Your country needs YOU!

[Efour]

DCS?

Grim Reapers simulated a few variants of it.

Thats sounds like it yes. Thanks.

I know its just fantasy/simulation but the first strikes were not an annihilation, i think Sweden held their own at least.
Obviously a 2nd and 3rd wave would be a different story but by then we would probably be a few hours into ww3 and all neighbours would be on alert.
I cant see why Russia would even do it now though. I think its squandered its chance with Ukraine. Europe's on high alert now for the next...10 years+

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Sorry can anyone tell me where the goalposts are, now? I seem to have lost sight of them.

e: But seriously, what is the point of asking me how NATO should respond to an attack on Poland and how many troops Britain should send? As if I can give a meaningful answer to that? And then saying afterwards, "Well it might not be NATO at all!" Make up your mind.

Bloody hell
What would YOU SUPPORT, I am not asking you to plan it, that would clearly be a really really bad idea.

Your reason for not increasing our capability is based on shared NATO defence so your clearly expecting that all NATO nations would rush to one nations aid? No?
If you do believe in the shared defence then you must by default be willing to see UK equipment and forces do our share of that combined defence.
Again as I have said I hear many people say we should not get involved in any more conflict be that NATO or not.

So what sort of level of UK forces would you believe you would be willing to see sent to say Poland if Russia attacked and Poland asked for A5 to be triggered.
Because if your level of support would be a harsh talking to within the UN and maybe a leaflet campaign you would manage to work out why some of us believe we should not be relying on that same article for others rush to defence.

Negotiations have very little to do with how quickly they can if necessary pull out of a base, if it came to it they aren't going to be sitting around for months.

I used to live near bentwaters, was quite surprising how even in a peacetime drawdown the place went from still busy to basically ghost really quickly.
There were still plenty of yanks going to the parties at weekends and then boom, gone.
I would imagine all foreign US bases have an emergency evac time in the tens of hours.
They won't be rushing to withdraw the vending machines and starbucks/mcDs setups they have flown in.

 

[Efour]

We think Russia is bad at being indoctrinated, seriously, just imagine a Chinese mobilization..... What the actual F ... That would be a grindhouse.

 

[Rroff]

Thats sounds like it yes. Thanks.

I know its just fantasy/simulation but the first strikes were not an annihilation, i think Sweden held their own at least.
Obviously a 2nd and 3rd wave would be a different story but by then we would probably be a few hours into ww3 and all neighbours would be on alert.
I cant see why Russia would even do it now though. I think its squandered its chance with Ukraine. Europe's on high alert now for the next...10 years+

Sweden on paper (some stuff isn't currently operational) would be incredibly tough for Russia - along with a few other things Globaleye + Gripens + Meteors in reality would probably end Russia's full air fleet even their advanced generation fighters.

They'd have to do a lot better in terms of morale and training, too, wouldn't they. Just having the gear is less than 1/2 the story. They'd have to somehow recruit and train a professional military that was competent and highly motivated to go make war on their neighbours... and for what? For Putin? For the glory days of the USSR?

Or they can try to press gang the general populace into more wars that they don't really want, with not spectacular results, as it happens. And massive casualties on their side. And maybe they miscalculate and start a revolt. Who knows.

All very hypothetical.

Definitely one of the biggest problems for Russia and they don't quite have the quantity has a quality of its own edge the USSR might have been able to. But they can still pose a problem if we are under-prepared for it and bank too much on them being a shambles.

 

[FoxEye]

Bloody hell
What would YOU SUPPORT, I am not asking you to plan it, that would clearly be a really really bad idea.

Indeed, as I'm neither a military strategist nor a military planner.

Your reason for not increasing our capability is based on shared NATO defence so your clearly expecting that all NATO nations would rush to one nations aid? No?

Don't recall saying anything other than I wouldn't personally sign up. There does seem to be a recruitment issue here and in the US and a nice bit of fearmongering might help get a few more in the ol' boot camps? Call me a cynic!

If you do believe in the shared defence then you must by default be willing to see UK equipment and forces do our share of that combined defence.
Again as I have said I hear many people say we should not get involved in any more conflict be that NATO or not.

Don't recall saying that we shouldn't play our part within NATO.

So what sort of level of UK forces would you believe you would be willing to see sent to say Poland if Russia attacked and Poland asked for A5 to be triggered.
Because if your level of support would be a harsh talking to within the UN and maybe a leaflet campaign you would manage to work out why some of us believe we should not be relying on that same article for others rush to defence.

Whatever is required? It's a question I can't answer, beyond saying, "We would play our part." Expecting me to put any kind of detailed % value to it is unrealistic. I don't have the means to make a meaningful answer.

I can say we shouldn't withhold any required support. Does that suffice?

