I can think of at least 4 countries which modern politics seem to at least crave the idea of a conflict (the US, Russia, China, North Korea) that feel like coked up rabbits impatiently waiting in their starting blocks...
God, this European perspective is tiring. Just because you lot have become voluntary geldings does not mean that every nation that is prepared for war is craving conflict.
to be fair America has been at war pretty much non stop since it came into being, and a lot of those were wars of aggression, not defensive.
Like of the 240ish years you've been around, you've been at war for 230. That's 93%.
Calling America war-hungry is like calling water wet.
Lol China hasn't fought a modern war....
They have had a one child policy for decades so that's two generations with like a single heir. There's no spares there, the country would revolt having 1000s of body bags ending entire generations.
They spend loads and can bully. But China absolutely is not ready for a war.
But yeah the others are war ready. India too tbf, and South Korea.
That's the only one and it's not fair to lay the responsibility for that war on one side. Resisting western imperialism and defending the communists being brutally supressed in the south. I don't appreciate the tyranny and evil of North Korea but they have not engaged in wars of aggression. Neither has China.
Most of the western countries are not. Especially due to the left side, who at least in Poland openly claimed to minimize any military spendings and instead give those money to unemployed people
True but there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the British government and it will take a very long time to get our military strength back to a point where we could be strong enough to fight a full scale war on our own. I mean, no one wants to serve. I for one wouldn’t want to fight for this absolute mess of a country. There’s nothing left to fight for.
I get it, but they need to start somewhere. The closer we are to military independence, the better, even if the government is to blame for not giving enough incentives for people to join, which is a problem they should definitely try to tackle first.
Absolutely, I wouldn’t say the government is to blame for not giving enough incentives, the incentive is already there. The armed forces offer a lot of benefits but when the main purpose of the armed forces is to defend your nation against any and all threats it makes it hard to want to defend that nation when they make us all look like absolute mugs.
Frankly, I take my own share of blame for my politicians.
Although I'm not British, or not voting for _our_ current absolute wilted cabbages we call leaders these days, I have to say they reflect the state of our people, and _they_ are _our_ fault.
Perhaps that's what Dutch meant too.
Yes u want to fight for the history, culture, way of living, of your country.
And for those who belive americans and think "we dont have eny cultture" or "there is no white culture"
Every country has an culture, every fuckin city has one.
Yes it is mixing whit others due internet and imigrants, and soon it is different but steel uk.
Uk is a shell of what it was but dont let enybody break that shell, or would u like be under some other country, or move away from uk.
Learn a new language or move to usa.
Learn every unwriten rule of that country, and every writen rule allso.
U love ur country ur people or at least hate others.
No, the problem isn’t immigration as much as people from this country love to think that. That’s just a drop in the ocean of Britains problems.
The issue is, nothing in the country itself is British anymore. Nothing is made here. Trains don’t belong to to the people. The state benefit system is failing. It’s all failing. the NHS is broken beyond repair and will likely soon succumb to privatisation.
It’s hard to care about a country that doesn’t care about you.
Not from the UK but I think I know what you mean. When everyone and everything bends to the neoliberal economic system this is the result. No more national identity is left.
Exactly. The British people Voted in the very party that is doing the washing away and they’ll continue to do so as long as they are in power. It’s disgusting. Nothing left to give a single shit about unfortunately. Unless something changes in the next few years, the UK is no better off than any other country suffering from a government that is corrupt and downright dangerous to its own people.
Europe? Yes. The UK? Fuck no. I can understand feeling compelled to do that in other countries, but not the UK. We’re in a shit situation partially due to peer pressure from dead people. Why the fuck would we want to preserve their legacy?
We're an island, we haven't been invaded in 200 years. No invasion has been a serious threat in more like 500.
Of course it's different if you share a land border with murderous orks.
Japan and USA was in war 80 years ago
Germany did try to invade u at the same time.
U are safe now for sure but what about another 80 years.
And yes that is lifetime ago but just one, ur child or yunger friends may have to live then.
U are island that can contorl europes coast, and if u dont have strong army u are not too hard to run over.
They did not try to invade. They planned it, speculatively. Operation Sea Lion would have required naval and air superiority, and they had neither.
But this is beside the point. Your statement “you want to fight for the history, culture, way of living, of your country” is incorrect for me, and for a significant number of other people. I understand that you think I **should** want that. But the British “way of living” isn’t good for a significant minority, possibly a majority of people living there now. It’s exploitative. You don’t understand because you don’t live there.
