians only have a small handful of TU160s anyway.
Click to expand...

Well no cause Russia has missile that can be fired from a sub off our coast without knowledge, and missiles they could fire from the plane long before we knew what they where going to do. A TU160's missiles outrage the typhoons bby a long way.

But for the Tyson vs elephant argument, you'd hav to change it to tyson with an elephant gun vs about 20 Tyson with elephant guns
 
Tefal, you are seriously overestimating the current strength of Russia's military. You don't seem to understand that:

a: A lot of the Cold War air defence systems are still in place, eg the tracking stations in Norway etc.

b: Russia's nukes are in **** poor state. In the 90s, NATO provided BILLIONS of dollars in aid to Russia to ensure the safety of their ageing nukes. These are the same nukes that are in place now. Their ability to fuel and launch is severaly poor. They would be lucky if they can launch 10% of their nukes.

2 or 3 Typhoons could take out the entire Tu-160 fleet and return back to base in time for tea.

The RN Vanguards could launch within minutes. Trident missiles travel at Mach 22. That's like 18,000mph. Thatis the whole point of MAD. One country fires, we all do.

The RAF and British Army retain large numbers of troops and equipment in Germany.

The USA would launch at Russia and that would be the end.

Russia, USA, UK, Europe would all be ******
 
Tefal said:
Well hen the question of them attacking us conventionally is void too.




Except Russia could nuke us France and America simultaneously, and probbably take out at least 2 of our 4 vanguards before they can fire from port, which means we'd have less than 50-100 nukes at very best.

But you;re the one going on about how russia's equipment makes us militarily superior when it's total BS, their nuclear arsenal completely negates both sides army's.
Click to expand...

As soon as one country even launches a missile we will all know about it. It would be verified and then we would all launch our missiles back.

MAD.


Incidentally, a computer glitch in America during the cold war caused the screens to show a full scale Russian nuclear launch. Luckily they realised it was a computer glitch before launching back!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom