If only MMA fighters were world leaders we could live peacefully while they fight it out in the ring (or cage wherever they fight).
Ok, I missed the 1980s with the nuclear air raid warnings, so can accept some here felt the threat has been higher.
The military experts of NATO and western governments are all telling us the threat of conflict is the highest its been in many years, and defence spending has increased in most western countries.
But its reassuring to read that the far more informed and real experts at STW feel things today are just being dramatised a tad ..
The military experts of NATO and western governments are all telling us the threat of conflict is the highest its been in many years, and defence spending has increased in most western countries.
Yes it is most unusual for "military experts" to claim that defence spending needs to be ramped up, generally speaking you expect them to say "that's enough spending thank you". And western governments struggling politically with domestic issues are not known to tap into voters's patriotic sentiments with talk of foreign threats, so the diet we are being fed MUST be true.
Ok, I missed the 1980s with the nuclear air raid warnings, so can accept some here felt the threat has been higher.
I was a TA reservist in the 1980s and when I joined the police I had to give the TA up. The threat was perceived to be great enough that the cops were needed here keeping the populace in check. More recently you could be a member of both
We had a wind-up air raid siren, like you see on WW2 films and HANDEL, a Carrier Control Point warning system that was tested every so often. We even had a leaflet!
http://www.atomica.co.uk/ukwmo/ukwmo.htm
But its reassuring to read that the far more informed and real experts at STW feel things today are just being dramatised a tad ..
Quoted for effect...
The true victim is Ukraine being sold the "rich man" narrative by the gangs of puppet masters. invaded by a foreign state.
Chewkw, you are a master testiculator, do you actually believe the tripe you post?
What if there’s nobody left to write the history books because the few who remain are busy fighting each other to the death for the last tin of corned beef in a scorched apocalyptic wasteland?
It was always inevitable that spam would end up taking over the world.
Feels very much like this is heading in one direction in a mad rush to self-destruction. Extremely depressing.
At least we can stop worrying about climate change and all drive big V8s until the bombs drop.
Ok, I missed the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s with the nuclear air raid warnings, so can accept some here felt the threat has been higher.
The military experts of NATO and western governments are all telling us the threat of conflict is the highest its been in many years,
FTFY
When do the "military experts" ever not want increased spending on their favourite projects?
Out of interest, do you think they should be doing otherwise?
I really don't see what purpose spending 100s of billions more on weapons serves, other than to make arms manufacturers very rich and sucking funding away from other areas of public spending which would have far more benefit to the average person. There's also the danger of all these new arms becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. the 'peace through strength' nonsense is nothing more than geopoliticial breast-beating. As some others have said, given how bogged down he is in Ukraine why would Putin think attacking the west would go any better? He's certainly not going to do it with conventional weapons, and if he uses nukes it's game over for all of us no matter how many new tanks, planes and drones we buy, so what the hell is the point?
The world is currently the way it is because of a handful of power-crazed 'strong' men who are desperate to prove their virility and massage their over-inflated narcissistic egos. Instead of bending over backwards to placate them, 'sensible and grownup' countries - of which we are certainly one - should be pushing back on this mad march to destruction and refusing to engage in this nonsensical arms race.
I think the Middle East has probably reached that tipping point where if they all blow each other to kingdom come, would anybody really miss them? They’ve been itching for an all out war for decades, so maybe just say ‘**** it!’ and just let ‘em get on with it?
The oil price spike would probably be a PITA for a bit*, but other than that….? 🤷♂️
Well I would; I have family and friends in various parts of the ME, including Israel, so I find the current escalation extremely depressing. And comments like this just crass and ignorant. Please try to be sensitive to what is a truly horrific human catastrophe.
The only people really itching for an all out war are sitting safely thousands of miles across the other side of the globe, counting the money they're making from helping perpetuate human conflict. The vast majority of ordinary citizens in the ME, bar a few despotic egotistical psychopaths, are right now probably terrified and wanting to nothing more than war to end. But whilst there is profit in prolonging human suffering, so wars will forever be part of our world.
When do the "military experts" ever not want increased spending on their favourite projects?
Anyone wondering about the wisdom of 'military experts' to keep us safe should watch The Fog of War - Eleven Lessons From The Life of Robert S Mcnamara - https://archive.org/details/the-fog-of-war . If certain generals (ie 'military experts') had got their way in 1962 we wouldn't be having this discussion. JFK and his brother were dismissed as appeasers, cowards and peaceniks by the US military establishment. I only hope there are people like them in a position to stop what we're seeing on the news today.