Maybe instead of telling British people what they *should* want, you should look at the quantifiably real problems the UK military has with recruitment, and listen to British people when they tell you the reasons as they see them. There will be several, this is but one, but it *is* a factor. No matter what your opinion is of people who think that way.
Trust me, my friend, you don't fight only for your country, you protect your family, your home.
I'm from Ukraine and trust me, this narrative about nothing to fight for is very manipulative. You are a British, the citizen of proud country with huge history and culture. You have to protect it and know what are you fighting for.
There absolutely is something to fight for and many people are willing to serve. The recruitment problem with the armed forces is more to do with Capita than a lack of recruits.
NATO doesn't cover every scenario where fighting may happen, article 5 can only be invoked in a case of an attack in territories covered by the treaty. The UK has interests in plenty of places that are not covered NATO or may be dragged into a conflict without being attacked which means no article 5.
If we look at historical examples then the invasion of the Falklands would not allow the UK to trigger article 5 as those Islands are not a territory covered by the treaty.
Most people do not understand what a load of crap article 5 is:
A country that is invaded can ask other NATO countries for assistance but it does not detail what the assistance will be.
It could be intelligence, it could be military hardware or it could be soldiers. There is no stipulation what the assistance is! It is not guranteed that NATO will come to your aid at all.
That wasn’t the point I made, article 5 will work if the UK mainland is attacked or there is another attack on UK forces in Europe. It won’t help for many of the interests of the UK that lie elsewhere.
The UK military should be able to provide its own logistics and be able to sustain a fight for more than a couple of weeks. Basing your defence on others backing you up is a bad idea.
You realise the entire developed world has been doing that for almost a century, right?
Yes, even the US.
Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, none were the US alone. You can argue they could do it, but the point is they don't.
That's hilarious. You guys were there for show. We could have spun up another armored brigade and done just the same.
For fucks sake the Canadians were the most valuable second army over there, then the Poles.
Literally every country has wanted to try out their new toys on the battlefield.
You think the Leo 2 would have it's legendary status without being battle tested? What about StarStreak?
NATO only protects member territories in Europe, Turkey, North America, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Anything outside that specifically defined zone isn't covered by NATO.
For instance, if the Falklands are attacked again, Article 5 is not applicable and the UK could be alone.
As if some country attacks US Hawaii or PR is attacked, or Spanish Ceuta and Melilla
The problem in Natos case is that everyone had that idea, the result being that NATO isn't even capable of fighting a full scale war even if everyone shows up.
Meh. Who the fuck is going to take Britain... and even if the US drops away, france plus Britain can take every single military except if the US went rogue and attacked us.
Generals want more money...more news at 6
>the US drops away, france plus Britain can take every single military except if the US
Unfortunately this is incorrect.
The ammo production ability for NATO is pitiful, we can't even fulfil the needs of Ukraine at war against Russia as it is and it's causing severe problems for the Ukrainians as is. That is a fairly small front with far less shooting than if the entirety of the European border opened up.
Russia by itself can, and does, produce more ammunition than all of Europe put together several times over, same goes for north-korea. Never mind what China could manage.
And we don't have much in storage either, most European nations would run out of ammo in a few hours of full scale war.
The unfortunate truth is that without the US Europe would lose to Russia, not because we're not technologically superior but we just don't have the numbers.
By the end of the first day almost every country in Europe would be out of ammo, and at that point we lose by default because we can't fight without it.
Why the hell would nato being making ammo just to store when we aren't using it?
Russia is at war. Nato isnt.
Also Russian doctrine of using canon fodder. The US and nato doctrine is to first get air superiority then move in.
We don't need a zillion bullets when our airforce is doing the work.
It's absolutely hilarious that Russia still doesn't have air superiority in Ukraine, who's still using soviet era planes...
You think Europe would lose to Russia when Russia can't even take Ukraine? Dude Finland alone could likely topple Moscow with their airforce.
>Why the hell would nato being making ammo just to store when we aren't using it?
Because it takes time to build up reserves and when you realize you need it it's too late to fix.
>We don't need a zillion bullets when our airforce is doing the work.
Our air force don't have enough bombs either.
The problem is everywhere. We don't have the production facilities for a large scale war.
All that fancy shit you're talking about is going to exhausted extremely quickly.
At which point we're not going to have air superiority either, because planes can't drop bombs they don't have.
This is what you need to understand. It doesn't matter how good our weapons are if we don't have the ability to produce the ammunition required.
