UK is a nuclear power with apocalipse class subs.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Size of land mass has nothing to do with anything.
It’s all kicking off in the Potential Russian invasion of Ukraine thread
Do you honestly believe the UK would stand a chance against Russia in a war?
Troop size does though? 850,000 against 82,000? I know who I’d be taking.
It would be an end war due to the power of both. UK, US, Russia and France have apocalipse clase subs. That is end for any country.Do you honestly believe the UK would stand a chance against Russia in a war?
Some kind of invasion in this thread already.
Of course troop numbers are important.
Same can be said the other way around considering that UK has a few hundred nukes, enough to destroy pretty much every relevant city in Russia.
I wouldn’t go as far for UK and France. While UK has a few subs that in theory can carry hundred nukes each, their total arsenal is just around 200 nukes, and estimated to 12 MT or so. It should be enough to pretty much destroy any country, in the sense of completely destroying their top 50-100 cities or so, but would fall short of an apocalypse/nuclear winter that US, Russia and possibly China can cause.
For example US has hundreds of nukes that have a yield of 500KT-3MT. Same for Russia. UK maybe has a few in that range with the majority being 100KT or smaller. For context, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15-20KT.
This is awkward. Have you heard of Operation Sea Lion? An “island like the UK” isn’t so easy to brush aside. I mean it was the only European nation that stood up against Nazi Germany.
I wasn’t aware that teleport technology existed in the real world. Or perhaps a magic demon portal their mechanized artillery can drive through to take positions on the hills and bombard the airfields?
Have you never looked at a map, engaged your brain, and thought “um maybe it’s quite a long way from Russia to the U.K.” ?
This thread has turned into the equivalent of a comparing size competition.
I would imagine any modern wars between the most developed countries would be more around cyberwarefare, political destabalisation, and economic sanctions. At best a few spy drones otherwise we’d have a full scale world war and nobody wins.
Re Russia vs Ukraine - I don’t know the history or current issues but I didn’t think Russia would attack such a big country especially coming out of Covid where economies are still rebuilding. However, it looks more likely everyday with such a big build up and arguably a few initial cyber attack tests. Also keep hearing about the sanctions but not exactly sure what they are and whether Europe is agreed on that gas pipeline being removed.
I would imagine any modern wars between the most developed countries would be more around cyberwarefare, political destabalisation, and economic sanctions. At best a few spy drones otherwise we’d have a full scale world war and nobody wins.
Re Russia vs Ukraine - I don’t know the history or current issues but I didn’t think Russia would attack such a big country especially coming out of Covid where economies are still rebuilding. However, it looks more likely everyday with such a big build up and arguably a few initial cyber attack tests. Also keep hearing about the sanctions but not exactly sure what they are and whether Europe is agreed on that gas pipeline being removed.
This is exactly it. Nukes are generally irrelevant among competing nations who have them and conventional weapons are less important since nuclear adversaries know that a conventional hot war would eventually lead to a nuclear one. Cyber, Space (the domain), Economics, and the ability to manipulate information are far more usable among competitors than planes, ships, subs, missiles etc.
That doctrine/theory is somewhat old now.
Anyway, war is war. What’s described above is rivalry not war. Competition is not conflict. Conflict is not competition. You can still have vertical escalation limiters during great power conflict.
Whether it could last a long time is another matter (I don’t believe it could personally), but there’s certainly a renewed focus on conventional “great power conflict ready” weaponry.
Jack Matlock, the Former US Ambassador to the USSR has given a good interview on this. He was also in the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis.
He said Papa Bush knew what would happen if they push east but Clinton and GW didn't understand or refused to accept. He even testified to the Senate and what he told is exactly what is happening now.
So it's not that the Russians want to have a Russian empire or to control Ukraine. He said it's all got to do with security.
He said Papa Bush knew what would happen if they push east but Clinton and GW didn't understand or refused to accept. He even testified to the Senate and what he told is exactly what is happening now.
So it's not that the Russians want to have a Russian empire or to control Ukraine. He said it's all got to do with security.
Again, this is all forgetting that these eastern European countries wanted to and chose to join NATO. With that said, I do agree that if these countries want independence from the Russian sphere of influence, they will have to thwart Russian attempts to conquer them.
