Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
There are two outcomes, either you win, they surrender, or total global nuclear war. And im ok with both of those.
Britain's Defences
- Thread starter [TW]Sponge
- Start date
There are two outcomes, either you win, they surrender, or total global nuclear war. And im ok with both of those.
Or more likely you are wiped off the face of the planet before you have the opportunity to see whether your 'nuke Beijing to scare the Chinamen' tactic worked by every nuclear power on the planet.
Not if you have enough nukes to launch on the "rest" the second you detect a launch from them
Everyone is always talking about nukes being a last resort. If you launch a nuke, countries will strike back. I don't think they would directly launch their own nukes at you but without a doubt there will be harsh international penalties. There's always the fear of global nuclear war.
I mean, a country has their own military and civilians. You would be willing to kill civilians who might not even agree with their own country's use of nukes? I'm just not honestly seeing the scenario of UK launching a nuke on China, China retaliates with nukes, other countries retaliate with nukes on UK and possibly China.
I mean, a country has their own military and civilians. You would be willing to kill civilians who might not even agree with their own country's use of nukes? I'm just not honestly seeing the scenario of UK launching a nuke on China, China retaliates with nukes, other countries retaliate with nukes on UK and possibly China.
We don't. And if I recall the scenario is UK v China.
Besides even if we did, it negates the usefulness of pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a tactical option, unless you're a megalomaniac of course.
Last edited:
I love it when people say we don't rule the waves anymore.... We still have the 2nd largest blue water navy in the world, not bad for a little speck of a island
Shame type45 is a expensive underarmed turnip of a ship...
Don't also forget advance Chinese forces already have bases in most towns in the uk.... They could lace egg fried rice with arsenic prior to the invasion
Shame type45 is a expensive underarmed turnip of a ship...
Don't also forget advance Chinese forces already have bases in most towns in the uk.... They could lace egg fried rice with arsenic prior to the invasion
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, not sure quite what the reasoning behind "we have nukes and can use them, everything else is pointless" people in this thread.
Nukes would simply assure a country with FAR MORE nukes, literally obliterates the UK and extinguishes all life. Even with the morons we have throughout the military and government I doubt many of them think its a good idea.
The only people/situation like to initiate a nuclear strike is as an EXTREME last resort.
IE China and UK at war for a year(it wouldn't take them long to destroy us) and decided a lifeless UK and repopulation with chinese citizens shipped over is easier than controlling us so went about a systematic destruction of our cities and killing everyone they find, when we're all but wiped out, launch our nukes at China then a last minute Nelson from the Simpons "ha-haa", sticking two fingers up and watching them sustain far larger loses than us and the last few of us not really care as we watch the entire UK's landmass turn into mushroom clouds.
Nukes worked, once, in the history of the world, they are a deterrant against those without them, M.A.D pretty much assures a war between two nations with nukes would NOT involve nukes unless one went bat **** crazy and decided to commit all kinds of war crimes and start mass killing the population.
For any sane country like the UK, luanching a nuke simple assures our own destruction. At least in the states or China you have the land mass to hide a LOT of people from direct strikes, the UK is the single worst place to be as blanket coverage is much easier than any of the "big" nations.
Of course, secondary effects from massive nuclear attacks wouldn't be particularly good.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
England = manufacturing power house, no.
USA during WW2, did they have the necessary jeeps, tanks, planes, guns, ammo to win WW2, no, they MADE the stuff.
The UK has no ability to replace lost ships during a slightly prolonged war, China has the ability to, should it want to, pump out a fleet of ships, planes, ammo, weapons, tanks that would make all our forces look like a joke.
Wars aren't won by the existing defensive forces countries have.
Germany for both wars went into manufacturing over drive for several years before war started at massive cost with a huge shift in the direction of the whole countries workforce really.
