Britain's Defences

[TW]Sponge · 15 Oct 2010 at 02:22

Hi guys, was having a debate with my mate in the pub earlier about the state of our navy and defence etc....

What chance have we got if say a big country like China wanted to invade?
(using China as an example) Would we be able to protect our little 'vulnerable' island?

Nix · 15 Oct 2010 at 02:36

In a conventional hot war with just us and China? No. They have numbers, scale, and lines of production on their side.

In an unconventional, or cold-war, or perhaps some strange war of political attrition; maybe.

That said, if China decided to invade us tomorrow, it would probably soon find itself on the wrong side in WWIII.

[FnG]magnolia · 15 Oct 2010 at 02:44

If we wall up the ramp entries and go for a marine, marauder, medivac build we should be ok.

House · 15 Oct 2010 at 02:56

Is their likely to be a conventional war anywhere in Europe never mind the UK?

Military thinking (and spending) has to move away from that sort of thinking.
Ok we need aircraft carriers and there defenses for force projection to places like afganistan and iraq and subs for our nukes, but other than that we have to remeber we no longer "rule the waves" and dont have an empire anymore.

I think our spending is low at the moment (which considering we have deployed troops isnt a good thing) but our spending needs to make sure we dont go down the road we did in world war 1 and have ared forces not at all suited to thier role (calvalry in trench warfare)

As for a war where someone tried to invade the UK? I this day and age i think we'd struggle as our island nature isnt the defense it was even back in 1940.

doofer · 15 Oct 2010 at 02:57

Why would any Country want to invade? Controlling the population would be a huge liability, there are no real resource assets to plunder, no strategic value. Would probably make a decent off-shore Prison for Europe though, we could cram all the criminals here from...oh wait.

Saetia · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:06

We have nuclear weapons. This simply would not happen as long as we continue to do so.

Superficial · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:09

Saetia said:
We have nuclear weapons. This simply would not happen as long as we continue to do so.

is probably the only reply needed.

Nix · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:11

Superficial said:
is probably the only reply needed.

And ironically, an incredibly superficial one at that.

Robbo · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:17

[FnG]magnolia;17577204 said:
If we wall up the ramp entries and go for a marine, marauder, medivac build we should be ok.

Superficial · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:18

Nix said:
And ironically, an incredibly superficial one at that.

really - how so?

an invasion is exactly what would trigger a nuclear response no? if you disagree perhaps you should enlighten us as to what exactly is wrong with that statement?

short and sweet perhaps - superficial? wrong.

digipeep · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:20

Yes we would be able to defend ourself, we would ring John Rambo on his mobile.

Greenlizard0 · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:27

Nix said:
That said, if China decided to invade us tomorrow, it would probably soon find itself on the wrong side in WWIII.

I can't get past this statement. Why would WWIII start? Who are we expecting to help us in a land invasion? Nato? The USA?

Superficial · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:29

Greenlizard0 said:
I can't get past this statement. Why would WWIII start? Who are we expecting to help us in a land invasion? Nato? The USA?

Yes and yes. are you saying that the concept of NATO would disolve for some reason?

though i disagree wholeheatedly with relying on others.

House · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:35

Thats what NATO is, invade one of us and we all come to help.
It was the cold war's answer to neighbourhood watch!

Nix · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:40

Greenlizard0 said:
I can't get past this statement. Why would WWIII start? Who are we expecting to help us in a land invasion? Nato? The USA?

Being that China is a permanent member of the same councils as us (the UN, etc. although not NATO), it would put the other members in a difficult position unless it of course completely broke all agreements in launching its invasion.

We'd be looking at those tied into us through political agreements to help, then those who have strong economic ties and thirdly our geographical neighbours. In each case, the same few nation-states will appear.

WWIII would start because of the following assumptions:

1. The world is smaller and globalised. There will be economic repurcussions felt globally, so others have a self-interest to pick sides. Britain is historically a friend to many. However, China is today's global banker. Follow the money.

2. We live in a different world than 60 years ago. Gone are the days of colonialism and entered has the days of neo-colonialism. Starting a war these days is a very different affair, namely due to the lessons learnt from fighting the first two global conflicts.

3. If China invaded, it would be breaking several agreements - namely in breach of the UN. If China invaded, it would be a very, very big thing. Do not expect other countries to sit by quietly and allow it.

Superficial said:
really - how so?

an invasion is exactly what would trigger a nuclear response no? if you disagree perhaps you should enlighten us as to what exactly is wrong with that statement?

short and sweet perhaps - superficial? wrong.

WMDs exist as a deterrent. As soon as that deterrent has failed, we enter into the realms of MAD. If China invaded, it would be on terms of a conventional war, otherwise it wouldn't be an invasion but genocide. It's superficial because you assume that the statement is enough, when the subject clearly goes far deeper. We're talking geo-politics, weapons acquisition, foreign policy, different modes of warefare, etc.

digipeep · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:41

To be honest the only country we have to fear is the USA.

and I'd be happy to sign up to **** the USA.

Bennie-Mac · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:51

We have nothing to worry about, everyone who is remotely an enemy to the UK will invade America first. That way if they do make it to us, their numbers will have been significantly reduced and we will prevail due to superior training and the RAF.

Plus we have loads of people who can get hold of a Mac 10 in under 3 minutes, they got our backs yo.

Nix · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:53

Bennie-Mac said:
We have nothing to worry about, everyone who is remotely an enemy to the UK will invade America first. That way if they do make it to us, their numbers will have been significantly reduced and we will prevail due to superior training and the RAF.

Plus we have loads of people who can get hold of a Mac 10 in under 3 minutes, they got our backs yo.

Only if we timetable them in correctly.

Superficial · 15 Oct 2010 at 03:53

Nix said:
WMDs exist as a deterrent. As soon as that deterrent has failed, we enter into the realms of MAD. If China invaded, it would be on terms of a conventional war, otherwise it wouldn't be an invasion but genocide. It's superficial because you assume that the statement is enough, when the subject clearly goes far deeper. We're talking geo-politics, weapons acquisition, foreign policy, different modes of warefare, etc.

Except that Saetias comment said that it would not happen i.e. that the OP's post was moot because we hold WMD's - I was signalling my agreement with this POV.

afterall the MAD agreement has been the mainstay of world peace since its inception. the iea of a nuclear state as advanced as ours suffering a land invasion is stupid. Fun but stupid.

edit: and before anyone thinks of mentioning the falkands remember that the argies thought we effectively wouldnt care enough about them. as it turns out, according to mitterand at least, she threatened to nuke argentina - not sure if i believe that - though i have no doubt that maggie would have been bluffing.