Your country needs YOU!

[Freefaller]

Or you can belong to a bigger gang(NATO). An agressor may not think twice about attacking you on your own but if there were nine of your friends with you...............

Oh I agree, but it's also good to be tough - though I would 100% of the time expect/choose diplomacy and peaceful resolution rather than needing to have to defend yourself. That said, wearing a flack jacket in the negotiation is still better than not.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Personally I'm not a fan of letting anyone else look after our defence beyond a reasonable amount - NATO article 5, etc. is all well and good but only obliges rendering of aid and there is no telling what the situation might be. Global politics can, sometimes, change far faster than people think, those who might be our friends today might not be tomorrow.

And sadly if things do kick off it'll likely be the UK amongst the first to get stuck in and some other countries doing everything they can to keep their hands clean of it, even if in reality it risks all our futures including their own.

This

I think everyone assumed a super power stand off would be simply nukes or nothing.
I think thats now flawed even if it wasn't always flawed.

I don't think for one minute that NATO would nuke first.
As such I think Putin will see that there is a chance for further conquest and that the west isn't going to try that hard to stop it.
Hes got plenty of issues, but Russia is capable of more, its just been weakened by the systematic stripping by him and his cronies.
He can reverse that of course.
If he snowballs a good chunk of Ukraine and maybe a couple of other nations he gains resources and population for zerg attacks.

We aren't exactly shy in advertising how little kit we have either. Chally2 and Leo2 whilst good have been proven to be able to be disabled on the battlefield as well.

NATO, its a massive risk relying on the combined strength. I would expect the sorts who rush to say we should negotiate in Ukraine now would be the same who would say the same about Finland or Sweden or Poland.

There is little point IMO to looking to strengthen the number serving when the reality is we would run out of ammo far faster right now than equipment and people to operate it.

We IMO need a decent plan (oh thats us screwed then with politicians) to bolster ammo, then equipment levels, and only then trained personnel.
Thats more like a 15 year plan to me off the bat.

I love pacifists for their optimism but they tend to be seriously blinkered, take JC as an example.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Are you asking me that question, or yourself? You're the one suggesting the UK doesn't ensure it has the means to do so

Like I said, you need to have both the will and the means to do so. It's all very well saying "yeah we'd defend ourselves if attacked", if at the same time simultaneously saying we don't need to be prepared for it.

You are trying to say other countries would not defend themselves based on my personal beliefs. The UK has ensured itself by deing in NATO. The militarists like you want to re-arm when the countries structure is falling apart for a threat that only exists in the militarists minds.

 

[FoxEye]

NATO, its a massive risk relying on the combined strength. I would expect the sorts who rush to say we should negotiate in Ukraine now would be the same who would say the same about Finland or Sweden or Poland.

So you think there is a chance that NATO would simply allow Russia to pick them off one-by-one and do nothing about it.

Seems very unlikely. It would basically be the stupidest course of action.

e: Let's face it, even one NATO country alone could hold off Russia for a while. And that ignore the particularly close bonds between, say, the Nordic/eastern countries. It assumes that if say Finland was attacked, then Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc would do nothing.

It's not slightly realistic imo.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I dunno if in any way related but I'm getting a ton of promoted ads of late for armed forces recruitment along with promoted material on social media sites, etc. related to WW2 glorifying fighting for your country, etc. maybe someone knows something we don't :s

The armed forces are 8-25% understaffed depending on the service. Govt has decided to stop its current recruitment outsourcing contract and start a new outsourcing recruitment campaign. Maybe what you are experiencing is the start of this new companies campaign.

 

[do_ron_ron]

There is little point IMO to looking to strengthen the number serving when the reality is we would run out of ammo far faster right now than equipment and people to operate it.

There is always an early stage in any conflict when supply outstrips demand but as has been shown before, capitalist countries adapt much, much quicker and supply everthing needed.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So you think there is a chance that NATO would simply allow Russia to pick them off one-by-one and do nothing about it.

Seems very unlikely. It would basically be the stupidest course of action.

NATO relies on the nations within. There is no firm commitment in effect.
If say Germany was invaded our coming to their aid could be as simple as supplying some protective equipment.

What % of our kit would you send to Poland if they were attacked? All, half, what?
What % of our limited ammunition or military personnel?

 

[FoxEye]

NATO relies on the nations within. There is no firm commitment in effect.
If say Germany was invaded our coming to their aid could be as simple as supplying some protective equipment.

What % of our kit would you send to Poland if they were attacked? All, half, what?
What % of our limited ammunition or military personnel?

I answered that in my edit. A lot of those eastern nations would absolutely band together and fight and die together.

And the rest would appreciate that allowing Russia to take land makes Russia stronger and NATO weaker, thus guaranteeing their own eventual destruction.

It demands a level of stupidity and short-sightedness that borders on the ridiculous. I just don't see people basically giving Russia a free reign to conquer the whole of Europe, piece by piece. It's not realistic.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

There is always an early stage in any conflict when supply outstrips demand but as has been shown before, capitalist countries adapt much, much quicker and supply everthing needed.

You mean demand outstrips supply.

Its ok to make that assumption, working in manufacturing as I do I fear we would really struggle to create any meaningful expansion.
My first job was on a site, 1000 works personnel, multiple lathes, two foundaries, in fact during WW2 they made tank parts (as well as ammo)
There was an old rail line on site from where the rail was used to move stuff on and off site directly.
Its now a load of houses and retail.

 

[do_ron_ron]

NATO relies on the nations within. There is no firm commitment in effect.
If say Germany was invaded our coming to their aid could be as simple as supplying some protective equipment.

