The Arctic theatre

This was a Coast Guard boat which was being refitted in a commercial shipyard. Someone cut the cables holding it (vandalism) during the night, and it slid into the water. The news story reported only minor damage. Police are investigating.
They are Canadians - calm and clever. In contrary Brits don't need any "investigations". "Highly likely" "Russia guilty" and that's enought.
 
The consequences of ANY nuclear war will be cataclysmic you great twat.
Really not. Highly depends of your understanding of the term 'cataclysmic'. For example, the UK have a very good chances to win nuclear war against DPRK.
Even if one or few of Korean "Garae" will be able to come at launch distance, (1,5 - 2 megametres) succesfully launch their missiles (one or three missiles from submarine), and those missiles will be not intercepted by British Anti-Air Defence, and their warheads will sucesfully hit their targets, there will be "seriouse", but not "cataclysmic" consequences.
 
Really not. Highly depends of your understanding of the term 'cataclysmic'. For example, the UK have a very good chances to win nuclear war against DPRK.
Even if one or few of Korean "Garae" will be able to come at launch distance, (1,5 - 2 megametres) succesfully launch their missiles (one or three missiles from submarine), and those missiles will be not intercepted by British Anti-Air Defence, and their warheads will sucesfully hit their targets, there will be "seriouse", but not "cataclysmic" consequences.
Let us take this rather daft scenario.

It would be cataclysmic for the DPRK, even if the UK was restrained in the response, and why would we be, I doubt the USA would be. China then gets irritated by the newly irradiated fall out it now receives and responds. Things escalate, which is why we have a NOFUN policy.
 
TRIDENT JUNCTURE is very important and the fact it clashes with SS3 is somewhat unfortunate for the UK.

NATO needs to get back into the mindset - and practice - of deterring and if necessarily fighting a monolithic Russian threat. Moreover, we need to do that fast as we no longer enjoy the qualitative edge we used to, particularly in the maritime environment.

Regards,
MM
Testing capabilities

The U.K. could have to undertake high end conventional warfare in more than 1 operational threatre simultaneously (and yes I know it has but not with the smaller military)
 
Let us take this rather daft scenario.
Very draft - DPRK (may be with the little hidden support of Singaporian criminal bankster) vs the UK and RK (not formally allied, but with their own goal to reunite the country).

It would be cataclysmic for the DPRK, even if the UK was restrained in the response, and why would we be, I doubt the USA would be. China then gets irritated by the newly irradiated fall out it now receives and responds. Things escalate, which is why we have a NOFUN policy.
Any war can be 'catalysmic' for a loser - both nuclear or conventional. Thats what the term "war" mean.
Fukusima made more pollution than UK nuclear strike (less than 200 warheads) can make.
May be, British nuclear strike will be 'cataclysmic' (if Koreans will continue to sit in their cities as usual and calmly drink tea), but may be not. One or few Vanguards can be sunk, some missiles can fly in a wrong direction, some warheads can be intecepted by the Korean AAD, some targets can be evacuated.
 
Testing capabilities

The U.K. could have to undertake high end conventional warfare in more than 1 operational threatre simultaneously (and yes I know it has but not with the smaller military)
Apologies, I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with or what you mean by 'testing capabilities.'

Finally, there's no end the UK could undertake 'high-end' ops in more than one theatre simultaneously.

Regards,
MM
 
Very draft - DPRK (may be with the little hidden support of Singaporian criminal bankster) vs the UK and RK (not formally allied, but with their own goal to reunite the country).



Any war can be 'catalysmic' for a loser - both nuclear or conventional. Thats what the term "war" mean.
Fukusima made more pollution than UK nuclear strike (less than 200 warheads) can make.
May be, British nuclear strike will be 'cataclysmic' (if Koreans will continue to sit in their cities as usual and calmly drink tea), but may be not. One or few Vanguards can be sunk, some missiles can fly in a wrong direction, some warheads can be intecepted by the Korean AAD, some targets can be evacuated.
Hahhahhahhaahha

Sorry. DPRK sinking a V class..... and they would have to do it before launching....
 
Report warns Russia would be able to 'overrun vulnerable areas of NATO territory'

The report contains a series of warnings and findings, chief amongst them is the view that if were Moscow to launch hostilities, it is likely that Russian forces would be able to overrun vulnerable areas of NATO territory – including the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – before adequate reinforcements could be deployed.

The report also advises that Russian forces would subsequently seek to deter and, if necessary, combat a major NATO response to such an attack. If required, Moscow has the capability to:

  • conduct limited interdiction of shipping bringing forces across the Atlantic from the US;
  • engage in precision-guided conventional strikes by using cruise and ballistic missiles against militarily, economically and politically sensitive targets in locations across Europe, including the UK;
  • hinder NATO access to key sectors of airspace.
In response, the report recommends:

“Were Russia to initiate hostilities in Eastern Europe, NATO should adopt a strategy of ‘horizontal escalation’ by widening the conflict to include actions within Russia’s northern maritime approaches – an effort which may include direct strikes against Moscow’s strategic assets.”

HSC Senior Fellow and author of the report, Dr Rowan Allport, said:

“The recent Exercise Trident Juncture 2018, the US Navy’s decision to reform its Second Fleet to coordinate North Atlantic operations, and a parallel effort by NATO to set up its own Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, are all encouraging signs that the Alliance is taking the northern maritime realm seriously after a near exclusive focus on Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

However, much more remains to be done. Russia represents at threat to NATO’s sea lines of communication through the use of advanced submarines, is capable of targeting the alliance with a growing arsenal of conventional strategic weapons such as the Kalibr and Kh-101 cruise missiles, and continues to build-up its facilities in the Arctic. A firm commitment is now required by the Alliance to rediscover the forward maritime strategy that helped contribute to winning the Cold War.”
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top