They don't have to. Kuwait was not in NATO and neither was Vietnam. Neither was Iraq. The Americans can invade anyone they want to invade.
The point is The Americans refused to accept nuclear weapons in Cuba because it's so close to the USA. The Russians should have the same right.
It's not NATO as per the issue. It's what comes after joining NATO.
Okay, I'll bite. 1 vs 1 - Britain would stand a much better chance than any other country in Europe. They certainly couldn't invade us. Why? Technological advantage and naval power.
Forget nukes for a moment, because in truth they could annihilate any nation with their stockpile. Britain would launch back regardless, but in that scenario it's NATO vs Russia, not UK vs Russia.
The Royal Navy is objectively and comfortably the most powerful and well equipped navy on the continent. Russia's maritime hardware is largely decrepit, outdated and often in poor state of repair. Their aircraft carrier literally requires a tugboat escort at all times, their submarines are in many cases technological dinosaurs and inferior to ours by every meaningful metric and comparison - and their naval air power is certainly no match for that provided by the RN's new carrier class, backed up by the RAF at shorter range.
This would make a land invasion of the UK very, very difficult. They'd need a huge armada to send tanks or soldiers in any meaningful numbers, and that many targets would constantly be harried and sunk by relentless British air and sea bombardment, their losses at sea would be so catastrophic that it wouldn't be worth even attempting - even from multiple directions, the combined heat they'd face from the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm would make it a non starter. Whatever air carrier power they had would be hopelessly outnumbered and destroyed in early air to air exchanges. They may attempt long-range air patrols from land to provide cover for this 'mega flotilla' but the sheer distance between Russian airbases and the English coast would make this almost impossible in any effective sense, even if all of their fighters were crammed into Kaliningrad, they'd still have to make 2,000 mile round trips 24/7 to provide constant air support at sea, whilst coming up against technologically superior aircraft and better trained pilots.
No, Russia could not 'crush' the UK in any conventional sense. Again, a nuclear war is different - then again, Britain at least has a nuclear deterrent. Regardless, a nuclear exchange with the Russia = NATO vs Russia, so we're not the only ones being crushed.
Most historians agree that even if Germany had not been defeated at the Battle of Britain, Hitler would never have been able to mount an invasion of Britain for the exact same reason; naval superiority - which remains to this day, Britain's strongest military asset.
Last edited:
I am not a soldier but my grandfather was and I inherited his fascination to war politics, strategy etc. Throughout the years I've watched videos for military men and I also had the opportunity to speak with former Russian, US and British soldiers about the subject.
In terms of GDP Russia can't compete with the EU/US. NATO is far stronger then anything Russia can throw at as well. Unfortunately NATO has two key weakness. A- It relies on the goodwill of its nations, especially its biggest player ie the US. Also NATO is slow to deploy as its major player happens to live on another continent. Basically everything lies with the US being battle ready and motivated enough to move as many troops as quickly as possible to save our arse. That's unfortunate as the US is currently suffering from war fatigue + every man and his dog know that the future lies in Asia not Europe.
Russia is different. It had deployed its limited resources in modernising its army to modern needs. Russia's army is built to invade as much land as quickly as possible and taking everyone to surprise. Sure NATO will eventually catch up but here's the snag. If Russia invades Eastern Europe and it threatens to use nukes against any aggressor would NATO react to that? Would the UK, the US or France be willing to trade London, Paris or New York for Kiev, Talinn or Riga? We know the answer
Which is why I was all in favour for a proper EU army, ie a powerful army which is lead by a central core that can be immediately deployed to defend the Eastern front if needed and is unshackled by the US politics.
In terms of GDP Russia can't compete with the EU/US. NATO is far stronger then anything Russia can throw at as well. Unfortunately NATO has two key weakness. A- It relies on the goodwill of its nations, especially its biggest player ie the US. Also NATO is slow to deploy as its major player happens to live on another continent. Basically everything lies with the US being battle ready and motivated enough to move as many troops as quickly as possible to save our arse. That's unfortunate as the US is currently suffering from war fatigue + every man and his dog know that the future lies in Asia not Europe.
