I don't think anyone said WW3 can't happen. It's just that WW3 is nuclear Armageddon if it does happen. After WW3, there is only a nuclear wasteland.
Your country needs YOU!
- Thread starter GGizmo
- Start date
Citation needed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
The US are going to be stationing Nukes in the UK for the first time in 15 years and the chief of the army is saying we need to recruit.
I guess they know something we do not.
I guess they know something we do not.
Last edited:
They have been talking about doing this since August last year - it’s a deterrent
Last edited:
They know for sure, they have been planning it for decades. Right now all we are seeing is the forming of public opinion stage.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
We already have a deterrent with our subs.
well the good news there is we have all played fallout so we are well prepared........................ stocking up on my radroaches and nuka cola as we speak, just need to finish soldering the capciators on my pipboy 3000
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 2,602
- Location
- East Sussex
Well that's just a failure of imagination - throughout history we've seen societies get whipped up into a furore.
Also I think the UK has plenty of nationalists - who tend to be a more patriotic bunch
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
We have a deterrent against being attacked with strategic nuclear weapons with our Trident thermonuclear missiles on the Vanguard submarines. The Trident system targets the largest 14 cities in Russia. It is expected to kill at least 60 million Russians.
However, it won't be used if some of our military assets are destroyed with tactical nuclear weapons or if we lose a battle between conventional forces. That's why we need stronger Armed Forces and tactical nuclear weapons to allow us to respond to Russian aggression in a like-for-like manner. If there are gaps in our forces so we cannot respond to stepwise escalation then the Russians will not be deterred because they know we only have a retaliation policy on the use of our strategic nuclear weapons.
Presumably, this fight would be a defensive one. In which case, you'd be fighting for your home and loved ones, not just a flag.
Not that it matters - Russia's fighting capacity verges on total irrelevance when put alongside NATO.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 1,454
will the uk have enough kit to go round for a conscripted army? even now the government is on about making more cuts to the armed forces the conscripted would be sent to war with home made bows and arrows and harsh language
Hah it's amazing what a drill instructor will get right
Tactical nukes don't really make sense in modern war. They were ok when they were invented because you didn't need an accurate weapon, you could hit a target everyone within close range would be gone too. But now we do have accurate weapons and they 10% of the price of a nuke. You can buy 10 cruise missiles with a 2000km range for the price of one small nuke, which means you can hit up to 10 valuable targets instead of just a single target
Last edited:
They do have intimidation purpose, even if theoretically doing the same damage as a non-nuclear missile(s) say, and they unfortunately provide a potential middle-ground where some/all parties don't think it merits to escalating to wiping us all off the map
One of the risks is though the more we depend on our nuclear deterrent alone, the most likely it becomes we actually have to use it, which is just a daft situation.
EDIT: Something I think we are starting to see as well - for a long time nuclear deterrents worked to largely discourage any kind of conventional war, but over time some have worked out the margins, we are probably going to see that more and more tested in coming years.
Last edited:
Semi serious question, to which I've not yet been able to find an answer to.
I know during the Falklands conflict there was some kind of war powers act that allowed the requisition of merchant shipping (and crews), hence troops traveling down to the islands on cruise ships etc.
Does this act this exist and furthermore, can it be extended to civilian aircraft?
I know during the Falklands conflict there was some kind of war powers act that allowed the requisition of merchant shipping (and crews), hence troops traveling down to the islands on cruise ships etc.
Does this act this exist and furthermore, can it be extended to civilian aircraft?
Doesn't really matter, in a time of war such emergency acts will almost certainly be passed into effect anyway if necessary.
EDIT: I've not read it all but seems to be a fairly comprehensive article on the premise here https://consoc.org.uk/emergency-powers-in-the-united-kingdom/
Last edited:
Thanks for that, I think you're right. The article can probably be summed up by the first line.
'In times of crisis we know no law, save for that of necessity'
TBH probably more requisition of pilots than aircraft (albeit that requires aircraft familiarity), any of the more likely, should it ever come to something happening, scenarios are probably going to involve working C-17s and A400Ms to death getting stuff into Europe. Though civilian aircraft can also be used for some aspects of logistics and troop movement - but you ain't loading a MBT or AFV into a 747 :s
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
I see Johnson has waded in. What he’s not clear on is which side he’s advocating for.
I've seen the sentiment of "I wouldn't fight for the UK...', etc. here and elsewhere online.
That should be really worrying to any Government. They should be asking themselves why it is that people feel they have no stake in the UK.