‘Global Britain’ includes more nuclear weapons

[Jredbaron96]

Why should a country like Britain want to fight a land war on the continent? If I were British I would suggest exiting such commitments. Russia is not the west’s enemy anyway. The whole idea Russia is some massive threat is fear porn.

Because they're a member of an alliance who's member states are regularly threatened by Russia.

 

[Jredbaron96]

They don’t need to. Britain is on an island, why do they need a massive land component?

Because England's coast is 20 miles from Europe, not 200. What happens on Europe directly impacts what happens on Britannia.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Because England's coast is 20 miles from Europe, not 200. What happens on Europe directly impacts what happens on Britannia.

Nobody is invading Britain. No country on the continent or in the world other then the US has that capacity.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Nobody is invading Britain. No country on the continent or in the world other then the US has that capacity.

Britain does not have to be invaded for her interests to be threatened. The Nazis never did, but that didn't mean Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to the British isles.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Britain does not have to be invaded for her interests to be threatened. The Nazis never did, but that didn't mean Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to the British isles.

“Interests” is a tag line used to justify involvement in conflicts not beneficial to that country. Just like because of our “interests” we killed off millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans for no benefit in return.

Nazi Germany was not a real threat to the British Isles. They had no where near the naval capacity to invade Britain and Britain could buy whatever European goods they wanted through Spain or Portugal

that aside, there is no country that has desires to rule all of Europe by arms. Least of all Russia. Russia would be perfectly happy if we stopped surrounding their country with weapons and demanding they give marriage licenses to homosexuals.

 

[Jredbaron96]

“Interests” is a tag line used to justify involvement in conflicts not beneficial to that country.

That's a very stupid and shortsighted way of looking at it. Britain's biggest partner is Europe. To pretend that European affairs do not directly impact Britain is the height of geopolitical fantasy.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That's a very stupid and shortsighted way of looking at it. Britain's biggest partner is Europe. To pretend that European affairs do not directly impact Britain is the height of geopolitical fantasy.

So Britain needs a big Army so they can do... what in Europe? Invade it?

 

[Jredbaron96]

So Britain needs a big Army so they can do... what in Europe? Invade it?

You're mistaken. Britain doesn't need a big army. They just need an Army that isn't a cluser**** of organizational and strategic missteps and procurement nightmares.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You're mistaken. Britain doesn't need a big army. They just need an Army that isn't a cluser**** of organizational and strategic missteps and procurement nightmares.

They don’t need one at all. They’re on an island. At most they need an organized militia like Switzerland

 

[Fledermaus]

We all know the number 1 reason to invade Britain is to get at our world beating cheeses.

 

[Jredbaron96]

They don’t need one at all.

Nonsense. Britain has international commitments and an alliance to uphold, which it can't do with its distorted Army. Not even the morons in UKIP gave serious consideration to disbanding the British Army.

 

[Dayton3]

Why should a country like Britain want to fight a land war on the continent? If I were British I would suggest exiting such commitments. Russia is not the west’s enemy anyway. The whole idea Russia is some massive threat is fear porn.

Nations often have to fight wars they don't want to fight.

Only armies can actually win wars. Not navies or air forces.

 

[Luce]

Neither of which would severely damage the United States in the long run.

Yes. Not being able to move food into cities would have no effect.

Why don't you have a wall full of Nobel Prizes yet? Your post is GENIUS.

 

[Luce]

Nations often have to fight wars they don't want to fight.

Only armies can actually win wars. Not navies or air forces.

Your expertise is once again proven full potato.

The Battle of Salamis never happened, right?

 

[Dayton3]

Yes. Not being able to move food into cities would have no effect.

Why don't you have a wall full of Nobel Prizes yet? Your post is GENIUS.

There are more ways for trains to move across the U.S. than through Denver.

Why do people on this board seem to be so set on insulting me?

 

[Luce]

There are more ways for trains to move across the U.S. than through Denver.

Why do people on this board seem to be so set on insulting me?

1. Not if you have no fuel. And the main railroad trunk that can carry and fuel enough trains is in Denver.

2. Because you spout like you're some kind of expert, and you are literally always wrong.

 

[Luce]

Example:

"Only armies can actually win wars. Not navies or air forces."

The third Persian Campaign (the 3rd war between Persia and Greece) was won by a naval battle. Turns out troops can't fight much if they have no supplies.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nonsense. Britain has international commitments and an alliance to uphold, which it can't do with its distorted Army. Not even the morons in UKIP gave serious consideration to disbanding the British Army.

That’s the problem. I think countries separated by water can invest in planes and ships and then not bother with anyone else’s affairs.

 

[Dayton3]

That’s the problem. I think countries separated by water can invest in planes and ships and then not bother with anyone else’s affairs.

Life doesn't work out that way.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That’s the problem. I think countries separated by water can invest in planes and ships and then not bother with anyone else’s affairs.

Unfortunately reality does not share your appraisal.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Unfortunately reality does not share your appraisal.

Why reality? The fictional one you’ve constructed where the red hordes are just going to take over all of Europe?

 

[Dayton3]

1. Not if you have no fuel. And the main railroad trunk that can carry and fuel enough trains is in Denver.

2. Because you spout like you're some kind of expert, and you are literally always wrong.

2)

A) I've never claimed to be an expert
B) "literally always wrong"...? Bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Unfortunately reality does not share your appraisal.

Besides as a leftist you are fully committed to destroying these countries anyway. The left in Britain is trying to ban rule Britannia and a British university suspended a student for supporting the British army. So I don’t know why as a member of the left you’re upset about weakness of the British Army

 

[Jredbaron96]

Why reality? The fictional one you’ve constructed where the red hordes are just going to take over all of Europe?

The idea that the only reason the British would need an Army is because Russia is hilariously foolish.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Besides as a leftist you are fully committed to destroying these countries anyway.

lol, trying your hand at trolling now? Ran out of talking points already?

So I don’t know why as a member of the left you’re upset about weakness of the British Army

The British are allies of my homeland. And while I don't support them in all things (Tiocfaidh ár lá) I still value their friendship.