The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[willtron]

Any sources for #2?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/18/po...of-engagement/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-of-aggression
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598892
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34912581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation

- - - Updated - - -

yep, pretty much this. The sun set on the british empire a loooong time ago

Yup, and I don't know why anyone is surprised at this. We don't need a big army, we have America to do that for us.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares. The UK has built a nation that works and works properly. Seriously... who gives a flying fuck about the size of our armies? It's not like any of the two can afford to attack the other anyway.

Plus in an age of nukes and cyber warfare, i think infantry numbers don't really become a priority.

[Ulmita]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/18/po...of-engagement/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-of-aggression
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598892
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34912581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation

And besides the Turkey (which is debatable and Erdogan asked for forgiveness lol) Russian airplanes STAY IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE.

Please stop the propaganda.

[Chemii]

Interceptors are not missiles. They do not have a warhead (in the typical sense) Or let me put it like this. This is the Kill vehicle of an SM-3.



This is the Kill vehicle of Groundbased Missile Defense


Thsis is a schematic for a SM-2 (and SM-6), which is an anti-aircraft / anti-ship missile that shares technology with the SM-3.



The SM-2/SM-6 can fly a ballistic trajectory and impacts it's target with a warhead that detonates and causes an explosion. An SM-6 in an anti-air role does not fly a ballistic trajectory but in a Land Attack or ship-attack role, it would. And it has a warhead capable of causing explosive damage.

The SM-3 and Groundbased Missile Defense fly NON-Ballistic trajectories and utilize a non-explosive hit-to-kill vehicle. Think of the kill vehicle more like a small suicide satellite than a warhead. They destroy missiles through kinetic energy (their mass and speed), and not an explosive. If you could, somehow, launch an SM-3 at a land target, it would be like firing a satellite at something. It's an absurd proposition.

What is based in Europe is the SM-3.

These are not general purpose launch vehicles. They are specific things and a missile can't just carry any payload. I hope you can regonize how fundamentally different they are. You can't use a ULA Delta IV Heavy a nuclear weapon launch vehicle / ballistic missile, even though it is "rocket" just like the SM-3. I go back to my B-52 vs Blimp comparison. Flying and flying the same way / purpose are very different things.


Furthermore, treaties govern these specific things. The ABM Treaty governed ABM systems. The INF Treaty governs Intermediate Range Systems. Trying to shoehorn one into another is nonsense, and the fact of the matter is a tremendous amount of work goes into these treaties to make sure, specifically, they don't allow for that.

With NewSTART for example, the US worked very hard to make sure that under no interpertation of it does our forthcoming Prompt Global Strike weapons (which will be activated within the lifetime of the treaty) count as a nuclear warhead OR a "Launch Vehicle", subject to treaty limits. It was a big goal of the negotiations because the US is investing very heavily in PGS and will be doing more so in the years to come. That hasn't stopped Russia, however, from ALREADY trying to accuse PGS as being treaty breaking, even though they themselves agreed with the principle that it wasn't.

This is how Russia plays their stupid games, and the thing is, it really doesn't matter. SM-3s are going to keep popping up a cross Europe and PGS is still going to be built as needed.

You are incredibly naive.

[willtron]

And besides the Turkey (which is debatable and Erdogan asked for forgiveness lol) Russian airplanes STAY IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE.

Please stop the propaganda.

Ah yes, they're flying towards UK airspace because there are some nice clouds there, not as an act of aggression or to test response times. Plus the RAF aren't going to sit and wait for them to get into UK airspace then scramble.

[grimniruk]

Who cares. The UK has built a nation that works and works properly. Seriously... who gives a flying fuck about the size of our armies? It's not like any of the two can afford to attack the other anyway.

So people who misjudge how the Application of Army logistics works and figure out whoever has more boots filled by common soldiers somehow means their army is better.

At the end of the day, the Russian Army is landlocked and extremely inefficent, just like the Chinese one. If Russia declared war and suddenly rushed for the UK, the UK would already know and already be ready to take down the out of date fighters and the sub-par Navy. Leaving Russia the only choice of long range missiles.

[Shalcker]

Everyone wants to emigrate to the US - be it Russian sportsman, ambitious middle-class or children of upper middle class.