I used to live near bentwaters, was quite surprising how even in a peacetime drawdown the place went from still busy to basically ghost really quickly.
There were still plenty of yanks going to the parties at weekends and then boom, gone.
I would imagine all foreign US bases have an emergency evac time in the tens of hours.
They won't be rushing to withdraw the vending machines and starbucks/mcDs setups they have flown in.

The second NATO doesn't respond to an attack on one of its members, NATO is over.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

We think Russia is bad at being indoctrinated, seriously, just imagine a Chinese mobilization..... What the actual F ... That would be a grindhouse.

Indeed. Its hard to comprehend what a massive chinese walking army could achieve. (Even ignoring their tech isn't seemingly terribad)
But from what I have heard the expectation is very much like the issues Russia has in that their military is basically highly command structured with limited want or expectation that low level unit type decisions would be made.

 

[Haggisman]

edit: Hmm, just noticed this is a double-post... strange

 

[Haggisman]

militarists like you

Bahahhahaha, if you'd ever actually met me, you'd realise how stupid that sounds

I'm about as "un-militarist" as you can get.

However having 40 years of experience to draw on and a modicum of intelligence means I realise that not everyone is "nice", and not all conflicts can be solved by words. In some cases a show of force is needed to prevent conflict. Your absolute "no violence" attitude might actually be the cause of more violence than it prevents (do you think Russia would have invade Ukraine if they didn't think they were "weak" enough to steamroller in the planned first few days/weeks of the "special operation"?)

Of course in other circumstances, despite all other efforts, violence is unfortunately inevitable; when that happens, would you be prepared for the eventuality, or happily sit there fingers in your ears happily thinking to yourself "at least I'm a pacifist" while the gang who just broke into your house rape your wife and kids?

 

[Maple Leaf]

You missed the point. I am a pacifist and see politicians as the real enemy of peace. To me the first people who should be drafted would be politicians/their children then newspaper owners/journalsts and their chiuldren. There would be a swift peace/agreement.

You're not living in the real world then. Not everyone has the luxury of pacifism, especially not when dealing with murdering gangsters like Vladimir Putin. I think our current crop of politicians are mostly short-sighted selfish fools, but they are hardly in the same league of wickedness as Putin and Xi. Western liberal democracies don't start World Wars, dictatorships start them and then we get dragged into them.

“In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.” - George Orwell

An outdated Cold War plan for use in a different era. What is NATO doing while all this is happening? Sitting on their butts watching it happen? Do you not think NATO countries have no missile defence? Do you not think they are monitoring from space Russian areas and can spot missles before they are even launched. America would not give a toss anyway as their battle plans are to ensure if anything happens it is localised in Europe and not mainland US. Not going to happen anyway as nukes are a lose-lose game.

You missed my point. The reason I quoted that Soviet battle plan was just to highlight their moral bankruptcy. You see many pacifists and, of course, the quintessential CND activist honestly believe that if we throw away our nuclear weapons then the enemy will either not use theirs against us, or will get rid of theirs too.

The reality (as evidenced by that battle plan which was found in the Polish military archives after the USSR fell) is that the Soviets would have attacked non-nuclear armed NATO countries with strategic nuclear weapons early in the conflict because the sheer horror of it would have knocked those nations out of the war. But the nuclear armed NATO countries, like the UK and France, would only have been attacked with conventional weapons because the Soviets didn't want to risk receiving any nuclear retaliation.

Those in charge of Russia today are cut from the same cloth as the old Soviet leaders and generals were, so you cannot expect them to behave any more ethically. It would be nice to think that we have anti-ballistic missiles capable of reliably stopping Russian nuclear armed ICBMs, but given the way our defence budget has been systematically slashed by the Tories I have my doubts about that.

 

[Caracus2k]

You missed the point. I am a pacifist and see politicians as the real enemy of peace.

What a convenient and totally unexpected (s) claim from you....

Not "I'm I would rather other people die to maintain the freedom I have enjoyed in my life...." no you see its all about ethics and morals and the UK armed forced being actually dissproportionally from the richest (and to if we're making an honest assessment also the poorest) sectors of society doesn't affect my, rather middle of the income distribution, opposition to me actually going to war.

Your ideas about Putin are really simplistic. It is still a joined up world and Putin realises it.

Fantastical nonsence of the highest order!

Can I suggest you add 'The Great Illusion' by Norman Angell to your reading list, assuming you haven't already had a read?

First published in the United Kingdom in 1909 under the title Europe's Optical Illusion and republished in 1910 its thesis was later summarised as follows

"The economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."

One of the main arguments advanced by Angell, in his book, was that the already quite connected world (that was still getting more so as time passed) meant that it was unlikely that major nations would go to war with one another any more.....

One example given was that Lloyd's of London insured a lot of the German merchant fleet prior to WW1 and had indicated they would be liable if the UK goverment started sinking some of thoose ships in a conflict.....