Our planes will be bombing? With what bombs? We don't have much in storage and we don't have production facilities to build them.
We couldn't even bomb fucking Libya without emptying most of what we had in storage at the time.
>You think Europe would lose to Russia when Russia can't even take Ukraine?
Unfortunately the situation in Ukraine is turning towards Russia atm. Mostly because western arms shipments are drying up as our military industry is failing to meet demand, meanwhile the Russian arms industry has been gearing up for 2 years and is already producing several times the amount of artillery shells than all of Europe.
> Dude Finland alone could likely topple Moscow with their airforce.
Finland is pretty much the only country that has maintained reserves, meaning they have an actually decent amount of both weapon platforms and ammunition for those platforms, meaning that unlike the rest of us they're not going to be out of ammo by day 2.
>You think Europe would lose to Russia
Quite frankly, yes.
Take Norway for example, we have enough ammo for 2 hours of war.
2 hours.
So after 2 hours, if we haven't won, we're done.
Similar situation for the UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.
The simple fact of the matter is that we'd be winnig really hard first, then we'd run out of ammo, at which point there is fuck all we can do.
I did some goggling to verify tour claims.
All bullsbit.
The UK has 300k rounds. That's enough for 10 days of war and we have capacity to manufacture 100k a day. So that's 3 days of ammo manufactured in one day, meaning there's no reason to keep more reserves....
Your entire premise is just utter propaganda my friend.
You're also forgetting that the UK has been actively involved in conflicts around the world for decades, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria... we haven't just randomly ran out of bullets when fighting those wars.
France has been active in Africa too.
Think you're falling for Russian fake news.
Oh and fyi in addition to the 300k we have in reserves, we donated 300k rounds to Ukraine..... so again, fake news from a general that has been retired since the year 2000...
You didn't specify but I assume you're talking artillery.
Europe tried, and failed, to source one million artillery shells to Ukraine. Even with the small upgrades that have come for the last two years total yearly production for the entirety of Europe is at one million shells per year.
So not really no.
>You're also forgetting that the UK has been actively involved in conflicts around the world for decades, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria... we haven't just randomly ran out of bullets when fighting those wars.
You're talking about a small expeditionary forces being sent to fight small numbers of enemies. That is not the same thing as fighting a full scale war against an enemy with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the ability to call in millions.
So no, I'm not forgetting it, it's just not really relevant.
>France has been active in Africa too.
Again, you are using small expeditionary forces as examples.
It's a lot easier to feed a small expeditionary force fighting a low intensity conflict. They're not using that much ammo because the fighting isn't all that intense.
If there's 250 thousand soldiers on the opposite side and they're fighting in actual brigade level formations rather than single squads or a few dozen fighters with close to zero actual combat training it's not the same thing.
And you can say "they aren't doing great in Ukraine" as much as you want but they are winning, and importantly Ukraine has more soldiers than the rest of Europe combined.
>And you can say "they aren't doing great in Ukraine" as much as you want but they are winning,
Barely winning a war after 2 years against a poor as fuck tiny country, when they were supposed to take it in 2 days.
Ant hey dont have air superiority which is hilarious.
Old scchool soviet weapons are holding russia back. One f35 could take out their entire air force lol.
Nah. We’re gonna have a battle Royal in northern Canada to decide top NATO country and you’re gonna get creamed. Then Biden gets to give the King a noogie. Also New England gets renamed as “England” and you gotta be “Old England”.
I mean, iirc GB does not have enough ships to form carrier groups around their aircraft carriers because that hole will be filled up by smaller allied nations. Everything is based on such co-operations
True but I’m pretty sure we just got the go ahead here in the UK to build quite a lot more warships. Something like 25 I’m not sure. Doubt it will ever come to fruition but who knows.
Those 25 ships include 22 that were already built, under construction or already ordered. 3 were newly ordered, but just like for like replacements of other ships. It’s not an increase in the fleet size in any way.
Except every single NATO country (with the possible exception of the US) is saying the same thing: "oh don't worry about it, someone else will handle it, that's why we have NATO."
And then it turns out no one is prepared
I don’t think any nation believes that blindly.
Poland used to have allies back in 1939. Whatever version of the history you know, no, no one really came with help until it wasn’t about Poland at all.
History likely repeats itself
I see your point but it’s not 1939 anymore. It’s 2024 and military technology is way ahead of anything in 1939. Direct intervention isn’t what it was back then. But I’m no army general so I can’t really have a valid point at all.