Russia is different. It had deployed its limited resources in modernising its army to modern needs. Russia's army is built to invade as much land as quickly as possible and taking everyone to surprise. Sure NATO will eventually catch up but here's the snag. If Russia invades Eastern Europe and it threatens to use nukes against any aggressor would NATO react to that? Would the UK, the US or France be willing to trade London, Paris or New York for Kiev, Talinn or Riga? We know the answer
Which is why I was all in favour for a proper EU army, ie a powerful army which is lead by a central core that can be immediately deployed to defend the Eastern front if needed and is unshackled by the US politics.
You're protected by the dover strait which means any invasion wouldnt be realistic.
Thank goodness you guys beat hitler but if you're land locked with german the story would be very different.
And technology power house? We're at the age where technologies arent that far ahead. Everyone i assume would have gps, satellite, and modern equipment even if they're not the state of the art.
Your guns might be 2x more advance than ak47 but ak47 can still kill you. We're not talking about guns vs. Swords. At best it's better gun vs slightly older guns.
Nuclear asides that is.
And UK isnt the powerhouse that they were back then economically, 1v1 you're no match for an atrocity war with russia.
But then again the war in real world woudl be too dynamic to predict with allies and diplomacy it'll never come to 1 vs 1
@Sky1981
I agree with your comments, just to clarify, by technologically advanced I meant mostly with regards to fighter jet capability and warship design.
It goes a lot further than just GPS; newer ship designs utilise advanced target tracking systems, faster ordnance launching ability, better range and improved electronic warfare and defensive capabilities. In those senses we absolutely have the Russians beaten. A naval war would suit the UK fine and would prevent a land assault on our soil. Of course our losses would be abysmal too.
Also, goes without saying, us invading Russia is out of the question
I agree with your comments, just to clarify, by technologically advanced I meant mostly with regards to fighter jet capability and warship design.
It goes a lot further than just GPS; newer ship designs utilise advanced target tracking systems, faster ordnance launching ability, better range and improved electronic warfare and defensive capabilities. In those senses we absolutely have the Russians beaten. A naval war would suit the UK fine and would prevent a land assault on our soil. Of course our losses would be abysmal too.
Also, goes without saying, us invading Russia is out of the question
Last time I checked the US invaded neither Kuwait nor Vietnam. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and the UN sponsored a coalition to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam invaded to pay off debts due to the long-running Iran-Iraq war. The US tried and failed to defend South Vietnam and at most bombed parts of Laos and North Vietnam to try and disrupt enemy movements. In fact, the US were scared to invade due to the threat of USSR and China intervening in the war. Also, there's no reason to think that the US would place nukes in Ukraine when if they wanted to place nukes right next to Russia they already have access to the Baltics. For all these years the US have not put much effort to put any equipment in the region and basically use it as a buffer. Ukraine would likely fall into the same category even if they were to join NATO, which they wouldn't as too many EU countries would not accept them in the alliance.
Ultimately this discussion highlights the effectiveness of Russian disinformation as too many folks think Putin has major concerns about security and that this is the driving force behind why he wants control in Ukraine. The reality is that his treatment of Navalny and other figures who oppose him better highlights what the real issue is, his problem with "color revolutions" and how democracies next door to him may influence any potential democratic aspirations/opposition to him in Russia. All the revanchist security demands are secondary concerns relative to this.
The Russian military knows that NATO has no interest in conflict with them and is willing to deal with them on a host of issues. This is more about Putin's own political stability inside of Russia. If Russia was a democracy, would there be conflict right now? No, because no majority assembly of people during the middle of a pandemic would have interest in invading a non-aggressive neighbor that they share rich and positive cultural ties with. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer, this isn't some grand geopolitical issue at its heart but it has become one due to Putin's insecurity and his having access to thousands of nukes.
This is a very correct take, flourishing Ukraine would basically leave him naked domestically as he would have zero arguments for his failures at home.
But would a European Army not face exactly the same problems as NATO. That being the will of the separate European countries. Because Germany for example had a completely different foreign policy to France.
BS. There is documented evidence that the US, Germany and French head of States told Gorbachev that NATO is not going to move eastwards. The Russians believed it. Look what happened.
They don't trust the Americans and rightly so.
Look what they did to the Japanese economy? Look what they are doing to China now. The Russians would be utterly stupid to accept that NATO would not put nuclear weapons in Ukraine or they would not attempt to take Crimea back.
