Confused Question

[Scouse]

What job does 260 nuclear warheads do that you can't realistically accomplish with 180?

I mean, treaty violations aside, how much nuking of a problem solves it in a way that we end up in a better place?

 

[Raven]

We can't afford them
We don't need them

BUT

Russia and China are being "right 'orrible little cunts" atm, and have been for years, so there is logic in increasing our deterrent, sort of.

 

[Scouse]

So they're not already worried about 180 100-megaton bombs, but 260 will make them piss themselves?

Russia's got about 7000 btw. But if they lob one, it'll break M.A.D.,normalise use and then we're fucked.

 

[Gwadien]

It's a bit like MPs have called for us to modernise our armoured vehicles.

Problem is that we've already seen from ISIS that the best way of dealing with lesser armed enemies is to have some peeps on the ground with a tablet and a satellite phone calling shit in.

I don't see why this would be different for 99% of our potential enemies.

I mean surely building a small fleet of very expensive armour just makes a strike first policy more appealing.

 

[Gwadien]

Also I forgot to add...

Some individuals will get pretty rich from this!

 

[DaGaffer]

It's a bit like MPs have called for us to modernise our armoured vehicles.

Problem is that we've already seen from ISIS that the best way of dealing with lesser armed enemies is to have some peeps on the ground with a tablet and a satellite phone calling shit in.

I don't see why this would be different for 99% of our potential enemies.

I mean surely building a small fleet of very expensive armour just makes a strike first policy more appealing.

Err, what? Military planners are supposed to think about the next war, not the last one. The thinking at the moment is the long term problem will be China, which is why Britain has been rebuilding the navy over the last decade, and if the army has to be involved its far more likely to be a conventional war, rather than the asymmetric wars we've been fighting since 9/11. And in that context, if you have tanks (and they're sticking a new gun and optics on the Challenger fleet, not replacing them) then you need infantry to support them, so you need AFVs. And ours are over 30 years old.

The army always gets the shitty end of the stick when it comes to British defence planning, giving them a vehicle less clapped out than a Ford Sierra doesn't seem too unreasonable.

 

[Scouse]

Thing is. We won't be going to conventional war directly with these actors - they'd hit the button if it started going bad.

We upgrade our military for proxy war / world policing.

More nukes are not needed.

 

[Gwadien]

Thing is. We won't be going to conventional war directly with these actors - they'd hit the button if it started going bad.

We upgrade our military for proxy war / world policing.

More nukes are not needed.

This tbh @DaGaffer our armies are setup to deal with insurgencies and small shit nations, there's no way that we would ever compete with Russian tech when it comes to land fighting so why bother? I mean the US is in a way worse position than us in terms of out dated equipment.

I just feel like NATO countries should do what they're good at, have the UK exclusively doing sea and planes, Germany doing tanks etc because they're the one with the land threat.

If we're really going to plan for ww3 then we should already be building factories under Snowdonia because I think the conversion into a military industry will be our biggest problem when our billions worth of hardware is wiped in the first few weeks.

See BEF during ww2.

 

[DaGaffer]

This tbh @DaGaffer our armies are setup to deal with insurgencies and small shit nations, there's no way that we would ever compete with Russian tech when it comes to land fighting so why bother? I mean the US is in a way worse position than us in terms of out dated equipment.

I just feel like NATO countries should do what they're good at, have the UK exclusively doing sea and planes, Germany doing tanks etc because they're the one with the land threat.

If we're really going to plan for ww3 then we should already be building factories under Snowdonia because I think the conversion into a military industry will be our biggest problem when our billions worth of hardware is wiped in the first few weeks.

See BEF during ww2.

Forget the Russians; they couldn't sustain a land war against NATO for 20 minutes, they're a paper tiger, which is why they've held on to nukes, but mainly to fend off the Chinese from just walking in to Siberia.