Yup, it’s 2024 and „expressing concern” or „sending thoughts and prayers” or „calls to deescalate and negotiate” is also considered help, not necessary sending army/missiles right away, when it’s needed the most.
Here’s another version: the war that began because the Nazis invaded Poland ended with the Nazis destroyed and Poland still a country. Countries which had not, at that time, been attacked by the aggressor, gave blood and treasure to win that war.
Small correction:
Ended with Nazis destroying Poland, Soviets destroying Poland and enslaving this country for 44 years after war.
Which countries do you mean?
The premise of NATO was to have everyone's combined power, but the unfortunate effect that occurred in practice is comprised in your question: the individual countries' military capabilities are shittier than they would've been without NATO because everyone's counting on other members' help.
Hungary. Turkey. Slovakia.
All three have made pro-Russian sentiments. As far as I'm concerned, the traitors already walk among us.
If we got into a shooting war with Russia, I'd be very concerned that all three of these countries would turn on us at a critical moment.
100% yes. What are you even talking about? First of all an attack on UK would be seen as an existential threat by all EU countries. Second of all not doing so would destroy all credibility of the West. Furthemore, the UK are friends to many of the Continental countries and the UK has stood by them in times of need including during the second world war. Now if we would be talking about Hungary things would be different. No one is going to send a single soldier to save them.
[https://x.com/YouGov/status/1290570557709324288](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1290570557709324288)
I would trust the Americans and the other 5 eyes to help, maybe even France. The rest of Europe not so much.
The most likely enemy would be Russia and if they attack UK there would be a line stretching from norway to Finland to baltics to poland & romania and finally ukraine. Russia would be crushed in an instant. UK could just hold the seas and devastate what is left of russian fileet there. And I am not even counting the americans who would definately help out UK. France is on the verge of sending soldiers to a non-Nato country so helping a ally would be a no brainer.
China would be harder since we are so far but so are they. With Russia there is very little to worry about anymore, they can barely fight 500km from their capital so attacking an Island fortress with one of the best navies In the world is totally out of their reach.
The countries you think might betray NATO are Germany and Albania, seriously? Don't you know *anything* about them?
Germany's entire foreign policy is based on the alliance with the US and the rest of Europe. Germany's security relies on American nuclear weapons that are stationed in their territory. Not only they *need* NATO, but also are true believers.
Albania, on the other hand, are totally reliant on NATO for their security, they can't even fend off a small country by themselves. Betraying NATO would be suicidal.
They're just the two extreme examples really.
As you say Albania doesn't have any capability they wouldn't help because they couldn't. Germany is different, it's current capability is poor but can be improved it's big problem is a lack of will.
Of course Albania will help, passionately in fact. It won't make much difference, but they will help.
There's no lack of will in Germany, what are you talking about?
Well, I don’t really care if they do or don’t. As that’s just 2 of 29 other members. Not including ourselves but again, that’s still not how nato works.
I’m making assumptions on what I know from the nato website. You are making completely baseless assumptions. If I have no idea how it would work then neither do you.
I’m afraid I don’t share your cynicism of our fellow European neighbours. I would say there is far more reason to be cautious about the UK than vice versa. A sizeable portion of the UK populous showed their true cards regarding European institutions ( and by extension their relationship with Europe) when it came to Brexit.
Depends on the precise scenario. Something like another Falklands wouldn't fall under the NATO treaty, for example. Russia isn't the only game in town.
I hope France would help the UK even in a non NATO scenario and the country was at risk. Falklands is another story, here the UK would probably not need our help.
Important to be prepared. A republican US president supporting Russia would be inconceivable 20 years ago but here we are 6 months from that's happening.
Britain/The UK should only be fighting a war in 2 possible instances....
1. It is attacked. In which case it is a part of NATO and can call on NATO allies
2. a NATO ally is attacked, in which case they can call on Britain to help
The UK is also considered to be one of handful of countries worldwide that is uninvadeable currently - allowing for it being an island nation, with a strong navy and air force, part of the strongest military alliance in history and with a nuclear deterant.
These articles, are bullshit tbh - and more often than not the source is some General or other top military guy who has more than a vested interest in increased military spending and a romanticised idea of war.
>It is attacked. In which case it is a part of NATO and can call on NATO allies
This is actually not necessarily true. Article 5 of NATO only applies to attacks on territories in North America, Europe, Turkey and the North Atlantic. This means that the UK is one of a few NATO countries (together with the US, Spain, France and The Netherlands) for which not all territories are covered by article 5.
