Could Britain repel a military attack on Gibralter?

The question is so wholly defunct I'm not sure where to begin.

1) The UK doesn't have the sovereign right to wage war on any country at all any more without engaging its NATO allies directly in expeditions related to that war, i.e. logistics and combat support.
2) Spain is one of those NATO members.
3) Spain is a member of the EU, like the UK.
4) Under international law, waging war on Spain under any pretext is a criminal act because of (2) and (3).
5) Because of the absolute weakness of the isolated British forces (i.e. the relative combined strengths of the Army, Navy and Air Force) because of cutbacks, everyone involved from the SAS members up to the Prime Minister would face prosecution at the Hague if the UK were to wage war on Spain.

Yeah, pretty sure we could.



We don't have F35's yet, IIRC our first will be delivered in 2016, with Operational Capability reached in 2018.

Well, I don't want to play this particular card, but there was a 100-150 year period after about 1800 where we remained at the top in Europe. Yes, Germany rose up - twice - but doing so ruined the country each time. We maintained our position at the top, and increased it around the world. To deny that that takes strength is churlish at best.

On paper, our Forces aren't the most numerous. But that is not the measure of 'best'. The old Russian adage of "quantity has a quality all of it's own" no longer rings true.

Does Germany have a larger Armed Forces? Yes. But any planner worth his salt will find a way to negate that. In a hypothetical war against any one country in Europe I believe we would beat any country (to a point). Would we win a long term war of attrition against Germany or Russia? No. But that's why we wouldn't fight them like that. If you know someone will beat you if you do x, then the last thing you do is x. So, hypothetically, a fight on our terms? Course we could win.

But like I say, massively hypothetical and huge pinch of salt needed. No way of knowing for sure unless an actual war happened and no sane person wants that.

Yeah, pretty sure we could.
.

you talk about the Germans like they haven't invented the worlds best cars, etc etc etc, what makes you think they are retarded and will allow Britain to fight on their own terms? You can just as easily swap Britain with Germany in your latter paragraph and have the Germans xome out on top. Hell even throw in the Irish with their propeller powered air force and they could come out on top,

You're use of the word still suggests that there was a time when Britain was the strongest force in Europe? Well I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany proved that point wrong and after that it was the Russians, which takes us to the 90s. So yeah while a unified Germany rebuilds I guess you could say Britain had the strongest in Europe, but do you really want to play that card? Its a bit like a 20year old saying he is stronger than a bunch of 10 year olds.

Britain could not beat the Germans in a war if they engaged in one tomorrow.

Well, I don't want to play this particular card, but there was a 100-150 year period after about 1800 where we remained at the top in Europe. Yes, Germany rose up - twice - but doing so ruined the country each time. We maintained our position at the top, and increased it around the world. To deny that that takes strength is churlish at best.

On paper, our Forces aren't the most numerous. But that is not the measure of 'best'. The old Russian adage of "quantity has a quality all of it's own" no longer rings true.

Does Germany have a larger Armed Forces? Yes. But any planner worth his salt will find a way to negate that. In a hypothetical war against any one country in Europe I believe we would beat any country (to a point). Would we win a long term war of attrition against Germany or Russia? No. But that's why we wouldn't fight them like that. If you know someone will beat you if you do x, then the last thing you do is x. So, hypothetically, a fight on our terms? Course we could win.

But like I say, massively hypothetical and huge pinch of salt needed. No way of knowing for sure unless an actual war happened and no sane person wants that.

In direct answer to your question, Britian is far more militarily advanced than Germany, whilst Germany does have quantity.

In terms of an out and out conflict, there is only one thing that matters:

Great Britain has 160 active nuclear warheads. Germany has none.

Anyway how have we got into are own war of hypotheticals?

Well, tbf it's no less silly a topic than Spain attempting to take Gibraltar by force...

Spain wouldn't dare attack. They'd be out of the EU before you can say "herman van rompuy", right now they can't afford to not have the EU pumping money into their economy. They might gain a few casinos, but they'd lose so much more.

OK, I know this is only a hypothetical question but is Britain's military in any state to repel and organised attack on Gibraltar by Spain? For argument's sake, let's say this naval force is not on its way there and there is just the standard garrison (whatever that currently is). If Britain lost it, could it take Gibralter back by force?

The fact that everything is hypothetical. No such thing as a wrong answer in this case. There are potent reasons as to why a British Force would beat a German Force. We have a vastly superior Navy - they'd never be able to cross the Channel, our Air Force has the edge in terms of depth and multipliers like AEW and AAR.
The only terms in which a fight between the 2 countries make sense would mean a non-huge fight (ie, no WW3), because that's when other countries join in and the scenario of a straight 1 vs 1 fight falls apart. In the scenario given, a fight like this will be air and sea-borne, with next to nothing happening on land between the Armies of each country. Therefore, UK wins. And that's also why we'd win against every other individual European country, imo.
Remember, I am only talking about the exact hypothetical scenario of 1 vs 1. Because of that, you have to apply limitations to what happens.

Is there a reason for this question? Lol, who would want to attack Gibraltar? Spain isn't stupid enough to do so, the world is so interconnected and intelligent enough to know that nobody wins in war, except for the defense contractors.

So making Gibraltar part of Spain again will override their nationality and they are no longer British then? Ok.

It isn't a case of cannot or will not, more a case of why the hell should we?

No. But it would be something which is against their wishes, and we should oppose it because of this non-democratic side of things, as well as the fact that we should not just roll over to aggression.

If Gibraltar wanted to become Spanish then I would agree with you wholly, but from what I've seen on the news recently, they don't, though even with all the supposed "tension" arising from this, it's not going to escalate to war, of that I'm certain.

Well of course, there is probably more chance of the Falklands kicking off again that Spain vs. UK, and even that is a low chance of happening. That is why it is hypothetical.

But hypothetically, to avoid a war it is a better idea to cut a deal with easyjet and fly the Gibraltarians to GB for free. Saves lives, money and I'd be certain that Spain is willing to pay for Gibraltar, so we would actually make a profit on the whole thing. In fact, why not sell the Falklands. The UK could be out of debt in a month if the government wised up and stopped hoarding these silly pointless rocks that are no more than holes to throw money into.

With what? The country's bankrupt. That's why they want Gibraltar in the first place. Their 30,000 people make over £650m every year.