China is the problem, and yes, most of the response to them will be naval (South China Sea etc.), but we could end up facing them in places as diverse as India, South-East Asia, or (ironically) Russia. We wouldn't do it on our own, but even in a coalition an armoured capability makes sense. NB. Ze Germans aren't the heavyweight in armour in Europe, the Poles are (which makes sense given their history), and then the British. You're right that the Americans have similar problems to the British, but that's hardly a reason to say "ah fuck it".

Anyhoo, bit off topic and I completely agree with @Scouse that Britain in no way needs an increased nuclear arsenal, this is post-Brexit "we're still a player" willy-waving.

 

[Gwadien]

I thought the Germans were producing the cannon for most NATO armour?

 

[DaGaffer]

I thought the Germans were producing the cannon for most NATO armour?

Yes, Rheinmetall, but the Germans aren't actually fielding that many tanks themselves. Disturbingly, its one of the few things Trump was right about in his rants about European NATO (albeit he was right for the wrong reasons, in a "stopped clock" kind of way), the Germans aren't pulling their weight, and their whole military is a bit of a shitshow at the moment, with little or no training, poor procurement and big gaps in their operational readiness. Its not a money problem, its a political and doctrine problem first and foremost.

 

[Embattle]

Most recent US presidents have state that a number of NATO countries underspend on defence, the UK and most Eastern European countries spend 2%+ of GDP on defence.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/pdf/pr-2020-104-en.pdf

 

[Gwadien]

Yes, Rheinmetall, but the Germans aren't actually fielding that many tanks themselves. Disturbingly, its one of the few things Trump was right about in his rants about European NATO (albeit he was right for the wrong reasons, in a "stopped clock" kind of way), the Germans aren't pulling their weight, and their whole military is a bit of a shitshow at the moment, with little or no training, poor procurement and big gaps in their operational readiness. Its not a money problem, its a political and doctrine problem first and foremost.

Well imagine if they did rearm, you'd have Job and his politically influencial ilk shouting that the Nazis are back. I don't blame Germany for it, they've been resting in their laurels for a long time, and it would take pretty drastic political change for them to remilitarize.

I'd also disagree with your money procurement etc, Germany has their own industry to be able to back up their military if they thought it was necessary but we barely do.

Meh, either way I think we should be focusing on conventional missiles and deploying as we have vs ISIS - special forces and a phone, it minimises risk to British soldiers and diminishes enemy morale when they never see who they're fighting.

I just don't see how tanks and most armoured vehicles fit in to the arena of warfare anymore, they've been largely redundant since ww2 in comparison with other developments.

 

[Gwadien]

Most recent US presidents have state that a number of NATO countries underspend on defence, the UK and most Eastern European countries spend 2%+ of GDP on defence.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/pdf/pr-2020-104-en.pdf

NATO should be reinvented tbh, I find having a compulsory military contribution rather flawed, why not allow countries to contribute in other ways?

 

[Raven]

NATO does need to evolve, definitely, but members should maintain their armies under obligation of membership and the only real and fair way of doing that is via a percentage of GDP, perhaps that needs some caveats depending on other economic issues and location...so Eastern Euro countries can pay a little less in return for having more NATO equipment in their country or something.

 

[DaGaffer]

NATO should be reinvented tbh, I find having a compulsory military contribution rather flawed, why not allow countries to contribute in other ways?

The 2% GDP thing is "the least worst" solution they could all agree to, but most of them also acknowledge its bullshit; how the money is spent is far more important than the dollar value, and to be honest for most NATO members it doesn't really matter that much...except Germany, because of their strategic importance and the size of their economy; and the views of little Englanders about the re-emergence of the fourth reich are irrelevant. Besides, the problems with the German military are relatively recent, its only started to all fall apart in the last decade or so,

 

[DaGaffer]

.so Eastern Euro countries can pay a little less in return for having more NATO equipment in their country or something.

They do, which is why Poland and Lithuania have both welcomed US basing there with open arms.

 

[Moriath]

Make love not war.