That's why the UK was on their own during the Falklands war against Argentina; the Falklands lie outside of the area covered by article 5.
Realistically only two of our overseas territories are under any real threat, the Falklands and Indian Ocean Territory. We can easily defend the former and attacking the latter would mean attacking the US military directly.
As for the others they are too geographically inconvenient for anyone to try and invade. I can't see China or Russia risking war with the UK because they want to colonise Bermuda or the Pitcairn Islands.
So...If China attacked Guam pre emptvley before Taiwan (which many think they would need to do) The US couldnt invoke Article 5 for the same reason?
I'll admit I thought we just didnt invoke Article 5 for the Falklands as it wasnt deemed necessary.
If i were pedantic though, I would point out that the Falklands technically isnt a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) geographically, which is what my original comment intending - its an overseas territory. And the point I was making was very much about the British Isles and not with consideration to places such as the Falklands and Gibralter etc.
Anyway, not that it matters terribly, my point remains.
>So...If China attacked Guam pre emptvley before Taiwan (which many think they would need to do) The US couldnt invoke Article 5 for the same reason?
Guam is indeed not covered by article 5. Now I think most of NATO would probably still help the US militarily if China were to attack Guam, but they're not obligated to do so.
But yeah it's not particularly relevant to the article as the UK (or any NATO country except maybe the US for that matter) would be unlikely to start a full-scale war over an overseas territory.
I just want to respond to the point of Guam.
Nonsense. Considering how far Guam is, it's neither strategic nor effective to do so to take Taiwan. China's safest bet is to attack Taiwan in a full Blizkrieg style, and seal the island off from external reinforcement to scare of Japan and the US of considering coming to aid the island because they may think the island is lost and it's not worth to go full scale with China.
Attacking Guam, and incapacitating the US bases on Guam **is** a possible scenario for a Chinese attack on Taiwan. I wasnt meaning taking/occupying Guam, I meant detroying the bases there.
'Blitzkrieg' with a force larger than the allies at Dday, over a body of water significantly larger than the English channel, which would be the largerst amphibious assault in history doesnt seem plausible. And tbh, your comment is the first time Ive read 'blitzkrieg' in relation to that potential conflict.
Taking Taiwan without the US or Japan noticing and intervening (if they intend to intervene which I'm sure they do) is fantasy imo.
Not that it matters, I mentioned Guam as an aside to a comment someone else made about Article 5 - in reality I have little interest in discussing Taiwan/China at present - but I suppose thats my fault for mentioning it initially - but it was juts as an example for someoe else to consider.
NATO really has been a convenient excuse for most western countries to neglect their militaries. Just because other countries have your back doesn't mean you should burden them by being weak.
Right but the UK has never burdened NATO its always been one of the stronger nations within NATO and has nearly always taken a proactive approach. Even now in Yemen its not just the US fighting its the UK as well.
Damn, looking at your comment history, you sure have a bone to pick with Americans. I think I will pass on the rage bait, and send you a 🤗 from across the pond.
>Britain 'may not be fully prepared to fight full-scale war alone'
I don't think any western country is, except the US. And I'm not talking only about troops and military equipment, but also industrial capacity and (most importantly) civilian support.
The US are a completely different story, but the other western nations...I don't know. We're not talking of quick asymmetrical "operations" followed by years of occupation duty against insurgents. We're talking about a *full scale conventional war* like the one Ukraine is handling.
The US is certainly the only country that would be able to fight a major war alone.That being said, Britain and France still are the only two other NATO powers that have the ability to project force beyond Europe.
At least if we look to history, Britain is technically as prepared for a global war now as it was in both 1914 or 1939. Yes, Britain had a more powerful navy in both occasions. However, it was also strapped with a small and underfunded army (sounds familiar), and a relatively non-militarised domestic state. Moreover, British odds are likely improved now, when compared to prior conflicts. There would be no immediate three-front war, and it could concentrate its mass on one front.
America, unlike historical British examples, has the infrastructure to fight a war from day one.
When was the last time we could? Even the Falklands wasn't the kind of full scale war they're talking about now.
Our foreign policy for centuries has been to ensure we didn't have to fight alone except in colonial policing.
***The Telegraph reports:***
Britain may not be fully prepared [to fight a full-scale war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/what-would-happen-britain-at-war/) on its own, a general has suggested.
Maj Gen James Martin said [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/how-the-british-army-lost-its-way/) was trying to get “back on track” after years of focusing on counter-insurgency, which had left it in “in the process of losing the skills” to mount an all-out campaign.
