Britain's Defences

Captain_Slick · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:34

Saetia said:
It's a theoretical excersise which provides some mental stimulation. Some of us are interested in strategy studies.

No, it isn't.

This thread is effectively:

Post 1

China will crush the UK with MILLIONS OF CHINA MEN!1!!!1!!!!11!111

Post 2

It will never happen. lolwut.

The most interesting it got was when the comparisons between military spending per capita and standing armies was made, pointless as it was. That being the high point says enough.

EdGey · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:35

You're just not getting it are you lol.

Captain_Slick · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:36

EdGey said:
You're just not getting it are you lol.

No, because the federation of galaxians have been building up their space carriers for the past quarter decade. They outnumber us numerically and technologically. Their universal plasma phase ammunition destroys planets in a single shot.

EdGey · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:38

Ok. You have successfully achieved what you set out to do and ruined a decent thread which was actually quite interesting to those who were able to understand it.

I suggest you move on to the next thread now, and see what you can do.

sanaxe1 · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:41

Captain_slick = Troll.

Captain_Slick · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:42

Are you all actually mental?

Saetia · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:44

sanaxe1 said:
Captain_slick = Troll.

Captain_Slick = Eggface*

Von Smallhausen · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:46

China didn't have any aircraft carriers a while back, not sure if that's still the case.

VaderDSL · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:47

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

though i disagree wholeheatedly with relying on others.

Depends if China come through Europe to get to us

Captain_Slick · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:47

Saetia said:
Captain_Slick = Eggface*

Why would I have egg on my face?

Castiel · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:49

Captain_Slick said:
No, because the federation of galaxians have been building up their space carriers for the past quarter decade. They outnumber us numerically and technologically. Their universal plasma phase ammunition destroys planets in a single shot.

You're not quite sane are you.

If you don't enjoy the thread or topic then simply do not participate, and leave those that do to do so in peace.

Saetia · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:52

Von Smallhausen said:
China didn't have any aircraft carriers a while back, not sure if that's still the case.

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/08/daily_chart

Captain_Slick · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:53

Castiel said:
You're not quite sane are you.

If you don't enjoy the thread or topic then simply do not participate, and leave those that do to do so in peace.

It's pretty obvious that that post was taking the pee. What if I instead gain enjoyment from questioning the thread content?

Okay, now I really am just being a nuisance for nuisance sake.

Castiel · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:54

Von Smallhausen said:
China didn't have any aircraft carriers a while back, not sure if that's still the case.

That is still the case, they have been talking about acquiring a Carrier and expanding their green water navy into a blue water one.

Common thought is that NATO is encouraging this as China can then support the few blue water navies there are in security of global shipping lanes.

platinum87 · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:55

At the beginning of conventional warfare, the correct move would be to lauch a nuclear strike on enemy capital cities.

Exceptions to this are nation states which are either 1) lacking in nuclear capability, or 2) are defeated easily (relatively) using conventional warfare. I.e Iraq/Afghanistan.

Saetia said:
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/08/daily_chart

Go back to 1930 and ask people who would win in a war. Things like that graph are not really something you should focus on if you are interested in this stuff. That said im not saying China isnt a major power, just that its better to look from a different perspective.

Von Smallhausen · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:58

The US has something like 10-12 supercarriers.

They still amaze me to this day. Awesome machines.

Enterprise is due to be decommisoned in the next few years by which time it will have been in service for 50 years. Amazing. It is still the longest warship in the world.

Castiel · 15 Oct 2010 at 17:58

platinum87 said:
At the beginning of conventional warfare, the correct move would be to lauch a nuclear strike on enemy capital cities.

Exceptions to this are nation states which are either 1) lacking in nuclear capability, or 2) are defeated easily (relatively) using conventional warfare. I.e Iraq/Afghanistan.

That would be precipitous idiocy. Nuclear weapons are only effective as a deterrent, to actually use them on civilian targets of a nuclear capable opponent would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Castiel · 15 Oct 2010 at 18:03

Von Smallhausen said:
The US has something like 10-12 supercarriers.

They still amaze me to this day. Awesome machines.

Enterprise is due to be decommisoned in the next few years by which time it will have been in service for 50 years. Amazing. It is still the longest warship in the world.

The Nimitz class carriers are mini cities...absolutely amazing machines.

Hopefully our own get the funding.

It is surprising how few true Blue-Water Navies there are, besides the US, UK, France, and Russia only a few others have some limited ocean going capability.

platinum87 · 15 Oct 2010 at 18:04

Castiel said:
That would be precipitous idiocy. Nuclear weapons are only effective as a deterrent, to actually use them on civilian targets of a nuclear capable opponent would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Yes but it would also be insane for a nuclear capable state to attack another nuclear capable state.

Thus it is the correct more, otherwise its not a deterrent, it is a bluff.

Killerkebab · 15 Oct 2010 at 18:07

Am I the only one who believes that in the event of some sort of invasion or skirmish on mainland Britain, the people who are most likely to help us are actually in Europe rather than North America?

platinum87 said:
Yes but it would also be insane for a nuclear capable state to attack another nuclear capable state.

Thus it is the correct more, otherwise its not a deterrent, it is a bluff.

I disagree. At the beginning of conventional warfare we should be looking for allies, not lashing out and making it harder for them to commit to helping us.