Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Russia and India are very close allies.
    Russia has more nukes than US and Uk.
    russia used to, it is now a very broken country since the colapse of the soviet union, many are old unusable. the USA definatley has more now, a 500bn arms budget a year Vs russias 60bn, ive been studying the situation in international relations this semester
    India would side with the UK, we give them BILLIONS in aid each year for this reason
    and the point is they deffinatley can't take out all the American and UK missiles before we could strike back, we both have hundreds of nukes in various countries across europe and middle east the majority of the locations are a very closely guarded secret. the US can nuke almost any country in the would in less than 30minutes and the exceptions are countries such as aus and NZ, who are unlikely to every be a threat or to side against the UK
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Firstly, put a Russian soldier against a British soldier and we see who wins. Secondly alot of European countries rely on Russia for oil...so demand will never fall.
    Thirdly, run home? The way they run home in ww2?
    Fourthly, could say the same for US.
    Could say same againt the West.
    Hmmm - highly trained combat veteran with some of the best equipment and support in the world vs inexperienced conscript with equipment that should have been replaced several decades ago.

    Yes...And they're going to support Russia against Britain, are they? You've actually just proved my own point there.

    You need a reality check. An attack on any EU or NATO country is an attack on all of us, and God help whoever makes that mistake. The USSR didn't have the bottle to do it and they were a far more credible threat than Russia or China.

    There's a world of difference between people fighting to defend their homes and people being conscripted and ordered to attack an enemy that they don't perceive to be their enemy.

    Granted but I'm not arguing that the West would succeed in invading China/Russia (I think they probably would but that's beside the point), in your ridiculous hypothetical scenario they are the aggressors and so the deterrents of MAD and economic ruin are relevant to them and not us.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cuddlemonster)
    So while Russia and China might have ten fold our military force, they will be fighting with empty bottles of vodka and pirated DVDs (respectively)
    You made me do one of those belly-laughs
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertinedreamer)
    Germany and Russia forming an alliance?! Do you kids not do history in school anymore? There is a massive dislike of each other that is 150 years old. This would just never happen, I'm not even gonna take on the rest of your bull ****.
    Are you stupid?

    Angela Merkel has strong links with Putin and many other politicians in Russia.

    Also, where do you think Germany get there oil from? As well as the Ukraine who also have a very strong army?

    Seriously, you need to start learning things.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6240473.stm

    It wasn't so long ago that Russia cut off the supply which meant Germany had to go into their oil reserves.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    Hmmm - highly trained combat veteran with some of the best equipment and support in the world vs inexperienced conscript with equipment that should have been replaced several decades ago.

    Yes...And they're going to support Russia against Britain, are they? You've actually just proved my own point there.

    You need a reality check. An attack on any EU or NATO country is an attack on all of us, and God help whoever makes that mistake. The USSR didn't have the bottle to do it and they were a far more credible threat than Russia or China.

    There's a world of difference between people fighting to defend their homes and people being conscripted and ordered to attack an enemy that they don't perceive to be their enemy.

    Granted but I'm not arguing that the West would succeed in invading China/Russia (I think they probably would but that's beside the point), in your ridiculous hypothetical scenario they are the aggressors and so the deterrents of MAD and economic ruin are relevant to them and not us.
    Thats really biased point...why dont we take highly skilled Russian veteran against a new recruit in British army?

    I dont get this point....same thing could be said about any army...people joining in order to defend their country not to attack someone...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    Delusional doesn't even begin to cut it.
    Afhganistan has oil? Since when?
    Iraq was weak, come again? Iraq had the third strongest armed force in the world before the First Gulf War...