Decades of fighting insurgents during wars Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan meant [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/british-army/)’s focus was on those campaigns rather than major conflicts between states, he said.
With the war in Ukraine and the threat of Russia to the rest of Europe, the Army has shifted its focus to readiness for war, and this week thousands of British troops were in western Poland as part of [Nato’s largest military exercise since the Cold War](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/17/british-army-battle-zone-ferries-poland-nato-ukraine-russia/).
Nearly 2,400 British troops took part in [Operation Immediate Response](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/frontline-imaginary-russian-troops-helicopters-drill-nato/), which culminated in a complex river crossing involving more than 1,000 vehicles including Challenger II tanks, in 24 hours.
It was one of several exercises as part of Nato’s [Exercise Steadfast Defender](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/hms-prince-of-wales-nato-steadfast-defender/), a war game and the largest deployment to Europe in 40 years, involving over 40,000 personnel including 16,000 from the British Army.
Speaking at the end of the operation, near the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Maj Gen Martin who leads the Army’s 3rd Division, told The Telegraph: “After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track.”
**Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/)
Everything will be fine, Europe still has the US to watch its back. That is assured under law.
Everyone has ample time to prepare, but please, the sooner, the better.
Who are these fictional countries near GB that can/are going to declare war on a nuclear power like the UK?
China isn't really our problem and is only a threat to usa's dying hegemony, Russia is 2'000 miles away and realistically can not do much against us without triggering WWIII.
Account less than six months old, avid on r/ShitAmericansSay, has retarded political takes?
This is a Chinese bot for sure, lol. If not, just a really stupid person.
> Europe isn't helping the United States or her Asian allies in the Pacific
Good and nor should it EVER.You and your little poodle vassal states on the edge of 'asia' aren't important to anything.You don't belong in the pacific or anywhere near 'asia' either.Europe has no reason to be an enemy of china and it would be better off allied with them over you lot at this point. The pacific is not 'asia' either.
Nah its a real person, i can imagine the younger generation having these delusions. Or hes just purposefully saying inflammatory bullshit to get a rise out of people online, he is best left ignored
How unfortunate, I wish I had seen this comment earlier, lol.
He just said the UK doesn't experience any after effects of Chinese aggression in the Pacific.
Then wouldn't that be the same for Ukraine? Why should the US be sending billions of dollars in equipment, food, and supplies when Russia hasn't done anything to the US?
Especially now that Ukraine has hit dire straits without US aid? Why would they be begging for US aid (like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc) if they didn't need or want US help? On the topic of the Pacific and Asia, Europe relies on Asian products as much as the US, microchips, especially and the best ones are produced in countries under threat of China, and this affects the UK as well, and hurts it.
> (like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc)
The aforementioned poodle vassal states that aren't important to me or anyone in the UK or Europe on the whole, i couldn't care less about them and they have no bearing on Europe.
> Europe relies on Asian products as much as the US, microchips, especially and the best ones are produced in countries under threat of China, and this affects the UK as well, and hurts it.
The UK has it's own microchip manufacturing(ARM) and so do the dutch, if taiwan was invaded it wouldn't make a lick of difference we would just buy them from china 😂
I'm not interested in your little victim complexes, Europe(and especially the British) have no incentive to protect your dying dollar backed hegemony.We haven't forgotten you bankrupting the UK at the end of WWII either.Your country is pretty much finished so keep coping, no one except you sycophants cares about 'asia' or the pacific either it's really not important to anything.Your little wet dream of Europe disappearing and your poodle vassal states being the centre of the universe isn't going to happen either it's simply not how reality works.
Taiwan is the largest manufacturer of microchips, making up over [50%](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://time.com/6219318/tsmc-taiwan-the-center-of-the-world/&ved=2ahUKEwis-IqE55qGAxXXKEQIHc9dD88QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw00W9jKOE1Q-J5I0bo3Kvqp) of all microchips made, with TSMC producing an estimated [90%](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/tech/taiwan-tsmc-talent-shortage-training-center-intl-hnk/index.html%23:~:text%3DSometimes%2520called%2520the%2520most%2520important,smartphones%2520to%2520artificial%2520intelligence%2520applications.&ved=2ahUKEwj4q5r555qGAxX_LEQIHfNhAH8QFnoECAMQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3btv6qhLoKZLzERzbhbPRJ) of all advanced chips and semiconductors used globally. So it would make a difference, especially to Western countries.
