Can we put France on their side so they're at an even bigger disadvantage?
Britain's Defences
- Thread starter [TW]Sponge
- Start date
Can we put France on their side so they're at an even bigger disadvantage?
The source being GCHQ which has been published in all the Media and everyone knows has been going on for years by various countries, including the UK.
Your talking 20-30 days for any kind of supplies, and where would they store their supplies? I imagine it would be a case of either "punch through" at day one, or pull back.
Last edited:
I don't think you need to talk about pre-emptive strikes, if you have nukes then you should be in such a position as that no-one will dare to touch you as if they do it's the end of them and possibly the whole world
You're missing the fact that I was replying to the post from Platinum87 which specifically gave a single pre-emptive strike on a major city as a valid tactic to precipitate a victory in a conventional war.
The use of Nuclear weapons as a deterrent has already been discussed separately.
Depends on when and how war is convened, if its a surprise attack, they leave it on our docks. If a slow build up, on of the shipping ports in Mediterranean Africa would be best, Algeria, Tunisia or Morocco would be quite adequate. Our European extensive and well maintained rail and road network would be quite handy, for the transport. As is always the case if you can use it for commerce you can use it for war.
From what I read he said beginning of conventional warfare, rather than pre-emptive (before war starts).
For instance, once the Argies had landed on Falklands (thus declaring war) we should have used our nukes, but should not have used nukes UNTIL they landed.
So you are going to ship several hundred thousand troops and the huge amount of equipment needed to invade a major industrialised and well defended nation such as the UK in commercial shipping containers to Europe via the sea.
This will take several weeks transport, what condition do you think those troops are going to be in when they arrive, also how do you suggest removing the containers from the ships in question at the ports without alerting the authorities to their contents. (You do understand the level of security employed in importing goods I hope).
How are you going to resupply those troops assuming that you actually reach the UK and secure a beachhead, where is your air support, logistical support, communication support and so on.
How long do you think it would take a highly mobile, fully equipped and fresh defensive task force to neutralise such a threat.
I can tell you, not long, not long at all.
Precipitate a VICTORY in a conventional war, not start the war in the first place. He also said that one of the exceptions was if the country did not have nuclear weapons.
And no we should not have used a nuclear weapon on Argentina. We would have been shunned and isolated by every other nation on the planet. We would be seen as a rogue state.
International laws, Geneva Conventions, Rules of Engagement, all would be hugely against us.
Nuclear deterrents are just that deterrents, their usefulness is negated by their deployment.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
It wasn't someone from GCHQ that told me ( and indeed others as I was on a course / lecture at the time ).
It is no big secret that it goes on as you say but the chap who said this mentioned that Rolls Royce and BAe are amongst the most frequent targets.
Although there are limitations in the number of troops able to land, their condition could be quite good as im sure you know those container ships are massive if used in a coordinated action of say 5/7 container ships there would be sufficient troops to hold a port.
Also the carrying of anti aircraft ordinance may help to neutralize the greatest threat to an invading force.
As for the defensive force most of that could be slowed by judicious use of Chinese students and tourist placing explosive devices on motorway bridges thus blocking the fast transport of these troops. The same with rail transport.The next slowing down measure is the destruction of substations, causing nationwide blackouts, leading to fear and general mayhem.
The next measure so as to farther slow down any response is to have demolition team also plant other explosive devices that are remote controlled so as to be exploded at a time when suitable.
The worse part of this is the capture and detention of the locals, who will be used as a human shield.
The only part where it really falls apart, is naval dominance as any build up of naval forces would be immediately spotted.
Which is why i would recommend that the Chinese greatly improve their submarines. As judicious use of at least seven submarines would do the trick.
I for one, welcome our Chinese overlords.
Keeping troops cooped up in shipping containers would frankly be silly. They would be weak, demoralised and on the verge of death by the time they reached the European coast. You obviously haven't seen asylum seekers after they have spent just a few days in a shipping container.
How do you suggest retrofitting heavy weapons to container ships and the long range defence systems needed to effectively neutralise the threat from modern war-planes and anti ship missile systems. How do you intend on neutralising the submarine threat to the container ships?
Who is going to do this wanton destruction, you do realise that the vast majority of Chinese residents in Europe are in Europe because they DO NOT support the PRC government.
How do you supply these Chinese terrorist tourist without alerting the authorities and thus putting the entire Western World on alert to Chinese Terrorism and the inevitable response.
How do you intend to do this, your troops are in shipping containers, the indigenous Chinese community do not support the PRC, those that do do not want to ruin their comfortable lives with a war.
Which negates your entire argument.
Seven submarines, against our hunter-killer Subs, anti sub Helicopters, Destroyers, need I go on.
The biggest problem with all this is
HOW DO YOU INTEND ON GETTING THE CONTAINERS FULL OF TROOPS OFF OF THE CONTAINER SHIPS WHILST THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK AND WITHOUT THE USE OF THE PORTS WHICH WILL STILL BE UNDER ALLIED CONTROL.
If a dingy with a handful of AK47 totting Somalis can hijack a container ship, what do you think a Type 45 destroyer will do or even a single lynx helicopter armed with Sea Skua anti-ship missiles for that matter.
You haven't thought this through at all.
Last edited:
In your vast knowledge of military matters, i would love to know where the figure of at least 7 subs come from!
You are imagining that my party leaders have informed you westerners of our intentions, you seem to think that your mighty British troops are just standing there on the docks with fag in mouth waiting to fight us Chinese off the docks.
http://containerhomes-info.com/
None of our beloved pets could ever walk the streets safely again
Imagine our street signs like this -
Or worse this -
You are imagining that my party leaders have informed you westerners of our intentions, you seem to think that your mighty British troops are just standing there on the docks with fag in mouth waiting to fight us Chinese off the docks.
http://containerhomes-info.com/
Do those homes have self lifting anti mavity devices to lift themselves off the container ships and onto the docks?
How many troops are there to a container? half a dozen. It would take over a hundred container ships to ship enough troops just to establish a beach-head and that doesn't include their heavy equipment or their resupply.
I think it would be rather noticeable don't you think.
Have you seen what one fishing boat can to do to the Japanese Navy.
No your right i havent thought this through, was it really easy to spot.
Im still standing by my original strategy though.
Sorry im pmsl here.
Right to be serious, any large congregation of troops embarking or building up near a major dock, or work on this scale would be spotted before they even left the docks why do you think we have satellites?