It seems wrong to disregard something as bluntly as that. It serves to aid the discussion slightly and show an upward trend in China's power compared to the fleets of other developed nations that are decreasing / remaining relatively equal.
Britain's Defences
- Thread starter [TW]Sponge
- Start date
It seems wrong to disregard something as bluntly as that. It serves to aid the discussion slightly and show an upward trend in China's power compared to the fleets of other developed nations that are decreasing / remaining relatively equal.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,763
China does have some carriers but they've been turned into theme parks and casino's.
A theme park inside of an aircraft carrier? Awesome.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,763
It's a military theme park, don't think there's any roller coasters.
Why would China want to invade our little island anyhow?
Sooner or later they are going to be a world superpower, economically and militarily
The Americans will have to deal with that not us - they're the ones acting as world police.
Our days of power and might have gone, along with the USSR. we cannot compete with the Americans.
If the worst came to the worse we will be fighting for Nato in support of the US - scary thought really
loooool. gotta love it
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Lol you mean Asim18
. How about chavs? How would they hold off the huge chinese army? I am guessing probably by using few chav tricks like wearing all hoodies at once, that would make the chinese army run for their money lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
Yes we did, but do you really think we don't have them or the means to make them at short notice?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
Time for all of that is pre-war.
Launching devastating retaliation would solidify your stance. And set a strong message that if anyone allies themselves with the enemy they will face a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
The whole point is that no-one would dare attack you, and if they do, they will be alone, and if they are not you end up with global nuclear war (everyone looses, so it doesnt matter)..
Personally if i was dictator, and i believed the following to be true; a) enemy would not use nuclear weapons as retaliation b) i was confident they could be defeated using conventional warefare. I believe war would be the only option. Now that takes into account diplomatic relations between countries and alliances which exist.
I believe the goal of any nation state is to work towards fulfilling those conditions. So basically isolation, and then war. Which the USA does, although on a smaller scale.
Last edited:
The whole pint would in reality be that if you use a preemptive nuclear strike on a civilian population like a city them you will only isolate yourself from those who would have been your allies.
Also if the country you attack in such a way has nuclear capability then like for like retaliation is a given, this is why deterrents work, you use them, they retaliate with them.
You would be seen as the enemy by everyone else in the global community and unless you are going to follow a course of mutual destruction then a united world will end your little war before it's begun.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
Well thats exactly the point.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 839
Wonder how long we will have to wait for the Falklands to be under threat again!
I think you have forgotten the course of action you suggested was the correct one. I'll remind you:
If you do this, the other nuclear capable state will retaliate in a similar vein, as the aggressor, you will be isolated and shunned by every other state in the world.
This is why states such as Israel, Pakistan, India have not used nuclear weapons in any of their conflicts.
You say it would send a strong message, you are right it would.
A strong message that you are rabid and need to be put down as soon as possible and by any means.
You will accomplish nothing more than your own demise in short order, so no it would not be the correct move to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, it would be self-destructive idiocy.
And that my crazy friend, is the point.
Last edited:
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?.
The only way Britain could be invaded is if Europe had already fallen, like in WW2.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 839
Wow, you seriously consider a nuclear strike at the beginning of conventional warfare to be a rational choice? and I thought Bush was crazy.
A nuclear strike is never a good choice let alone in this scenario, it's the last choice! and there isn't anything tactical about it, once you go down that route tactics go out of the window completely, that's the "freak out" button.
EDIT: To answer the post above, wrong, I think the word "invaded" and "invasion" is in need of modernisation...
A nuclear strike is never a good choice let alone in this scenario, it's the last choice! and there isn't anything tactical about it, once you go down that route tactics go out of the window completely, that's the "freak out" button.
EDIT: To answer the post above, wrong, I think the word "invaded" and "invasion" is in need of modernisation...
Last edited:
seriously, as soon as any country launchers a nuke they will get about 20 fired right back at them.
nukes are useless unless your planning on fireing everything you got at multiple nuclear countrys to stop them from launching back at you.
witch even N.korea isnt stupid enough to do let alone china
nukes are useless unless your planning on fireing everything you got at multiple nuclear countrys to stop them from launching back at you.
witch even N.korea isnt stupid enough to do let alone china
Nukes are not useless, nukes mean "you attack us and it's the end of the world for everyone"