Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmm interesting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    hmm interesting.
    You see, despite what the media tries to make you believe, we are not a pitful weak nation, and can punch way above our weight. It's a pity many people don't seem to realise this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    You see, despite what the media tries to make you believe, we are not a pitful weak nation, and can punch way above our weight. It's a pity many people don't seem to realise this.
    I never said Britain is weak. Personally, i think britain is 5th/4th most powerful country on the planet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    I never said Britain is weak. Personally, i think britain is 5th/4th most powerful country on the planet.
    No but you were arguing that Britain and France could not collectively win against Russian in a war, which is incorrect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    No but you were arguing that Britain and France could not collectively win against Russian in a war, which is incorrect.
    You cannot say that the outcome of an imaginary event is incorrect, there's now way to know a) Countries actual military capabilities, your just going on what you think you know as a member of the public and b) You have absolutely no idea how a war like this would work, what strategies leaders would use, unforeseen circumstances etc.

    Don't be so up your own arse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam543)
    You cannot say that the outcome of an imaginary event is incorrect, there's now way to know a) Countries actual military capabilities, your just going on what you think you know as a member of the public and b) You have absolutely no idea how a war like this would work, what strategies leaders would use, unforeseen circumstances etc.

    Don't be so up your own arse.
    No, I'm just going on what I have researched and studied, for which I have a very strong background in. To say that Britain and France could not collectively win a war against Russia is incorrect. It is not an opinion, it is a fact, it's an incorrect statement, I have reasoned enough to back my points.

    Also I don't think you can call me a member of the public, as I am a member of the UOTC. But there we go.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    No but you were arguing that Britain and France could not collectively win against Russian in a war, which is incorrect.
    Think about this logically. A war, no rules. Russia versus France and Britain. Im not even joking, Russia have over 4.5k active nuclear weapons, with 10k overall. They have enough power to destroy this planet over 100 times.

    Uk have about 250 nuclear weapons, not sure about France...

    Who is more powerful?

    A damage of a nuclear weapon will of course depend on size, and power. we both know the russians have very very powerful nuclear weapons, one bomb could probably destroy Birmingham and Manchester together (a big bomb) Thats UK's two largest cities gone...

    UK would drop a nuclear bomb (same size, same power) in to Russia, it would destroy same amount as of the land..

    What im saying is, Britain and France would be wiped out quicker than Russia, because of the size, which means, at the end, there will be some pieces of land left in Russia....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    No, I'm just going on what I have researched and studied, for which I have a very strong background in. To say that Britain and France could not collectively win a war against Russia is incorrect. It is not an opinion, it is a fact, it's an incorrect statement, I have reasoned enough to back my points.

    Also I don't think you can call me a member of the public, as I am a member of the UOTC. But there we go.
    You cannot possibly say with absolute definition what the outcome of a made up event is though. Say there's really bad flooding where British troops are located, they cant maneuver or attack their opponents and are hit by numerous long range missiles. That's just a silly example but the point is, you can't account for random events and unforeseen circumstances.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Is that American?
    Yup, 1 battle group.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Think about this logically. A war, no rules. Russia versus France and Britain. Im not even joking, Russia have over 4.5k active nuclear weapons, with 10k overall. They have enough power to destroy this planet over 100 times.

    Uk have about 250 nuclear weapons, not sure about France...

    Who is more powerful?

    A damage of a nuclear weapon will of course depend on size, and power. we both know the russians have very very powerful nuclear weapons, one bomb could probably destroy Birmingham and Manchester together (a big bomb) Thats UK's two largest cities gone...

    UK would drop a nuclear bomb (same size, same power) in to Russia, it would destroy same amount as of the land..

    What im saying is, Britain and France would be wiped out quicker than Russia, because of the size, which means, at the end, there will be some pieces of land left in Russia....
    France has around 300.

    There's no point being ABLE to destroy the Earth a million times over, if there is only ONE Earth, so in reality it doesn't matter if they have 100, or 100 million nuclear weapons, one nuclear bomb is very destructive and enough to make a country surrender if you hit the right strategic points (Capital, Oil fields, heavy industrial centres etc) so that it cannot fight anymore. Moreover, most of Russian is uninhabited such as siberia, so there would not be any value in nuking this area. The areas that are valuable can be easily immobilised if you hit the correct area, as stated before. There's no point saying such and such is more powerful because it has more nukes, because it means relatively little. A few well placed trident missiles at Chelyabinsk, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, the Volga Industrial Region, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg and Novgorod would incapacitate Russia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam543)
    You cannot possibly say with absolute definition what the outcome of a made up event is though. Say there's really bad flooding where British troops are located, they cant maneuver or attack their opponents and are hit by numerous long range missiles. That's just a silly example but the point is, you can't account for random events and unforeseen circumstances.
    What? This is what I have been trying to say! You are just arguing my point from a different direction! You can not therefore say that Britain and France would find it impossible to beat Russia in a war. This is what I'm saying to the other guy if you read it properly!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Think about this logically. A war, no rules. Russia versus France and Britain. Im not even joking, Russia have over 4.5k active nuclear weapons, with 10k overall. They have enough power to destroy this planet over 100 times.

