EPTAs it is, someone is clearly just using Russia as a phantom threat to ask for more money. The US also does this all the time, pretending its best-in-the-world tech doesn't hold up to countries with a fraction of the defense budget.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 224
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
As it is, someone is clearly just using Russia as a phantom threat to ask for more money. The US also does this all the time, pretending its best-in-the-world tech doesn't hold up to countries with a fraction of the defense budget. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11940 Posts
Still, no country can solo defend itself against the rest of the world, and few countries can solo defend against russia. Probably no country can solo defend against the US, but some can turn it into a stalemate where everyone dies. Solo defending is simply not what a military is there for. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On September 18 2016 23:46 a_flayer wrote: What the fuck would Russia want from Europe? Its rich natural resources such as iron, coal, gas and oil? I mean seriously. Are they going to have our scientists mate with their women? I don't think they'd have to invade for that to happen. I hate this stupid "what if Russia attacks" crap that keeps going around. Gotta fuel the paranoid NATO narrative to justify its costly existence... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 18 2016 23:41 Simberto wrote: WW1 was a war that was so expensive it was not viable. Sadly stupid people on all sides didn't realize that in time, and then they couldn't figure out a way to get out of it again. Which i guess proves your point that wars that are so expensive that they are not viable can still happen because people are stupid. Still, no country can solo defend itself against the rest of the world, and few countries can solo defend against russia. Probably no country can solo defend against the US, but some can turn it into a stalemate where everyone dies. Solo defending is simply not what a military is there for. That's the point, wars will happen even if they are "not viable" from an economic standpoint. Hell, even with MAD, people prod the limits of how far they can go without starting a nuclear war. Very few countries can solo defend themselves from larger countries with significantly more military resources. Perhaps more important is to ask how such a scenario would occur, given geography, and more importantly, why such a conflict would arise in the first place. There's no particularly good reason to expect that the UK would have a full-scale war with Russia, the same as there's no particularly good reason to expect the UK would have a full-scale war with the US or China. So the sane thing to do is to have a military that is capable of defending the country and performing necessary expeditions abroad, without spending money to try to fight something that is, to put it lightly, an uphill battle. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On September 18 2016 23:46 a_flayer wrote: What the fuck would Russia want from Europe? Its rich natural resources such as iron, coal, gas and oil? I mean seriously. Are they going to have our scientists mate with their women? I don't think they'd have to invade for that to happen. I hate this stupid "what if Russia attacks" crap that keeps going around. Not like they had a logical reason to invade the Crimea and that didnt stop them. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:24 Gorsameth wrote: Not like they had a logical reason to invade the Crimea and that didnt stop them. That's not really true. There's far more reason to take control of a strategic naval outpost that was under risk of being taken from their control (an explicit goal of NATO in Ukraine regime change under some viewpoints) than to attack a first world nation on the other side of Europe for no particular reason. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
But even so, Russia would be more likely to do things in its own back yard than randomly attack the UK. Same with China. For the powers that could easily destroy us (China, US, Russia), none of them would have a reason to go for the UK over any other major power. We aren't in their sphere of influence or they have nothing to gain from attacking the UK. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote: That's not really true. There's far more reason to take control of a strategic naval outpost that was under risk of being taken from their control (an explicit goal of NATO in Ukraine regime change under some viewpoints) than to attack a first world nation on the other side of Europe for no particular reason. While I dont think that Russia has any plans/interest in attacking the UK, or any other EU/NATO country for that matter they have shown themselves to act 'irrational'. Heck the Ukraine wanted to join NATO to protect itself from Russia who then went on right ahead and proved their point. a Ukraine NATO membership and the Russian naval base could have easily co-existed because the Ukraine would have joined NATO they (in theory) no longer had to fear Russian aggression. On September 19 2016 00:40 a_flayer wrote: Hell, even protecting the people of Crimea from the rebel Ukrainian government and their neo-nazi army division... And wasn't the government trying to push through a bill that would make Ukrainian the official language even though the people in Crimea primarily spoke Russian? That was the final trigger of why they wanted to leave the Ukraine, was it not? Aside from the fact that they didn't vote for the rebel government to take over... There are so many factors at play here, I can't even begin to fathom how you can say they had no logical reason. I have no interest in discussing your 'interesting' view of EU/Russian relations yet again but no, there was no neo-nazi army threatening the Crimean people... | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:45 Lonyo wrote: The main issue was 50 odd years ago giving Crimea to the Ukraine in the first place. But even so, Russia would be more likely to do things in its own back yard than randomly attack the UK. Same with China. For the powers that could easily destroy us (China, US, Russia), none of them would have a reason to go for the UK over any other major power. We aren't in their sphere of influence or they have nothing to gain from attacking the UK. China/Russia could not 'easily destroy us', unless you are referring to nuclear capabilities, in which case France could too. In terms of conventional military China can do nothing to us, and although Russia might win, it's far from clear cut and would be suicidally expensive. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:56 Gorsameth wrote: While I dont think that Russia has any plans/interest in attacking the UK, or any other EU/NATO country for that matter they have shown themselves to act 'irrational'. Heck the Ukraine wanted to join NATO to protect itself from Russia who then went on right ahead and proved their point. a Ukraine NATO membership and the Russian naval base could have easily co-existed because the Ukraine would have joined NATO they (in theory) no longer had to fear Russian aggression. I have no interest in discussing your 'interesting' view of EU/Russian relations yet again but no, there was no neo-nazi army threatening the Crimean people... Anyone with a moderate understanding of Russian and Ukrainian history would know that how Russia acted is very much in line with how Russia would have been expected to act in this circumstance. Now there's obviously no particular reason for most people to know that history if they aren't from Ukraine or Russia, but I will simply have to say that you are talking out of your ass when you say that Russia acted "irrationally" or that there is no streak of fascism within the Ukrainian government. It's simply a different set of considerations that make perfect sense when you know the facts, but that seem pretty ridiculous from the perspective of someone who really doesn't. Similarly there's no reason to expect some war between Russia and the UK, at all. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 19 2016 01:03 bardtown wrote: It's an embarrassment because our military spending is comparable to Russia's and yet all indications are that we are significantly less capable, at least in some important areas. I think more significant than the risk of Russian attack on the UK itself is the risk of Russian attack on our new supercarriers, the point being that the centrepiece of our military is essentially worthless in a conflict with Russia because we don't have the capability to reliably defend them. So if it ever comes to war with Russia, our supercarriers will have to be involved in joint operations with the US or not used at all. Not ideal. If there's one thing that US/Western/NATO military technology isn't, it's cost-efficient. The US spends 9 times as much on its military as Russia, and while it's certainly enough to be the undisputable best in the world, it's nowhere near 9 times as good as what Russia has. UK tech is similar to US but the budget is much smaller, with predictable results. Sometimes you have to realize that ten 20-year-old warplanes would absolutely mop the floor with one cutting-edge jet, whether in terms of dogfighting or in terms of ability to perform missions, and that's about the price disparity between modern US planes (e.g. F-22, F-35) and slightly older Russian models (current and previous Mig/Su lines). A lot of what the Russians have fielded is remarkably low-tech, yet efficient and significantly less expensive to build. Though Saudi Arabia and China both spend a hell of a lot of money with even less to show for it. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:56 Gorsameth wrote: While I dont think that Russia has any plans/interest in attacking the UK, or any other EU/NATO country for that matter they have shown themselves to act 'irrational'. Heck the Ukraine wanted to join NATO to protect itself from Russia who then went on right ahead and proved their point. a Ukraine NATO membership and the Russian naval base could have easily co-existed because the Ukraine would have joined NATO they (in theory) no longer had to fear Russian aggression. I have no interest in discussing your 'interesting' view of EU/Russian relations yet again but no, there was no neo-nazi army threatening the Crimean people... You're right in that the neo-nazi army division didn't come out of the woodworks until after the Crimean people voted to leave the Ukraine and applied to join the Russian Federation. But that doesn't mean they weren't already around and involved in general violence against minorities and violence during the expulsion of the elected Ukrainian government. I suppose that Crimea was relatively safe from them, though, and that certainly wouldn't be the primary reason for Russia to help the people there, but to say that Russia had no reason at all... I mean that is so much further from the truth than me suggesting that the Crimean people had to worry about neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Also, the idea that NATO would tolerate a Russian military base in one of their member countries is laughable at best. I mean, come on, you cannot be serious. I looked up some of the things that changed my mind regarding Russia, if you have an hour or two to kill you may want to listen in. These are two talks by Stephen Cohen, who can explain it all much better than I can. I don't really know who he is, but he seems to have a very expansive and informed view on the subject. + Show Spoiler + I'll leave this thread alone now lol | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On September 19 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote: If there's one thing that US/Western/NATO military technology isn't, it's cost-efficient. The US spends 9 times as much on its military as Russia, and while it's certainly enough to be the undisputable best in the world, it's nowhere near 9 times as good as what Russia has. UK tech is similar to US but the budget is much smaller, with predictable results. Sometimes you have to realize that ten 20-year-old warplanes would absolutely mop the floor with one cutting-edge jet, whether in terms of dogfighting or in terms of ability to perform missions, and that's about the price disparity between modern US planes (e.g. F-22, F-35) and slightly older Russian models (current and previous Mig/Su lines). A lot of what the Russians have fielded is remarkably low-tech, yet efficient and significantly less expensive to build. Though Saudi Arabia and China both spend a hell of a lot of money with even less to show for it. You can't compare the US/Russian militaries like that. The US' technological advantage results in them being the hegemonic naval/air power. In terms of comparative strength, it's not 9:1, it's 1:0. It's a fair assessment of the difficulties the UK would face against Russia, though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Ultimately in the modern era, the power of the military is in what you can accomplish using it, which is really quite proportional to the comparative strength of each nation. Locking down the sea isn't as viable as it used to be. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
And even today naval power, along with bases all over the world, is the foundation of American military hegemony. The United States can operate all over the world because it has mobile floating bases of operation in its carriers. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
The idea of air superiority is even more fragile than naval warfare if you look at it purely from a symmetrical warfare perspective. Sure, carriers are very useful for projecting power against small countries with weak air power, but against countries with substantial military strength they're just a massive target to be sunk. Land-based airfields are only somewhat less vulnerable in that you can bomb them but not sink them with submarines. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
All uniformed staff in Greater Manchester Fire service could be made to reapply for their jobs. Bosses at the emergency service have put all 1,017 firemen and women on notice and say it will be used as a ‘last resort’ in a dispute over a new shift system. An emergency meeting of the Fire Brigades Union about the move is due to held on Tuesday. In June, the GM Fire Authority agreed to axe 253 firefighters posts and to bring in a controversial 12-hour shift system from April next year. In total the brigade has had to make cuts of £14.8m over four years. It will mean the service, which will have about 1,000 firefighters by 2019 - less than half the 2,200 workforce it had in 1996. Consultation about the management proposals are due to start start this week and last 45 days. If no progress is made firefighters will be asked to voluntarily sign a new contract. As a final measure all staff will be issued with 12 weeks notice of redundancy and asked to reapply for their jobs - agreeing to the new contract. Source | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
That's crazy. How can they treat people who save lives like this. | ||
| ||
