Hmm, why does the British Army still have to have a garrison in Germany?

[Thadius]

Just reading some random thing in the newspaper, is there a reason why we have 25,000 troops in Germany?

I mean, after the Cold War, there isnt a real reason any more. The only threat Britain has is in regards to invasion is from terrorism, and that is from within.

 

[Corran]

Just reading some random thing in the newspaper, is there a reason why we have 25,000 troops in Germany?

I mean, after the Cold War, there isnt a real reason any more. The only threat Britain has is in regards to invasion is from terrorism, and that is from within.

Still have bases in lots of places to be honest. (ie cyprus etc). And probably find that it makes deployment easier when need be. Also provides different environments to train in which is always a good thing. But I am sure there actually more reasons like this, but who cares

 

[Jeremiah]

25,000 seems like a lot of troops, thats probably more than half the numbers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Best bet is that its a Nato or EU army which is using Germany as a operations base, cos I know there are other countries where we have troops stationed in Europe (Such as Bosnia) for no other reason than "being there".

 

[Saggy]

Yeah, those are probably just NATO troops statinoned in NATO country

...or not.

 

[Bahumat]

They're there to steal your wives hr hr hr

 

[CorNokZ]

The British Empire is rebuilding and starting with Germany tbh..

 

[Mey]

we contribute 1.5billion euros to germany a year purely by being there

 

[old.Tohtori]

'cause british think "Ze germans are coming"? :kissit:

 

[OohhoO]

like almost everything else the UK does, it's because Uncle Sam tells them to

 

[soze]

Because as the Pub Landlord says its only a matter of time till they try again!.

That or we are just getting ready for round two of the Brittish Empier.

 

[Chronictank]

Because as the Pub Landlord says its only a matter of time till they try again!.

That or we are just getting ready for round two of the Brittish Empier.

Al Murray is class

 

[Ezteq]

tbh its just because Germany is such a nice place, honestly everyone I have known who was stationed over there because they had a dad or hubby in the army said how much they loved it there. Its like the military equivelant of Bognor, they just go there for a cushy time.

 

[cHodAX]

To stop the Germans invading France again most likely, waste of money if you ask me, let them have France and hopefully they can get GOA operating with that fantastic efficiency the Germans are known for!

Well either that or they still consider Russia to be a threat because of the HUGE amount of servicable tanks they still possess. If the Russians wanted to they could literally steam right through central europe with little or no resistance all the way to the Rhine. With the amount of tanks, artillery and AA/SAM equipment they have even the U.S. airbases in Europe would barely make a dent. The only deterent is tactical nukes, Russia and the former Soviet Union both knew that a tank surge across central europe would result in in a nuclear war and that is why it never happened.

So all that said, the troops being in Germany is utterly pointless and a waste of billions of tax dollars/pounds.

 

[Solo]

Al Murray is class

hehe

"And where would we be without rules, eh? That's right, France. And where would we be with too many rules? Germany."

 

[chretien]

It's to stand ready to protect Liechtenstein against evil Swiss oppression.

 

[Thadius]

It's to stand ready to protect Liechtenstein against evil Swiss oppression.

They should be a war!

As wikipedia says, shoes are cheaper than ammunition!

So it will be a massive shoe fight!

 

[OceanHost]

They should be a war!

As wikipedia says, shoes are cheaper than ammunition!

So it will be a massive shoe fight!

They would probally do more damage, if thrown right.

 

[Thadius]

They would probally do more damage, if thrown right.

Those stilletos can hurt a bitch!

Just ask Vlad, he likes his "master" to wear them then walk all over his naked back

 

[soze]

Well either that or they still consider Russia to be a threat because of the HUGE amount of servicable tanks they still possess. If the Russians wanted to they could literally steam right through central europe with little or no resistance all the way to the Rhine. With the amount of tanks, artillery and AA/SAM equipment they have even the U.S. airbases in Europe would barely make a dent. The only deterent is tactical nukes, Russia and the former Soviet Union both knew that a tank surge across central europe would result in in a nuclear war and that is why it never happened.

So all that said, the troops being in Germany is utterly pointless and a waste of billions of tax dollars/pounds.

On a tv show called future weapons the Yanks have a bomb that they used in Iraq that drops from a B2 that takes out 40 tanks Uses radar or heat sources to lock on with mini bombs and takes them out. So a B2 with 40 of those bombs and a load of Apache Longbows taking out 20 tanks each it would be a great war If the yanks managed to make it past the Brittish base that is.

And also a Chalenger 2 Tank id give it a chance vs 5 old russian tanks

 

[Bahumat]

Check out these bad boy tanks!

 

[cHodAX]

On a tv show called future weapons the Yanks have a bomb that they used in Iraq that drops from a B2 that takes out 40 tanks. Uses radar or heat sources to lock on with mini bombs and takes them out. So a B2 with 40 of those bombs and a load of Apache Longbows taking out 20 tanks each it would be a great war. If the yanks managed to make it past the Brittish base that is.

And also a Chalenger 2 Tank id give it a chance vs 5 old russian tanks.

Those B2's are cannon fodder for MiG's The nasty thing about that weapon you just described though is that it targets large heat signatures and there are an awful lot of large innocent heat signatures in central europe. Those things target cars, houses with ovens or radiators on etc effectively making them little more than cluster bombs. Central europe isn't like Iraq, alot of the fighting would be done in urban areas and a weapon like that is just too inaccurate to be used with so many civilians around. For that reason alone the weapon just isn't suitable unless you are happy to do lots of collateral damage on friendlies. Oh wait, this is America we are talking about, they send all thier pilots on 6 week 'friendly fire' courses...