If it decreases our reliance on an increasingly unstable USA I'd say it was worthwhile.
the so-called 'sensible' states in Europe spending 100s of billions on weapons and armaments
I think Europe being able to stand on its own feet militarily without the US - at least as a counter to Russia is sensible. Germany alone has a GDP 50% higher than Russia, its pretty poor that Europe has been relying on the US militarily for so long.
But I don't think either the conflict in the Middle East or Ukraine is likely to trigger WWIII. If China makes a move on Taiwan it will be a different matter though.
One plausible theory is that Putin wants to destroy the NATO alliance, in particular article 5. One way to do this would be an incursion into a Baltic state, to test NATOS’s resolve re article 5.If no one comes to their aid, then NATO is pretty much done.
its pretty poor that Europe has been relying on the US militarily for so long.
Yes definitely, but it should be remembered that this arrangement has been also hugely beneficial to the United States, which is why it has persisted for so long.
European NATO countries have been massively useful in helping the United States to maintain their global hegemony. Coalitions of the willing have been indispensable in serving US interests.
Currently as the settler-colonial regime in the Middle East, which exists to serve US interests in the region, as Benjamin Netanyahu constantly likes to remind us, is committing genocide and engulfing the whole region in war and destruction European NATO countries are very reluctant to do anything about it beyond offering words of concern.
This is as a direct result of the special relationship they have with the United States. Indeed they go even further and provide weapons and intelligence to the US-backed regime. And occasionally even direct intervention - UK warplanes are currently on standby in case they should be needed.
It would be a whole different ballgame if US and European military structures were not seen as mutually interdependent.
If it decreases our reliance on an increasingly unstable USA I'd say it was worthwhile.
I don't really see how all this extra defence spending is doing that. As mentioned above, Putin won't attack the west with conventional forces as he has no hope of winning, so why are we spending money on conventional forces? Seems to me if we're going to spend more money on arms it probably should be focused on having a fully independent nuclear deterrent. All this extra money being spent has got little to do with making us safer or more independent. Seems to me it's primary purpose is to make arms companies, and especially the US ones, more money. Trump just wants money out of us, it's as simple as that.
I think the Middle East has probably reached that tipping point where if they all blow each other to kingdom come, would anybody really miss them? They’ve been itching for an all out war for decades, so maybe just say ‘**** it!’ and just let ‘em get on with it?
The oil price spike would probably be a PITA for a bit*, but other than that….? 🤷♂️
Except, i SUSPECT that much like here in the west, the ones driving this nonsense are a noisy minority. Surely the vast vast majority of the population just want to get on with their lives and couldnt give two toots about being a "world power".
Seems pretty unfair to them?
Thankfully weve managed to distract our nutjobs with cyclepaths and 20mph speed limits.
I hope WW3 is better than WW1 and WW2 because they were both crap , and you know what they say about sequels.
Just to clarify - I was making a statement that was so patently ridiculous that it would be pretty obvious that I wasn’t being serious
Or so I thought…
The thing is, on re-reading, some people probably do have opinions like that, don’t they? I don’t though.
I don't really see how all this extra defence spending is doing that.
Because it's better (and cheaper) to be ready for a war you don't think [or hope] will happen, than caught undefended if it does. When the war in Ukraine started some senior Generals pointed out that with the size and capability of the military we have currently, we'd had about 6 days worth of war-fighting capability, under any circumstances you want to look at it, that's a level of under-preparedness that needs correcting.
Putin won't attack the west with conventional forces as he has no hope of winning
Surely after 3 years it's plain to anyone paying the slightest attention to the behaviour of the Russian leadership that you cannot make that assessment, and that he's operating under a different set of priorities than 'normal people'. I mean what odds would there be against Putin launching a diversionary attack to Poland or Finland? Or getting Belarus to do it...Given that he's being supplied with effectively bottomless supplies from Iran, China and North Korea, I can't see that you could go to the bank with anything like a certain bet with what Putin will or won't do.
If it decreases our reliance on an increasingly unstable USA I'd say it was worthwhile.
I don't really see how all this extra defence spending is doing that. As mentioned above, Putin won't attack the west with conventional forces as he has no hope of winning, so why are we spending money on conventional forces? Seems to me if we're going to spend more money on arms it probably should be focused on having a fully independent nuclear deterrent. All this extra money being spent has got little to do with making us safer or more independent. Seems to me it's primary purpose is to make arms companies, and especially the US ones, more money. Trump just wants money out of us, it's as simple as that.
ATM we could probably fight a conventional war for about 10 minutes, while the EU could manage for 20 (that might be a slight underestimate). Our military is under-staffed as well.