    Uk have about 250 nuclear weapons, not sure about France...

    Who is more powerful?

    A damage of a nuclear weapon will of course depend on size, and power. we both know the russians have very very powerful nuclear weapons, one bomb could probably destroy Birmingham and Manchester together (a big bomb) Thats UK's two largest cities gone...

    UK would drop a nuclear bomb (same size, same power) in to Russia, it would destroy same amount as of the land..

    What im saying is, Britain and France would be wiped out quicker than Russia, because of the size, which means, at the end, there will be some pieces of land left in Russia....
    When you consider all the UK missiles are fired from subs that would be unaffected by the UK being pummeled it wouldn't really matter, it might take slightly longer (ICBM takes about 8 minutes to go from West Russia to the UK) so where ever they are in the world they could potentially have nukes landing on Russia's doorstep in 15. Sure some in rural areas of Russia might be able to escape but the country as an entity would be destroyed.

    One of the first things a new UK Prime Minister has to do on their first day is write a letter stating what he wants the Captains to do in the event of the UK being destroyed in a nuclear war, either launch back, go to an allied harbor (Probably US) or surrender.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    What? This is what I have been trying to say! You are just arguing my point from a different direction! You can not therefore say that Britain and France would find it impossible to beat Russia in a war. This is what I'm saying to the other guy if you read it properly!
    No I'm not saying that at all, just that when you said it was a fact that Russia would win I couldn't see how you could definitely know that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam543)
    No I'm not saying that at all, just that when you said it was a fact that Russia would win I couldn't see how you could definitely know that
    I didn't say Russia would win?!!!! I'm arguing the opposite, as I believe Britain and France would win, however obviously this is not fact since it has not happened. I'm trying to point out to the other guy that Britain and France have a good (but not certain) chance of winning.

    Are you trolling?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    I didn't say Russia would win?!!!! I'm arguing the opposite, as I believe Britain and France would win, however obviously this is not fact since it has not happened. I'm trying to point out to the other guy that Britain and France have a good (but not certain) chance of winning.

    Are you trolling?
    Sorry, typo, I meant Britain/France. Yeah I agree with you we would, but it was that you said he was incorrect that Russia could win that I was debating over
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

    You can take the piss out of the US for Vietnam all you want. The US military is by far the most advanced and strongest military force on the planet and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam543)
    Sorry, typo, I meant Britain/France. Yeah I agree with you we would, but it was that you said he was incorrect that Russia could win that I was debating over
    No i said it was an incorrect statement that Russia would always win, as you have just pointed out. What he said was an incorrect statement. Russia does have a chance of winning, but it is unlikely. Read again.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    France has around 300.

    There's no point being ABLE to destroy the Earth a million times over, if there is only ONE Earth, so in reality it doesn't matter if they have 100, or 100 million nuclear weapons, one nuclear bomb is very destructive and enough to make a country surrender if you hit the right strategic points (Capital, Oil fields, heavy industrial centres etc) so that it cannot fight anymore. Moreover, most of Russian is uninhabited such as siberia, so there would not be any value in nuking this area. The areas that are valuable can be easily immobilised if you hit the correct area, as stated before. There's no point saying such and such is more powerful because it has more nukes, because it means relatively little. A few well placed trident missiles at Chelyabinsk, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, the Volga Industrial Region, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg and Novgorod would incapacitate Russia.
    Okay, think what you just said. You basically said, any country that has a few nukes can defeat Russia, USA, China etc? Imagine ermm.... for example...South Korea they have nuclear weapons (from USA), does that mean, SK can defeat USA, Russia, China, etc?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Russia would win, they are stronger and more merciless than the USA is

    obviously USA is merciless too....but Russia has more of that inner strength spirit then USA...

    USA fights with arrogance, Russia fights with their heart
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)


    Goodnight any country in the world.
    Could beat that with a bit of wildfire.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.