Leaving the EU will make the EU defenceless? (!NO THE EU MAKES US DEFENCELESS!)

If leaving the EU destroys the EU and leaves it defenceless, more reason to vote OUT for me. I want to see the EU fail

War is more likely than ever and the most likely cause is probably Russia's responses at the moment.

It won't be long till someone shoots down Russian military aircraft that comes across some country's airspace causing some large NATO response leading to WW3.

How do you reconcile the fact that these events / type of events have been happening for 60 years and yet WW3 still hasn't happened?

I personally think that the cold war is still on and Russia is trying to adapt itself in to a more relatable country to it's western neighbours as a way to lure us all in to a communist trap as part of the Kremlin's goals.

We can ask:
1, Why does Russia like to step in to other country's airspace?
2, Why does China come more close to the western world with trade deals and improved relations?

The answer is simple, They hook us on and one day they strike there communist way's and stop trading with the west causing a collapse so they can walk straight in. Russia is showing it's big guns as a way to make the western world engage with them as that is what they are wanting.

WW3 is coming.

1, international Willy waving. Nothing more than that. We used to do it, stopped years ago. Americans used to do it, stopped more recently, they now do it to China instead, because Russia doesn't matter.

2, because we're the ones who buys their crap. They need to keep us onside.


WW3 is less imminent now than it has been at any time since 1963.
That's especially true when you understand that only one country on the planet has the ability to fight such a war.

WW3 might seem as though it's not going to happen due to these relations between the East and West coming closer however the reason the USA are "Willy Waving" at the moment is because of artificial islands been built by the Chinese as a "cheats" way to a stronger aircraft carrier alternative or these islands could have been built by the Chinese as a way to expand there EEZ to claim volcanic islands that keep popping up in the region.

But the only reason these US aircraft still target China is because they don't disclose to the USA what these artificial islands are really for and the USA sees these islands as a threat to nations surrounding China. But communism is still a thing in the East and it just seems like an unstable reactor about to blow anytime soon.

North Korea could probably start WW3 and the USA intervening with North Korea could trigger China to get involved and possibly make them feel like helping North Korea with China been provoked by both sides however this could make China move in an uncertain direction of war.

So now you're ignoring the whole point of the thread? What does any of that have to do with the EU and whether or not Britain remains in?

Because this thread is about the defence of Britain in a war scenario and the benefits of been out.

And guess what WW3 is part of what i'm looking at and why we are better out of the EU in WW3.

This all links back to the start of the thread where I talk about why we need to get out of the EU and focus on capping our population so we can't be starved in a WW3 scenario and what all this money that goes to the EU everyday could be better spent on like: 3 anti-ballistic missile launch sites.

And all these immigrants add to a problem of the enemy been able to starve us by cutting off supply's with us been on an Island, Which is why we need to leave and really monitor our population so that we can get to a point where we can provide all our food to the whole country with no imports needed.

But even out of the EU we can still provide military support in a WW3 event so it's not like we have cut our own throat.

The part where you assume WW3 will be exactly like WW2 is where your argument loses credibility.

Which part is this?

The part where trade routes will be blocked?

If so, it would be a fine tactic that is more practical today than it was back then. (with Supersonic Aircraft) They can take a good sweep and launch missiles at ships carrying goods.

No country except the US currently possesses the ability to blockade a country of our size. Simple as that.

Not really, The Russians have more practical aircraft, and all they need to blockade to be practical is the south of the country, (The English Channel)

The Russians have around 400+ aircraft (jets only*) in service that would be capable of this role. Our imports really only tend to come out of the channel, and blocking the channel would be enough to starve the nation.

No they don't. The very few aircraft they have that could - at an absolute stretch - be of concern are based thousands of miles away and we'd know about them basically as soon as they took off. We'd be able to intercept them because our aircraft are simply better.

Our aircraft are better.....

They might pack more punch, but they have to be at the ready while Russia's can be all off and be launched in 10 mins.

Russia's aircraft are designed to get up and go fight while ours are designed more about been a strong unit that takes a lot of man hours to get systems operational.

Notice that our QRA aircraft are at the ready while Russia's could be completely off and they can launch after 5 min of preps then they just role another aircraft straight out ready to go.

But we don't have that many QRA aircraft at the ready, so if Russia sends 10 aircraft at once we are practically screwed for the first 30 mins.

To sum up, Our aircraft are designed to be great fighters but lack practicality in a war as they need much more prep than the Russian planes with there simple systems so they can just get up and go!

That would be all well and good. Except for the fact that each loaded Q aircraft has the ability to shoot down at least 10 targets.

And you could be 100% certain that if that number was coming in that a surge would happen in a matter of minutes. Despite what you seem to think, the RAF remains an extremely capable and credible air force.


Face it, your scenario simply isn't realistic in any way, shape or form.

It is totally realistic, Russia can pump out cheap ass jets that are practical for quick launch, The RAF jets seem capable but they are not invincible from these cheap Russian planes designed for combat rather than full on weaponry.

Look's like the UK has a higher military budget and has 160 eurofighter's while Russia has 400+ Cheap practical aircraft designed for agility and combat in mind. I totally see who is going to gain the air superiority.

Also most of Russia's aircraft are in the West as that is most populated part.

But again, you're completely ignorant of the fact that Russia doesn't have anything like 400 operational aircraft.

When you remove the aircraft that couldn't even reach the UK that overall number gets perilously close single figures.

So again, your entire argument is simply not credible.

Ok then,
Russia currently has these aircraft capable of blocking trade routes:
Mikoyan MiG-29/35 (252 in service) Nope
Mikoyan MiG-31 (135 in service) Nope, also not capable of that mission
Sukhoi Su-24 (277 in service) Nope
Sukhoi Su-25 (199 in service) Nope, also not capable of that mission
Sukhoi Su-27/30 (321 in service) Nope
(THESE ARE ALL FIGHTER JETS) (They got some other's bombers etc.)

That's 1000+ aircraft capable of this role! Nope

THE RUSSIANS CAN REACH US!!!!!! NopeThe Su-24 (The oldest of them) can travel 1,900 miles meaning that it could come in for a quick missile run and return for fuel. The rest can travel further. Nope

All Russia needs to do is move aircraft to it's western border or that piece of Russian land between Poland and Lithuania and launch an attack at any moment!Nope

You, quite simple, don't know what you're talking about.

None of those aircraft are capable of blockading anyone. Very few of them are capable of flying, let alone posing a threat a few thousand of miles from their home bases.

Even if they wanted to try and attack us, we have numerous NATO countries in between where they'd be based who also have decent aircraft. And let's not forget the USAF aircraft based in both Germany and the UK.

They have that many on paper, sure. But they don't fly, nor do they have the weapons that can disturb shipping.



To blockade someone you need ships.

Russia doesn't have a navy capable of blockading one of its own ports, let alone one of ours.


Stop digging a hole, you're getting everything wrong.

These aircraft are not designed to have full on launch system's they are designed to get to somewhere quick and do a quick bit of damage. which is beneficial in the event of a war.

When I was reading up on these aircraft types I found that many were aimed at air superiority which again is beneficial in a war against blocking off trade routes.

And do you even understand what "In Service" means?

It means: in or available for use. So they are capable of flying.......


To blockade someone you need ships..... No you don't you just need the weaponry to hold the enemy back. There is many examples of aircraft been able to hold back ships.

Having big naval ships is just asking for trouble from aircraft, most ships hit by aircraft only need 1 missile to go down:

Having a navy in this day and age isn't really viable.