It's more about infrastructure, manufacturing and stock than necessarily about buying the latest developments
We'd also have to fight Eire's war because they don't have a viable military
A nuclear deterrent deters a nuclear war, not a conventional war. If it was as simple as that then someone would have slipped Ukraine a cheeky nuke
Russia is on a full military industrial roll just now and would outlast us. They also get more materiel for their money than we would because they're a manufacturer rather than a buyer. More manufacturing makes sense.
Infrastructure is a benefit for us all; better roads (for example) can be used by everyone, including our military, to get around. It's also a route to growth, jobs, hire redundant US scientists, etc.
There are counter-arguments, of course, to my points
X with nickc
There are counter-arguments, of course, to my points
Mainly that the UK will never have the scale of people, resources and money to compete with Russia or China (or the US for that matter) militarily. So why bother trying? Unless you're proposing that the UK becomes a permanently war-ready militarised state where most of the economy is dedicated to producing and maintaining it's military forces. Does anyone want that? Seems to me that's where the logic of 're-arming' leads. I reckon the vast majority of people in the UK have entirely different priorities like functioning NHS and Schools.
So why bother trying? Unless you're proposing that the UK becomes a permanently war-ready militarised state
I'm not proposing anything, simply trying to answer your question.
You can argue with yourself 😉
Mainly that the UK will never have the scale of people, resources and money to compete with Russia or China (or the US for that matter) militarily. So why bother trying?
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, when the USA joined WW2 it had a army smaller than Portugal's, about 100 or so warplanes, and just had a good portion of it's Pacific fleet destroyed, and Nazi Germany had occupied most of Western Europe. They probably should've just given up; right?
They probably should've just given up; right?
No they ramped up production after they were attacked and still won. You're arguing the opposite, that we should focus the output of our economy on preparing for a war that might/probably will never happen. I don't know about you but I don't really want my kids growing up in a militarised state with all the side effects that come with that (national service, rampant jingoism/racism, authoritarianism etc).
There's an argument that retaining a strategic manufacturing capacity has ongoing benefits during peacetime too; if we make trucks, boats, aircraft, machine parts and so on in the UK then that can also be turned to manufacturing military equipment in the event that it's required. At the moment we can't even build a couple of ferries.
Mainly that the UK will never have the scale of people, resources and money to compete with Russia or China
I don't know about you but I don't really want my kids growing up in a militarised state with all the side effects that come with that (national service, rampant jingoism/racism, authoritarianism etc).
🤔
Daz, the reason Russia has got bogged down in ukraine is because the Ukrainians have and had modern western weapons including manpads, accurate artillery, rocket launchers as well as years of training to use them and western satellite and signals intelligence. If they'd still only had Soviet era stuff they'd have likely got rolled up and defeated as per the plan.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
We'd also have to fight Eire's war because they don't have a viable military
Putin wants to attack Ireland?
If they don't have a "viable military" then it is because they are not suffering any delusional beliefs that they are likely to be invaded,** nor a need to fight wars thousands of miles away in different continents.
** There are no Russian speaking areas of Ireland nor any territorial disputes with Russia, a bit like the UK.
It's worked well for Israel.........years of uninterrupted peace.
True. But on the other hand if they hadn't done so the state of Israel almost certainly wouldn't exist. Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing is another matter.
Sure, you don't establish a settler-colonial project and take land from an indigenous people without an army and violence to back it up, so yes Israel's very existence has been dependent on a very high level of militarisation.
That won't however ever bring them peace though, no matter how much they arm themselves.
In fact never has Israel been better armed than it is today and yet never has the existential threat been greater than it is today.
seems to backup all those rafales getting shot down with the chinese kit
The revolution will not be televised?, I guess the Zionist genocidal regime are fans of Gil Scott Heron
Re Daz's comments about a handful of men... It's really not though is it. If they were disposed, there are people lining up to take their place. It's probably more like a handful in every thousand... if not every hundred, like what someone said elsewhere, people have been nasty bastards since the first fish crawled out the sea.
That's the limit of my participation in thread. So have an influencer talking about how the WW3 narrative is handy because the leaders get to say they stopped something while simultaneously bombing cities and killing.
Putin wants to attack Ireland?
As one small example, where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Not only do they not have the ability to defend part of the Atlantic, but they don't have detection systems either.
It makes everyone else's job more difficult and expensive.
Why would it happen to Ireland? Why would it happen anywhere in the world? 🤔
where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Fibre optic cables? Across the Atlantic ocean and mostly circumventing Ireland to go up to Northern Europe or south to Southern Britain and Southern Europe.