"Everyone" as in few thousands out of 6-8 hundreds of thousands coming in and out of Russia... most migration to Russia comes from Central Asian former USSR republics, they are also biggest source for outflows when seasonal works end.

There are fluctuations - one of them being landgrabs done by Russia. The trend however, is set in deeper things. It's fairly easy to project population decades ahead - with counting errors here and there.

Yet UN predictions failed, even long before landgrabs. Apparently not so easy. Those "deeper things" can reverse themselves, or be reversed with effort.

US demographic pyramid looks way better and is projected to be way better than all demographic pyramids of the developed countries.

Yet there is still space for CNN to post articles like "US fertility rate falls to lowest on record"

[SupBrah]

Is anyone really surprised? Russia would steamroll 90% of Europe in a few weeks if not for the US.

Europe is full of emasculated, feminine numales now. They wouldn't stand a chance against the Bear of the East.

[Ulmita]

Ah yes, they're flying towards UK airspace because there are some nice clouds there, not as an act of aggression or to test response times. Plus the RAF aren't going to sit and wait for them to get into UK airspace then scramble.

Did they get into UK FIR? No. Its legal stop spreading propaganda.

[grimniruk]

Is anyone really surprised? Russia would steamroll 90% of Europe in a few weeks if not for the US.

Europe is full of emasculated, feminine numales now. They wouldn't stand a chance against the Bear of the East.

Ironic, considering most of the Numales I have met are Americans.

[SupBrah]

Ironic, considering most of the Numales I have met are Americans.

Agreed, numales are definitely present in America. Especially in liberal areas.

Hint: They don't make up our military. Hence why most of our military is conservative.

Maybe if they were in the military, they wouldn't be numales.

[grimniruk]

Agreed, numales are definitely present in America. Especially in liberal areas.

Hint: They don't make up our military. Hence why most of our military is conservative.

Maybe if they were in the military, they wouldn't be numales.

I really don't want to get into nation bashing, but you do know the thing that makes the American Military strong is it's hardware, not it's under-trained jarheads right?

[Deleted]

Is anyone really surprised? Russia would steamroll 90% of Europe in a few weeks if not for the US.

Europe is full of emasculated, feminine numales now. They wouldn't stand a chance against the Bear of the East.

Hey hold on a second. We have plenty of STRONK manly slavic men in eastern Europe ready to kill all of them Russians. What do you think huh?

[SupBrah]

Hey hold on a second. We have plenty of STRONK manly slavic men in eastern Europe ready to kill all of them Russians. What do you think huh?

Hence why I said 90% of Europe

[grimniruk]

Hey hold on a second. We have plenty of STRONK manly slavic men in eastern Europe ready to kill all of them Russians. What do you think huh?

Sounds like he submits to the Michael Bay politics of "BIG STRONG GOOD GUY ARMY" and "EVIL GOVERNMENT"

- - - Updated - - -

Hency why I said 90% of Europe

See, where exactly do you pull this number from exactly? Are you saying EVERYONE in every country except say, the Ukraine is effeminate? Because I just got to ask you what your idea of effeminate is?

[judgementofantonidas]

A report leaked to the Times newspaper says that the British army would be "vulnerable" in the battlefield against Russia and that Russian President Vladimir Putin would have a "significant capability edge" in state-on-state warfare.

The Times revealed the report, which was produced by the British army, on Wednesday. It warns that the UK and its NATO allies are "scrambling to catch up" with Russia, which enjoys significant advantages in pretty much every key aspect of warfare.

Specifically, the report explains how Russia's arsenal of weapons — which includes rocket launchers and advanced air-defence systems — are much more powerful than what Britain's military has at its disposal.

Even major developments Britain has planned will not match up to Russia's firepower. A planned £3.5 million ($4.6 million) fleet of lightly armoured vehicles will be "disproportionately vulnerable" to Russian rocket fire in a warfare scenario.

It is not just physical warfare in which Moscow has a clear edge, the report says. Russian intelligence has mastered the art of hacking and disturbing radar signals, meaning the effectiveness of British and NATO weaponry and aircraft operated using GPS navigation is under serious threat.