Needless to say it didn't take long for this opinion to be shown for the nonsence it was!

Oh but don't worry it gets better!

The book was re relased in 1933, this time adding an additional reason why it was unlikely that their would be any further wars between major nations....

This time, hilariously in the context of posts made in this thread, the claim was it was unlikely due to the "collectice defence" of groups of nations....

Angell was awarded a Nobel Peace prize in 1933 for 'having exposed by his pen the Illusion or war and presented a convincing plea for international cooperation and peace'.

Of course we all know how Angell's predictions famously worked out yet again within a few short years!


The old adage applies "if you want peace prepare for war".

We have become too cosseted, lazy and complacent in the West.

The rot set in a long way ago when too many nations were allowed to freeload on the defence spending and commitments of their neighbours and allies (something a previous US President was very correct to point out) and the problem has gone into overdrive in recent decades as we have imported millions of people who not only won't fight to defend the nation but are more likely, in many cases, to be internal security threats to any attempt to defend the nation and its interests.

Additionally given the collapse in competence, fitness and work ethic now being seen more widely in the Zoomers and Gen alpha and its fair to say we're in real trouble and, in the relative sense, the favourable situations we have grown accustomed to aren't likely to last that much longer.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

They'd have to do a lot better in terms of morale and training, too, wouldn't they. Just having the gear is less than 1/2 the story. They'd have to somehow recruit and train a professional military that was competent and highly motivated to go make war on their neighbours... and for what? For Putin? For the glory days of the USSR?

Or they can try to press gang the general populace into more wars that they don't really want, with not spectacular results, as it happens. And massive casualties on their side. And maybe they miscalculate and start a revolt. Who knows.

All very hypothetical.

You've really not learnt any lessons from ukraine have you. Putin doesn't need a well trained disciplined troops all it takes is sheer weight of numbers cities like Bakhmut in eastern ukraine have been taken by turning it into a meat grinder where wave upon wave of russian cannon fodder are relentlessly ground into the mud for the sake of gaining a few metres of land. Inch by inch they took it even using convicts using promises they'd be freed if they survived promises which they afterwards failed to keep.

WWII was the same more than two million russians died mostly as cannon fodder and the gulags for dissenters. Dictatorships do not value individual human lives in teh same way liberal democracies do here every life counts and body bag counts are the thing politicians preparing for war dread the most as it loses them support hence post vietnam the US mostly uses air assualt by plane drone and missle for its foreign wars it keeps individual deaths to a minimum, Putin has no such compunction and russia views loss of life collectively as a resource to be drawn on, there are plenty more of where they came from.

 

[The Funktopus]

I’m 40 with a dodgy knee from a mountain bike accident a few years ago, so I don’t know how much use I’d be on the battlefield.

I am however a marine engineer by trade, and until last year spent 10 years as an engineering officer in the Merchant Navy, operating and maintaining equipment and carrying out engine room watchkeeping duties, with most of my experience being on tankers and LNG carriers, so I imagine the navy or the RFA could find a use for me if push came to shove with Russia.

 

[FoxEye]

You've really not learnt any lessons from ukraine have you. Putin doesn't need a well trained disciplined troops all it takes is sheer weight of numbers cities like Bakhmut in eastern ukraine have been taken by turning it into a meat grinder where wave upon wave of russian cannon fodder are relentlessly ground into the mud for the sake of gaining a few metres of land. Inch by inch they took it even using convicts using promises they'd be freed if they survived promises which they afterwards failed to keep.

WWII was the same more than two million russians died mostly as cannon fodder and the gulags for dissenters. Dictatorships do not value individual human lives in teh same way liberal democracies do here every life counts and body bag counts are the thing politicians preparing for war dread the most as it loses them support hence post vietnam the US mostly uses air assualt by plane drone and missle for its foreign wars it keeps individual deaths to a minimum, Putin has no such compunction and russia views loss of life collectively as a resource to be drawn on, there are plenty more of where they came from.

Once again, Ukraine is not NATO.

Do you remember all the "Should we give them weapon system X,Y,Z? No, we don't want to provoke Russia!" conversations? That weapons were essentially drip fed into Ukraine, and we only really gave the obsolete stuff (or EOL stuff) that we didn't really want anyhow?

Yeah, none of that is applicable to a fight with NATO.

Ukraine is a meat grinder because Ukraine is not in NATO.

The mistake being made is to think every war would play out the same. Ukraine doesn't/didn't even use Western-standard munitions and stuff. Again, not applicable to NATO.

 

[Rroff]

Once again, Ukraine is not NATO.

Do you remember all the "Should we give them weapon system X,Y,Z? No, we don't want to provoke Russia!" conversations? That weapons were essentially drip fed into Ukraine, and we only really gave the obsolete stuff (or EOL stuff) that we didn't really want anyhow?