Do you think that Putin might invade and occupy Ireland to stop Keir Starmer from making a phone call to Donald Trump? Why would he want to do that.....as a prelude to attacking and invading NATO?
The North Atlantic is huge the Russians don't need to occupy Ireland to attack underwater infrastructures and if they did do precisely that then I am sure NATO would manage to keep communications between the United States and Europe going via satellites.
If Ireland wanted the UK to fight wars on its behalf because it doesn't have a viable military, as you claim, then it would enter into a military alliance with the UK, or maybe join NATO, and not maintain its unwavering commitment to neutrality.
Of all the excuses for increasing defence spending I don't think the claim that Putin might attack Ireland is the most convincing one.
where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Fibre optic cables? Across the Atlantic ocean and mostly circumventing Ireland to go up to Northern Europe or south to Southern Britain and Southern Europe.
The Irish Continental Shelf is one of the largest seabed territories in Europe, it extends 200 nautical miles from the coastline https://www.marine.ie/site-area/irelands-marine-resource/real-map-ireland-0
The infrastructure also includes gas pipes between the UK and Eire. There's very little space that allows a direct run to the UK without transiting Irish waters. RTE.ie map
Do you think that Putin might invade and occupy Ireland to stop Keir Starmer from making a phone call to Donald Trump? Why would he want to do that.....as a prelude to attacking and invading NATO?The North Atlantic is huge the Russians don't need to occupy Ireland to attack underwater infrastructures and if they did do precisely that then I am sure NATO would manage to keep communications between the United States and Europe going via satellites.
Why does your idea of attack involve invasion and occupation? How about cyber attacks to chip Eire away from the EU and other forms of hybrid warfare.
Maybe Eire is a convenient stepping stone to the UK while dominating Atlantic shipping and submarine traffic? It would make an excellent Russian aircraft carrier to reach the EU, perhaps?
I guess that you'd better ask the Kremlin why their survey ship Yantar has been operating in Irish waters and why their bombers fly through Irish airspace. TBF that's reduced since they invaded Ukraine,
2020
There have been a number of recent incursions into Irish controlled airspace by the Russian air force. Most recently Tupolev TU–95, the so called "Bear" strategic bomber aircraft, triggered UK Royal Air Force fighter jets to scramble in order to confront the Russian aircraft. Reliable sources indicate that there is an agreement between the UK and Ireland permitting the Royal Air Force to enter Irish airspace if deemed necessary https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0320/1123836-russian-military-aircraft-bombers-ireland/
2021
Russia's secretive special survey ship Yantar raises eyebrows when she appears off Western shores. She has previously been noted conducting operations off Syria, in the Persian Gulf and off Americas. And elsewhere. Now she is off the coast of Ireland, loitering in the vicinity of underwater internet cables. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/08/russian-spy-ship-yantar-loitering-near-trans-atlantic-internet-cables/
2024
On Sunday, while south of Cornwall, the Yantar turned off its transponder, meaning it disappeared from vessel tracking systems. It is now understood in that period it left the Admiral Golovko and headed north into the Irish Sea. There are also gas pipelines in the same area.
At that point it was positioned just inside the Irish maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), five to seven kilometres north of several subsea cables which connect Ireland and Britain. https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/1115/1481145-russian-spy-ship-confirmed-to-be-operating-off-dublin-near-cables/
If Ireland wanted the UK to fight wars on its behalf because it doesn't have a viable military, as you claim, then it would enter into a military alliance with the UK, or maybe join NATO, and not maintain its unwavering commitment to neutrality.
There is an alliance
Reliable sources indicate that there is an agreement between the UK and Ireland permitting the Royal Air Force to enter Irish airspace if deemed necessary
Eire is in a partnership with NATO and joins peacekeeping operations. There's also a debate going on in the country about removing the so-called "triple-lock" on military deployment and increasing military budgets
The reforms include changes to what it known as 'the triple lock', requiring the approval of the United Nations (UN), government and Dáil (lower house of Irish parliament) for certain troop deployments.
"We do also need to spend more on defence because actually when you are militarily neutral, you still have an obligation to your own people, to your own country, you still have an obligation to protect your own seas and your own skies," he said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyge72pv55o
Of all the excuses for increasing defence spending I don't think the claim that Putin might attack Ireland is the most convincing one.
Only you seem to think that it is the most convincing one, I certainly didn't make that point.
I'll leave dazh and yourself to your argument
*strange font sizing is STW, not me*