What % of our kit would you send to Poland if they were attacked? All, half, what?
What % of our limited ammunition or military personnel?

You are forgetting NATO has military bases(usually American) all over Europe so the Americans would be involved straight away. Nato has been doing war game scenarios since just after WW2, I think they will have plans in place for whatever place ant attack may happen.

 

[BUDFORCE]

We IMO need a decent plan (oh thats us screwed then with politicians) to bolster ammo, then equipment levels, and only then trained personnel.

I reckon I could crack out maybe 1000 rounds on my reloading press a day at a push

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I answered that in my edit. A lot of those eastern nations would absolutely band together and fight and die together.

And the rest would appreciate that allowing Russia to take land makes Russia stronger and NATO weaker, thus guaranteeing their own eventual destruction.

It demands a level of stupidity and short-sightedness that borders on the ridiculous. I just don't see people basically giving Russia a free reign to conquer the whole of Europe, piece by piece. It's not realistic.

In your opinion its not.
I disagree quite heavily.

Everyone assumed war was basically done in Europe. Hows that working out.

You are forgetting NATO has military bases(usually American) all over Europe so the Americans would be involved straight away. Nato has been doing war game scenarios since just after WW2, I think they will have plans in place for whatever place ant attack may happen.

I am not forgetting.
The US were in the process of closing lots of bases as they were no longer needed. Including one of the two airfields close to me.
They have seemingly changed their mind on that now.

Again, relying on the US IMO is a very risky position to take.
Whilst Trump cannot take the US out of NATO he can basically do sweet FA should something happen.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I reckon I could crack out maybe 1000 rounds on my reloading press a day at a push

Someone has to forge and machine them for you though right.
My main concern is that our manufacturing capacity is so low now it would take a large effort to increase that significantly.
Plus the sorts I used to work with who operated CNCs etc are now all getting old and retiring.

 

[do_ron_ron]

And the rest would appreciate that allowing Russia to take land makes Russia stronger and NATO weaker,

It wouldn't because they would have to have garrison troops to make sure the land was quelled thus weakening any forward movement. The reverse would be true, Russia would grow weaker especially as the store of equipment is used in any initial thrust.

 

[FoxEye]

In your opinion its not.
I disagree quite heavily.

Everyone assumed war was basically done in Europe. Hows that working out.

Working out quite well, tbh. How many times has NATO been attacked by nation states..

And why does Ukraine so desperately want to join.. and why can't they whilst at war with Russia..

All the answers are the same.

 

[BUDFORCE]

Someone has to forge and machine them for you though right.
My main concern is that our manufacturing capacity is so low now it would take a large effort to increase that significantly.
Plus the sorts I used to work with who operated CNCs etc are now all getting old and retiring.

Yea jokes aside you are right, this concerns me as well, almost everything we have is made in China, we are waaaaay too reliant on that.

 

[Efour]

You talking about russia picking off countries, NATO members 1by1? That's imo "complete nonsense"
It would be Nuclear war after a few weeks... Cant wait!

Ive really shifted my opinion on this now. Ukraine is a lost cause because they arent NATO simple as.... Its gonna be a drawn out horrific "slow" choke out like a boa constrictor on its food..... WE will drip feed supplies and money but never take it futher... They have to do it alone. (sadly)
That's not a pacifist opinion thats world politics cos i think any escalation is nuclear....

i Fing hate it... but it is whats going to happen and i really hope im wrong and ill eat all the umbel pies.

Suprise China world tour 2030... Buy your tickets now...

 

[FoxEye]

It wouldn't because they would have to have garrison troops to make sure the land was quelled thus weakening any forward movement. The reverse would be true, Russia would grow weaker especially as the store of equipment is used in any initial thrust.

In the hypothetical scenario presented you can allow them time to consolidate. MKW seems to be assuming a continuous state of appeasement towards Russia. Allowing them to dismantle and conquer Europe over potentially many decades. The hypothetical situation hasn't exactly been precisely defined.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Whilst Trump cannot take the US out of NATO he can basically do sweet FA should something happen.

Except as I mentioned there are US troops all over Europe, for central Europe to Turkey and any President who did zero after American troops got killed would not be there for long.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Working out quite well, tbh. How many times has NATO been attacked by nation states..

And why does Ukraine so desperately want to join.. and why can't they whilst at war with Russia..

All the answers are the same.

Working out quite well? Are you serious!?

Ukraine have been anything BUT desperate to join NATO.

So again, if Russia decided to attack a NATO ally what percentage of our gear, ammo and troops would you be in favour of sending to active combat?
Just trying to work out how committed to NATO you are
Because I know many have said we shouldn't send people to active combat outside the UK, because you know, warmongering

Except as I mentioned there are US troops all over Europe, for central Europe to Turkey and any President who did zero after American troops got killed would not be there for long.

So what they would either just move out, or more likely be given a safe route out.

You talking about russia picking off countries, NATO members 1by1? That's imo "complete nonsense"
It would be Nuclear war after a few weeks... Cant wait!

Ive really shifted my opinion on this now. Ukraine is a lost cause because they arent NATO simple as.... Its gonna be a drawn out horrific "slow" choke out like a boa constrictor on its food..... WE will drip feed supplies and money but never take it futher... They have to do it alone. (sadly)
That's not a pacifist opinion thats world politics cos i think any escalation is nuclear....

i Fing hate it... but it is whats going to happen and i really hope im wrong and ill eat all the umbel pies.

So who is sending the first nukes if Russia attacked Turkey?
Do you honestly think anyone in NATO is going to end the world over Turkey being attacked?