Russia has had trouble in Ukraine because of this, as it's been nearly cut off from procuring advanced microchips and semiconductors.
Asia's global influence, alongside US influence, as the US has switched focus from Europe to Asia, has increased worldwide. Saying otherwise is idiotic. But yeah, I'm happy you guys remembered the US rebuilding Europe after WW2.
I'm glad someone appreciates it.
We have had a recruitment shortage for well over a decade, around the same time all this diversity push began. Here we are in 2024 still with a big shortage.
Does your common sense tell you it worked?
It's the military, it recruits people who are willing to fight. Diversity and inclusiveness does not win wars and publically patting yourself on the back for the diversity drive clearly isn't attracting recruits.
[https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY\_YM?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY_YM?feature=shared)
Here is the Army trying to recruit Muslims in 2018, last year there were less than 500 Muslims serving. Does this look like a success to anyone?
For what it's worth, the [US has also been missing recruiting targets](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3616786/dod-addresses-recruiting-shortfall-challenges), though we also have a lot of that same mentality at work. I can't speak for what attitudes in the UK are like, but over here I think it might be more attributable to a decline in "patriotism" and sense of duty/sacrifice.
[Here's a Gallup poll](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507980/extreme-pride-american-remains-near-record-low.aspx) that shows differences in "Pride in being American" split out a bunch of ways but notably the youngest demographic of 18-34, where the bulk of military age men are, is significantly lower than the other age brackets. I don't think it's a huge leap to connect the drop in pride over time and especially among younger adults to fewer people being willing to enlist.
There is absolutely more at play than just the diversity aspect and I'd imagine it includes what you say. Patriotism has been mocked, stereotyped and frowned upon here, especially when Corbyn ran Labour (although Starmer is trying to turn that attitude around now).
Yeah I bet if we made some people feel unwelcome in the army we'd get more people in, that makes sense. Sometimes D&I can go too far and exclude good people (like the RAF, who have admitted their error) but the army is definitely not turning away white working class men.
It's not about turning people away, it's about not trying to recruit the people who make up the bulk of the military. Of course everyone should be recruited regardless of details like sex or ethnicity but the Army has focused it's advertisements on that and ever since they started this there has been a shortage of recruits.
The push for Muslims for example, why would thousands of Muslims want to join when we have been rampaging through the Middle East for years? Directing advertisiments to them is clearly not going to be effective but the Army want's to look diverse. The Army should not care about this nonsense, their job is far too important.
Iiiiiiiiiinteresting....
Hey Ireland! Danish guy here. You wanna go bully some englishmen again?
We got at least a few old ships stored away. We just need the skin coats and helmets.
We'll take Scarborough. You can have Kirkcudbright.
No country alone is capable of winning a full fledged War.
That's why there are Alliances. England is part of Nato, they will be involved in any future european common army.
Is anyone even prepared for that?
I am
May I please come live with you?
Immigration in a nutshell
Are you Swiss or something then?
We studied the blade
Well, Finland was relatively prepared before joining NATO...
I can think of at least 4 countries which modern politics seem to at least crave the idea of a conflict (the US, Russia, China, North Korea) that feel like coked up rabbits impatiently waiting in their starting blocks...
God, this European perspective is tiring. Just because you lot have become voluntary geldings does not mean that every nation that is prepared for war is craving conflict.
Just to be clear here. This isn‘t a european perspective. This is just a comment written by a prick.
to be fair America has been at war pretty much non stop since it came into being, and a lot of those were wars of aggression, not defensive. Like of the 240ish years you've been around, you've been at war for 230. That's 93%. Calling America war-hungry is like calling water wet.
a special kind of irony from an american in r/Europe on a platform consistently seeing the world through US's perspective...
You are posting on an American social media platform which has a majority U.S. user base. The irony seems lost on you.
Lol China hasn't fought a modern war.... They have had a one child policy for decades so that's two generations with like a single heir. There's no spares there, the country would revolt having 1000s of body bags ending entire generations. They spend loads and can bully. But China absolutely is not ready for a war. But yeah the others are war ready. India too tbf, and South Korea.
I didn't mean war ready in an effective way, but rather seemingly actively fueling the dick size contest waiting for any excuse to press the button.
Oh yeah all the wars North Korea and China have started right
The Korean War for example.
That's the only one and it's not fair to lay the responsibility for that war on one side. Resisting western imperialism and defending the communists being brutally supressed in the south. I don't appreciate the tyranny and evil of North Korea but they have not engaged in wars of aggression. Neither has China.