Yeah, none of that is applicable to a fight with NATO.

Ukraine is a meat grinder because Ukraine is not in NATO.

The mistake being made is to think every war would play out the same. Ukraine doesn't/didn't even use Western-standard munitions and stuff. Again, not applicable to NATO.

That only works if NATO is reasonably prepared, doesn't sleep on Russia or any other threat emerging or re-emerging and in the context of Russia that Putin doesn't decide to test the margins and neither of those is as assured as some people seem to think.

Also doesn't work, if NATO isn't reasonably prepared, if say Putin goes senile and starts giving orders with no basis in logic, reason or reality and contrary to what some like to believe it won't necessarily be stopped by cooler more rational heads as Putin has surrounded himself and padded out the command chains with people loyal to him and/or of the "true believer" type.

Our current state of readiness and projections for the future would mean expending a lot of advanced hardware, wrong footed, to stall any initial advance without necessarily being able to force a victory condition, then having to mass mobilise for the grinder.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Negotiations have very little to do with how quickly they can if necessary pull out of a base, if it came to it they aren't going to be sitting around for months.

They cannot move till their political masters tell them to move.

In February 2020, the Trump administration and the Taliban, without the participation of the then Afghan government, signed the United States–Taliban deal in Doha, Qatar,[7] which stipulated fighting restrictions for both the U.S. and the Taliban, and provided for the withdrawal of all NATO forces from Afghanistan in return for the Taliban's counter-terrorism commitments. The Trump administration's United States–Taliban deal, and then the Biden administration's decision in April 2021 to pull out all U.S. troops by September 2021 without leaving a residual force, were the two critical events that triggered the start of the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)

 

[Rroff]

They cannot move till their political masters tell them to move.

Not really sure your point, negotiations might take 2 hours or 2 years. You are persistently looking at peace time logic and reason as if it meaningfully limits how things work in war and it really isn't the case.

I'm actually gob smacked people even still have these opinions after Ukraine which blew right through many of the conventions people were convinced meant it wouldn't come to war.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Fantastical nonsence of the highest order!

Can I suggest you add 'The Great Illusion' by Norman Angell to your reading list, assuming you haven't already had a read?

First published in the United Kingdom in 1909 under the title Europe's Optical Illusion and republished in 1910 its thesis was later summarised as follows

"The economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."

One of the main arguments advanced by Angell, in his book, was that the already quite connected world (that was still getting more so as time passed) meant that it was unlikely that major nations would go to war with one another any more.....

One example given was that Lloyd's of London insured a lot of the German merchant fleet prior to WW1 and had indicated they would be liable if the UK goverment started sinking some of thoose ships in a conflict.....

Needless to say it didn't take long for this opinion to be shown for the nonsence it was!

Oh but don't worry it gets better!

The book was re relased in 1933, this time adding an additional reason why it was unlikely that their would be any further wars between major nations....

This time, hilariously in the context of posts made in this thread, the claim was it was unlikely due to the "collectice defence" of groups of nations....

Angell was awarded a Nobel Peace prize in 1933 for 'having exposed by his pen the Illusion or war and presented a convincing plea for international cooperation and peace'.

Of course we all know how Angell's predictions famously worked out yet again within a few short years!

That’s quite interesting. It does raise the question is the peace afforded by EU/NATO due to the close integration of the participant nations something that is guaranteed? Can/will war ever breakout amongst these nations?

 

[Rroff]

That’s quite interesting. It does raise the question is the peace afforded by EU/NATO due to the close integration of the participant nations something that is guaranteed? Can/will war ever breakout amongst these nations?

No "empire" lasts forever and sometimes disagreements become unreconcilable, but people in the West generally are far too complacent and consume with self-interested for it to likely come to a point of war. Which makes me laugh any time Putin voices concerns about being threatened by the West as the public have no appetite for it and it is only his actions making any kind of case that might change attitudes to it - or some crazy false flag.

 

[Stu999]

The Commons defence committee reckons the UK couldn't deal with a high intensity war due to the number of people leaving the armed forces:

UK armed forces not ready for high-intensity war, MPs warn

The armed forces are losing people faster than they can recruit them, says committee of MPs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Edit - they published a report on this too: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmdfence/26/summary.html

Supposedly the comments that started this thread weren't talking about conscription, it was supposedly about having a larger reserve force.

 

[Rroff]

Ooof

It is unacceptable that for much of this inquiry, we have been hampered in our attempts to assess readiness by a lack of Government transparency. Key information that was readily available a decade ago is no longer published for reasons that are unclear, and the Government has taken excessive time to respond to our requests for information.

And people will still vote for this government... and wonder why the country is turning into a shambles...

EDIT: That is precisely why I'm of the opinion I am though, this lacking level of readiness is only going to encourage the likes of Russia and make the slim chance of war (or what should be) that much more of a reality.