British soldiers could be under threat on social media, too. The leaked report warns that military personnel ought to leave devices like mobile phones and iPads behind when going on exercises, as they could be hacked by Russian intelligence.

The paper was based on research into the tactics Russia has used during its conflict with Ukraine. It sets out numerous strategies and weapons that British military must quickly learn to counter.

This study will be the cause of serious concern for Prime Minister Theresa May. It says Britain has spent the 21st century focusing on counterinsurgency operations against terrorist groups in the Middle East, for example, but as a result has fallen well behind when it comes to being prepared for state-on-state warfare.

"In the unlikely event of a direct confrontation between Nato and RUS, we must acknowledge that RUS currently has a significant capability edge over UK force elements," the report says.

May recently spoke with Putin on the phone for the first time since she replaced David Cameron as prime minister, according to the BBC. Both leaders expressed "dissatisfaction" with current UK-Russia relations and vowed to work toward an improved relationship.

I know in the case of a war the UK, and the rest of NATO, would be relying on the US to actually win the war for them.

But who knows, the British army is surely less knowledgeable than the usual posters here when it comes to how strong or weak Russia is.

how could it be? just by sheer manpower alone Russia has them beat. throw on top of that the fact that Russian doctrine absolutely calls for the use of strategic nuclear strikes and not as a response to a nuclear threat, then that really limits the Countries that could even begin to be a threat to them.

[Thelin]

NATO wouldn't stand a chance against Russia, ultimately. Not now, and not in the future.

lol. ok buddy.

[grimniruk]

how could it be? just by sheer manpower alone Russia has them beat. throw on top of that the fact that Russian doctrine absolutely calls for the use of strategic nuclear strikes and not as a response to a nuclear threat, then that really limits the Countries that could even begin to be a threat to them.

Russia has no way to project it's manpower, Same as China.

Sure they're scary in numbers, but what happens if China ever tried any naval conflict? They'd get their out of date hardware smashed to bits by the extremely advanced US Eastern Fleet.

[judgementofantonidas]

Russia has no way to project it's manpower, Same as China.

Sure they're scary in numbers, but what happens if China ever tried any naval conflict? They'd get their out of date hardware smashed to bits by the extremely advanced US Eastern Fleet.

Well. One way I could see china projecting it's manpower is by creating millions of Chinese restaurants across the united states and slowly infiltrating us with "workers" with the skill and education to disrupt our infrastructure when given the signal. Russia is a simple thrust through Canada.

[SupBrah]

Sounds like he submits to the Michael Bay politics of "BIG STRONG GOOD GUY ARMY" and "EVIL GOVERNMENT"

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure what you're getting at here... A big, strong army isn't "Michael Bay politics." That's been the case since the beginning of man. Are you saying a good, strong army is a bad thing?

See, where exactly do you pull this number from exactly? Are you saying EVERYONE in every country except say, the Ukraine is effeminate? Because I just got to ask you what your idea of effeminate is?

From surveys like this one that shows only about 18% of modern british millenias (18-24) consider themselves masculine (only 2% consider themselves completely masculine), while 74% of British men 65+ consider themselves masculine (56% consider themselves completely masculine).


https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/05/13...inity-britain/

[grimniruk]

Not sure what you're getting at here... A big, strong army isn't "Michael Bay politics." That's been the case since the beginning of man. Are you saying a good, strong army is a bad thing?



From surveys like this one that shows only about 18% of modern british millenias (18-24) consider themselves masculine (only 2% consider themselves completely masculine), while 74% of British men 65+ consider themselves masculine (56% consider themselves completely masculine).


https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/05/13...inity-britain/

Right. I guess I need to redpill you on some things then. First I'm saying lauding the Military as a united force of supreme good that could never do no wrong is naive and childish, second, a Small Elite Army works better in todays modern climate and the trend has been going for thousands of years.

Now, that Survey. It's mostly hogwash because it asks for an OPINION. On a word like Masculine. Not even taking into account the fact that Self-esteem issues are rampant in todays young white men in the UK, it also becomes extremely polarizing because the idea of being Masculine is so vague.

it really shows more the level of self-deprecation British young have compared to Americans, who are all Pomp and no muster.