Its not about what you have now, its about what you can have built in a year if you want to, and its also about what you can build 6 months or 4 years into a war thats started, to replace losses and arm an increasing number of troops. The UK loses that hands down to every other superpower in the world, the UK wouldn't be even close to competitive. We weren't competitive in WW2 either, again it was the states and buying their manufacturing output that kept us going in the war.
Doesn't matter what size of navy, army, airforce we have compared to anyone RIGHT NOW. IN a year if China and the UK went into mass production of military equipment, boats, planes, tanks, jeeps, guns, ammo, what China would have vs the UK, the difference would be laughable.
What you have to remember here is that the China v UK scenario wouldn't simply be the UK. For the sake of argument in reality it would at the minimum be China v EU and that is a whole different ballgame. The EU has the largest insular economy in the world and the biggest most advanced manufacturing base in the world.
China v EU, China and its allies would be at a distinct disadvantage.
The fact is that mutual defence treaty organisations such as NATO are all very well,
but geo-political treaties such as that of the EU create superstates and that is why states such as China and Russia behave themselves.
The reality of any direct sovereign attack by another nation on the UK would be regarded as an attack on the EU and effectively a declaration of War. No-one not even the United States has the clout and arsenal (conventional) to countenance such a foolhardy move.
have a good long hard look at wiki and tell us how even in a year at 'war' china could project any power to our shores...
if they managed to get air power within range of good old blighty, I hazzard a guess kill rate on their chinese junk against typhoon would be 50:1, at worst.
please stop putting us down in the role we played in WW2 also... we did pretty dam well, though it was a very close call.... I think you'd be quite surprised just how we could ramp up production of 'quality' tech that could over shadow larger qty of chinese junk
Last edited:
they would use their existing network of chinese takeaways for food supplies...
they would also undermine our whole society by handing out free year of the whatever calendars with chinese food with incorrect dates on
Why do too many people forget logistics when theorising a war being waged?
It's easy enough to say they "have more of X" but it doesn't help when you can't get them anywhere, enough of them, quick enough or at all.
With pre warning, no vehicle large enough to transport mass amounts of troops is going anywhere fast when invading an island. Having allies next to the country you invade with land connections makes it easier. It would be a much easier job for us to get a supply chain closer to China that it would for them to the UK. As well as forward operating bases etc. Also they will be limited in paths to take by air and land as some countries won't let them through without a fight.
It's a simple way of putting it but purely numbers mean nothing.
It's easy enough to say they "have more of X" but it doesn't help when you can't get them anywhere, enough of them, quick enough or at all.
With pre warning, no vehicle large enough to transport mass amounts of troops is going anywhere fast when invading an island. Having allies next to the country you invade with land connections makes it easier. It would be a much easier job for us to get a supply chain closer to China that it would for them to the UK. As well as forward operating bases etc. Also they will be limited in paths to take by air and land as some countries won't let them through without a fight.
It's a simple way of putting it but purely numbers mean nothing.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
That already happens.
The UK gets electronically attacked about a thousand times a day by the Chinese.
My source for that was a very good one.
**** That means they are planning to invade then? No troops on the Channel tunnel. How long a drive from Beijing to Dover.
I like Chinese food - but not every day.
Actually that is a fallacy, it is amazingly easy and the logistical infrastructure is already there and the chinese are a dab hand at it. They are called container ships
Container ships need to be defended. It's a long way to the UK by sea and many a chance of being sunk. There's no way any long container hauls can be hidden from intelligence.
But that brings up a point. Assuming no nukes are used at all and UK is on defensive mode i.e no large scale attacks planned on China and full manpower and resources on fighting off the Chinese Invasion. If the UK could destroy or be a major hindrance to China's supply lines, the war would be as good as won. After all, they are the ones that want to invade and have to extend the most effort for a little island.
You are daft as a brush....
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 6,570
- Location
- Hereford
Hmm, I happen to find the reply's to this thread very interesting. Some people have some real knowledge on the subject and is nice to hear them voice it.