    Russia and China, really? Here are just a small selection of reasons why that's ludicrous:

    * America and Europe can more than match them for manpower.
    * Our armed forces are FAR more experienced, disciplined and better trained than their's.
    * Russia and China have seriously outdated equipment, they don't have anywhere near the logistical or technical capability to mount an offensive against Europe and certainly not against America.
    * Most of their soldiers are conscripts which would run back home as soon as any real fighting started.
    * The two countries don't actually get on very well and are more likely to fight each other than us.
    * China would collapse economically without the Western consumer market and Russia would collapse without the demand for it's gas from Europe.
    * Why would they want to kill millions of people because we like to step in when despots start killing people?
    * Just in case all that wasn't enough, if we looked likely to lose we would simply threaten mutually assured destruction with nukes - they would have no choice other than to back down.
    since then, maybe you want to keep with the times

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...67E0AA20100815
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Prolly :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlobgvAkZ_g&feature=relm fu

    Says alot. If US is so good why dont they use their own skills? or no they need to learn from the best
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All those saying that European countries would side with the UK and America are delusional.

    Russia could cut off oil supplies to them months before launching their initial attack and then when they do what are those countries going to do when they've got bugger all to fuel their artillery? The only countries that could do anything would be the UK and US who can get oil from elsewhere such as the middle east and the US.

    The rest would fall victim of supply shortage. This would mean they'd side with Russia in order to keep their own countries in order which in turn would make Russia a more credible force than it already is.

    Also, for those saying that Russia's equipment is outdated, are you being serious? Stop listening to the manipulated drivel you here in the media over here every day to make you feel safer. The fact is, if you watch proper news channels like those from abroad where they dont lie and try and deceive the public like they do here and in the US on news channels such as Fox, they instead tell it as it is. Russia's government would have no second thoughts about launching an attack on us, they may have against the US because of its size but they'd easily attack us first as we're a much smaller force and an easy target to deal with at first.

    Also, if this country is so good, why the hell are they basing their new artillery on models previously used in Germany? and also, if Russia is no longer the force it once was, why have American intelligence regarded them as a real threat and has rebounded to become the 2nd most powerful force in the world in terms of technology. Also, why are Russia constantly making threats to countries like Poland and basically making Poland do as they say or they'll attack them? Because Russia in reality has most of Europe in its pocket. Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Belarus, Czech Republic, etc. would all do as they are told because their countries rely on Russia massively.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EdwardSAS)
    Bull. Although one could argue that the Libya intervention is, as you say 'meddling in another country's business', it is completed justified. Do you not believe that as a prosperous and free nation we have a moral responsibility to intervene when movements of popular consensus are being ruthlessly crushed? That argument completely justifies the Libya action.

    Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
    Different magnitude and context. Britain's intervention in WW2 was primarily a need to prevent the growth of Germany into a great power again, therefore meaning that Britain was 'meddling' for its own personal safety. The British intervention in Libya, however, is a mere 'moral' endeavour; it is fuelled by a driving ambition of Western foreign policy: the imposition of democracy. But the West ought to realise that it is not their duty to police the world.

    Oh, and an economic one if you consider the oil. Wasting British lives for preservation of oil is pathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Neither Russia or China have ANYTHING to gain. China owns almost the entire US government debt! And their economy is based on the western markets! This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
    There will not be another great war because it simply makes no economic sense anymore, and lets face it, thats all the world cares about nowadays
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Thats really biased point...why dont we take highly skilled Russian veteran against a new recruit in British army?

    I dont get this point....same thing could be said about any army...people joining in order to defend their country not to attack someone...
    What veterans exactly? The Russians haven't seen real action in decades and the vast majority of their army are conscripts which have two years experience of doing nothing and then leave. By contrast the British army now has a massive amount of real combat experience and none of its soldiers are conscripts which means that in general they stay for much longer and WANT to be doing what they're doing, no one is forcing them to.

    Yes, it could, but in your scenario Russia and China are invading Britain and America - right? Conscripts during WW2 were dedicated to Russia because they faced the destruction of their lives if they didn't fight (and they would be shot by their own side if they refused). There is a world of difference between that and conscripts being ordered to attack a country which has done nothing to them when doing so will probably cost them their lives.
    It really shouldn't be too hard to get your head around this idea to be honest.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    What veterans exactly? The Russians haven't seen real action in decades and the vast majority of their army are conscripts which have two years experience of doing nothing and then leave. By contrast the British army now has a massive amount of real combat experience and none of its soldiers are conscripts which means that in general they stay for much longer and WANT to be doing what they're doing, no one is forcing them to.