P.S. your tank comment...

The Russians have over 20,000 tanks iirc, Britian have a couple of hundred. You do the math!

 

[soze]

Those B2's are cannon fodder for MiG's The nasty thing about that weapon you just described though is that it targets large heat signatures and there are an awful lot of large innocent heat signatures in central europe. Those things target cars, houses with ovens or radiators on etc effectively making them little more than cluster bombs. Central europe isn't like Iraq, alot of the fighting would be done in urban areas and a weapon like that is just too inaccurate to be used with so many civilians around. For that reason alone the weapon just isn't suitable unless you are happy to do lots of collateral damage on friendlies. Oh wait, this is America we are talking about, they send all thier pilots on 6 week 'friendly fire' courses...



P.S. your tank comment...

The Russians have over 20,000 tanks iirc, Britian have a couple of hundred. You do the math!

Yeah the bombs are evil and would be useless in England but in France I do not see why we need to worry Seriously though they are not a perfect solution but they are just about all that could be used vs 20000 tanks. gain air superiority and bomb the bastards.

The Russians have a slight advantage!

The stupid thing about a potential European war is that new plane we are all flying around in all but identical planes

And also if half the government have there way we will have no Nuclear deterrent soon so it could be open season on us

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

It's to stand ready to protect Liechtenstein against evil Swiss oppression.

ROFLOL!!
Okay, The french army is finally surpassed in their pityness by the Swiss

 

[Darzil]

And also if half the government have there way we will have no Nuclear deterrent soon so it could be open season on us

Nuclear deterrent is irrelevant unless people think we'll use it. I guess that means we need to appear slightly unhinged to other countries. Doesn't sound like the way to build trust, though.

Also of course has no effect on dealing with terrorists, well, other than giving them a target to aim for.

Darzil

 

[Marc]

25,000 seems like a lot of troops, thats probably more than half the numbers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Best bet is that its a Nato or EU army which is using Germany as a operations base, cos I know there are other countries where we have troops stationed in Europe (Such as Bosnia) for no other reason than "being there".

This is correct. They are stationed in germany as part of the nato force.

 

[soze]

Nuclear deterrent is irrelevant unless people think we'll use it. I guess that means we need to appear slightly unhinged to other countries. Doesn't sound like the way to build trust, though.

Also of course has no effect on dealing with terrorists, well, other than giving them a target to aim for.

Darzil

The fact the yanks had nukes stopped the Cold War kicking off.

I read on the news that pop stars have said instead of renewing our deterrent we should invest that money into the countires we are fighting with. They must live on a different planet.

The nukes are not to stop terorists they are there for MAD if you launch on us we launch on you we are all dead worlds over. If we dont have it whats to stop North Korea resuming there programme and nuking us. I don't think spending billions on it is a great idea but to just have nothing seems stupid and we should not lose all our nukes till every one else dose IMO

 

[cHodAX]

The fact the yanks had nukes stopped the Cold War kicking off.

I read on the news that pop stars have said instead of renewing our deterrent we should invest that money into the countires we are fighting with. They must live on a different planet.

The nukes are not to stop terorists they are there for MAD if you launch on us we launch on you we are all dead worlds over. If we dont have it whats to stop North Korea resuming there programme and nuking us. I don't think spending billions on it is a great idea but to just have nothing seems stupid and we should not lose all our nukes till every one else dose IMO

That is the funny thing, we don't need to renew anything. The old ICBM system works just fine and will continue to do so. This is just a way of pumping billions of pounds of taxpayer money into defence contracts to prop up an industry that relies on regular wars.

 

[liloe]

Righto, go away you fuckers ^^

There are a lot of US soldiers in Germany aswell though =)

 

[soze]

That is the funny thing, we don't need to renew anything. The old ICBM system works just fine and will continue to do so. This is just a way of pumping billions of pounds of taxpayer money into defence contracts to prop up an industry that relies on regular wars.

I agree if they can just extend the service life of the existing stuff they should but if the running costs of the old subs is more than building new ones that might be why there is talk of replacing them.

 

[Darzil]

The nukes are not to stop terorists they are there for MAD if you launch on us we launch on you we are all dead worlds over. If we dont have it whats to stop North Korea resuming there programme and nuking us. I don't think spending billions on it is a great idea but to just have nothing seems stupid and we should not lose all our nukes till every one else dose IMO

There are several ways it can go :

1. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but no one is stupid enough to use them - result, nuclear escalation, but no one dies, just a lot of money wasted.

2. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, but no one else is - result, nuclear escalation, then a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

3. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, and others do to - result, game over.

4. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, no one fires off nukes as a result - Good savings for the country that does it, reduced chance of nuclear escalation.

5. One country gets rid of them first, and others follow, no one fires off nukes as a result - Nuclear de-esclation, and lots of money saved.

6. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, they get nuked - a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

Nuclear deterrance sort of worked during the cold war, as both sides seemed to be prepared to use them (and nearly did). It only works if other people believe your country to be led by the sort of person who'll massacre millions if they are provoked. I'm not sure that I'm happy with a world led by such people.

Darzil