Assuming this is true, any such assurances would have been made to Gorbachev in his capacity as the leader of the Soviet Union, not Russia. Given that the Soviet Union subsequently ceased to exist, is there some reason (beyond the basic amorality of power politics) that NATO should appease the anxieties of one of its successor states while disregarding the desires of several other of its successor states?
Ukraine is a sovereign democratic state it can join whatever alliances it wants to.
If the Russians didn't want NATO expansion maybe they shouldn't have invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea and should stop the shit in Donbass.
NATO is never going to undertake an offensive operation against a nuclear state like Russia. That would push the world into World War 3.
I guess he’ll be running around the halls of No.10 screaming out in ecstasy, “I’ll get to do a Churchill speech! I’ll get to do a Churchill speech!”
What did they do to Japan’s and China’s economy?
What is the advantage on putting nukes in Ukraine compared to Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania? Or you know just launching them from the US or from any of the dozen submarines that can host 100 nukes. US can obliterate Russia (and vice versa) with nukes without needing to put them in each other borders. We are not in the sixties anymore.
Yes but unlike Nato it would be based in Europe hence it would be fast to deploy
JFC, watching a video with Corbyn babbling on about how Ukraine has all this "powerful military hardware because of NATO" and how "Ukraine has all this hardware on one side, the Russians on the other, someone is bound mess up and start the war".
Meanwhile in actual fecking reality, Russia and separatist forces are shelling the crap out of Ukrainian border positions, Ukraine just letting soldiers get killed so they don't provoke Russian justification. Russia is fabricating terrorist attacks, pre-recording videos. But its NATO and Ukraine not taking the minsk agreement seriously that "a big part of this".
For the love of god...you can criticise western militarism and intelligence and still believe deterrence through military aid and sanctions in the case of invasion is a better fecking policy than moving 50 thousand US troops into Ukraine.... right??? What are these braindead arguments from the left? We are supposed to be the ones that apply objective critical analysis to a situation FFS.
Meanwhile in actual fecking reality, Russia and separatist forces are shelling the crap out of Ukrainian border positions, Ukraine just letting soldiers get killed so they don't provoke Russian justification. Russia is fabricating terrorist attacks, pre-recording videos. But its NATO and Ukraine not taking the minsk agreement seriously that "a big part of this".
For the love of god...you can criticise western militarism and intelligence and still believe deterrence through military aid and sanctions in the case of invasion is a better fecking policy than moving 50 thousand US troops into Ukraine.... right??? What are these braindead arguments from the left? We are supposed to be the ones that apply objective critical analysis to a situation FFS.
Corbyn is an idiot. If we’re up to him and his ilk NATO wouldn’t exist and no Western countries would have nukes. Whilst a nice fantasy it is just that. Everything will always be our fault for his faction even when a despot like Putin is on the verge of invading a democratic country and threatening nuclear holocaust if anyone tries to stop him.
Last edited:
Not surprised that EU allies are somewhat skeptical while UK is more confident in US intelligence as UK is a part of "Five Eyes". Wouldn't be surprised if they have seen the raw data behind the intelligence assessment.
In the meantime there is an actual war going on in Ukraine with civilians aa always bearing the brunt if it.
Which is an obvious take but some of the hot heads in here are incapable of extending the same 'rights' to the 'enemy'.
The issue is the idea of control granted by power. Russia are 100% right to be concerned by NATO expansion but that doesn't really make any counter actions reasonable.
The US are probably right that Russia would use Nord 2 as a measure of control over Ukraine but at least its a peaceful one. Economic sanctions are how control is imposed without warfare.
If you start from a position of Russia have a valid security concern then you want to steer their response. The diplomatic route is obvious so you have to question the politics of why it's being rejected.
I imagine, after reading this brainstorming here, that this is how an actual war happens. My dick is bigger then your dick and we could wipe UK without any problems. Nope, we could wipe them out coming from the other side, so we will show them a bit of what we got. Next thing you know, the country burns and people die while those assholes in the office, despite knowing they went way too far calculate how to win something which is bound not be won from the start. I mean, how can you "win" a war?
Fascinating.
I went through a war. It's shit.
Fascinating.
I went through a war. It's shit.