    Yes, it could, but in your scenario Russia and China are invading Britain and America - right? Conscripts during WW2 were dedicated to Russia because they faced the destruction of their lives if they didn't fight (and they would be shot by their own side if they refused). There is a world of difference between that and conscripts being ordered to attack a country which has done nothing to them when doing so will probably cost them their lives.
    It really shouldn't be too hard to get your head around this idea to be honest.
    Thats true, but only a small fraction of British troops expereinced combat and its only for few months.

    Thats not my scenario im just comparing armies.

    Also, the are alot of soldiers who stay on in army too...


    This is the manpower...

    Russia: Active: 1,027,000, Reserves:20,000,000, Paramilitary:449,000, Total:21,476,000

    United Kingdom 175,690 199,280 0 374,970

    United States 1,580,255 864,547 11,035 2,455,837

    I didint include Australia and NZ as both have like 100k troops.

    Also, Im not saying Russia can take on US, coz atm I dont think they can, hopefully the war will never happen between the countries mentioned, we need to focus our interest to greater threats, i.e Middle East.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think that the chances of NATO being attacked within the next decade are minimal. And yes, the USA would step in given that NATO was created for this purpose.

    Germany and Ukraine would never support Russia over the USA/UK.

    I personally think that the threat of Russia attacking is minimal however China does present a threat although they seem to prefer remaining neutral.

    The greatest chance of nuclear warfare comes from a state like Iran or Libya before Gaddafi gave them up. If we can see the century out, then by that time i think humanity may actually have a chance of unification.

    If war ever does look likely to break out, i will be on the first plane out to Africa given they lack the technology to get involved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to think or hope that the likes of Russia/China would remain neutral rather than explicitly take sides if any serious conflict were to arise, especially if it concerned Iran/NK. Would China want to risk everything for said countries?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6240473.stm

    It wasn't so long ago that Russia cut off the supply which meant Germany had to go into their oil reserves.
    That article states that both Germany and Poland have 'substantial energy reserves'. Your point? Anyway, if Russia were to cut off the supply, then the West of Europe would start getting more oil from the Arab states and from the North Sea. On top of that, without us buying Russia's oil, Russia's economy would begin to fall. How would Russia be able to afford a war then? Plus, the West/UN/Nato/whatever could always start imposing trade embargos on Russia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you are also forgetting the fact that there is an absurd amount of weapons in the US. If america was attacked there would easily be an army of 70 million plus fighters, AND I'm sure Obama has the *just incase* switch.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    You made me do one of those belly-laughs
    Give me some of that tasty rep then sunshine, I haven't had a hit in a couple of days and I'm going through withdrawal symptoms
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I was going to write a long rant on why this was unlikely to happen, but then my kitten walked up to me and demanded all my attention. So to sum it up:

    We have nukes and we're apart of NATO, We may not spent the most on military and lack the man power but we're ranked around 5th in the entire world for our military. I'm gonna say that them factors is probably a big deterrent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    russia used to, it is now a very broken country since the colapse of the soviet union, many are old unusable. the USA definatley has more now, a 500bn arms budget a year Vs russias 60bn, ive been studying the situation in international relations this semester
    India would side with the UK, we give them BILLIONS in aid each year for this reason
    and the point is they deffinatley can't take out all the American and UK missiles before we could strike back, we both have hundreds of nukes in various countries across europe and middle east the majority of the locations are a very closely guarded secret. the US can nuke almost any country in the would in less than 30minutes and the exceptions are countries such as aus and NZ, who are unlikely to every be a threat or to side against the UK
    Please sort out your grammar.

    Also, it's 'definitely' not whatever variation you have tried.

    Recently the UK has announced the withdrawal of development aid to India, Russia and China, amongst other nations. This is not going to help relations between the two nations (UK and India).

    I think the OP has been playing too much Homefront.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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