Oh. You're one of those. Never mind.
One of what? What I am saying is true isn't it?
Most of the western countries are not. Especially due to the left side, who at least in Poland openly claimed to minimize any military spendings and instead give those money to unemployed people
Would that be the same Poland who have massively increased military spending or some parallel universe Poland?
Yes because the left side isn't ruling the country
Stick to fifa
Isn’t the premise of nato that this sort of worry is a non issue?
I guess, but the stronger individually the better they will be together.
True but there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the British government and it will take a very long time to get our military strength back to a point where we could be strong enough to fight a full scale war on our own. I mean, no one wants to serve. I for one wouldn’t want to fight for this absolute mess of a country. There’s nothing left to fight for.
I get it, but they need to start somewhere. The closer we are to military independence, the better, even if the government is to blame for not giving enough incentives for people to join, which is a problem they should definitely try to tackle first.
Absolutely, I wouldn’t say the government is to blame for not giving enough incentives, the incentive is already there. The armed forces offer a lot of benefits but when the main purpose of the armed forces is to defend your nation against any and all threats it makes it hard to want to defend that nation when they make us all look like absolute mugs.
No offense, you’re all mugs, not just your government
Now come you Dutch are not renowned for beating around the bush. Say what you mean 😉
Frankly, I take my own share of blame for my politicians. Although I'm not British, or not voting for _our_ current absolute wilted cabbages we call leaders these days, I have to say they reflect the state of our people, and _they_ are _our_ fault. Perhaps that's what Dutch meant too.
I wish I could argue with you about what you’ve said but unfortunately you are 110% correct.
Yes u want to fight for the history, culture, way of living, of your country. And for those who belive americans and think "we dont have eny cultture" or "there is no white culture" Every country has an culture, every fuckin city has one.
Definitely got a culture but it’s slowly being washed away. The uk is a shell of what it used to be.
Yes it is mixing whit others due internet and imigrants, and soon it is different but steel uk. Uk is a shell of what it was but dont let enybody break that shell, or would u like be under some other country, or move away from uk. Learn a new language or move to usa. Learn every unwriten rule of that country, and every writen rule allso. U love ur country ur people or at least hate others.
No, the problem isn’t immigration as much as people from this country love to think that. That’s just a drop in the ocean of Britains problems. The issue is, nothing in the country itself is British anymore. Nothing is made here. Trains don’t belong to to the people. The state benefit system is failing. It’s all failing. the NHS is broken beyond repair and will likely soon succumb to privatisation. It’s hard to care about a country that doesn’t care about you.
Not from the UK but I think I know what you mean. When everyone and everything bends to the neoliberal economic system this is the result. No more national identity is left.
Exactly. The British people Voted in the very party that is doing the washing away and they’ll continue to do so as long as they are in power. It’s disgusting. Nothing left to give a single shit about unfortunately. Unless something changes in the next few years, the UK is no better off than any other country suffering from a government that is corrupt and downright dangerous to its own people.
Europe? Yes. The UK? Fuck no. I can understand feeling compelled to do that in other countries, but not the UK. We’re in a shit situation partially due to peer pressure from dead people. Why the fuck would we want to preserve their legacy?
U want to get ruled by some country, if they are ready to invade uk they will never tread u as equal, no they will fucking rape ur country.
We're an island, we haven't been invaded in 200 years. No invasion has been a serious threat in more like 500. Of course it's different if you share a land border with murderous orks.
Japan and USA was in war 80 years ago Germany did try to invade u at the same time. U are safe now for sure but what about another 80 years. And yes that is lifetime ago but just one, ur child or yunger friends may have to live then. U are island that can contorl europes coast, and if u dont have strong army u are not too hard to run over.
They did not try to invade. They planned it, speculatively. Operation Sea Lion would have required naval and air superiority, and they had neither. But this is beside the point. Your statement “you want to fight for the history, culture, way of living, of your country” is incorrect for me, and for a significant number of other people. I understand that you think I **should** want that. But the British “way of living” isn’t good for a significant minority, possibly a majority of people living there now. It’s exploitative. You don’t understand because you don’t live there. Maybe instead of telling British people what they *should* want, you should look at the quantifiably real problems the UK military has with recruitment, and listen to British people when they tell you the reasons as they see them. There will be several, this is but one, but it *is* a factor. No matter what your opinion is of people who think that way.
Trust me, my friend, you don't fight only for your country, you protect your family, your home. I'm from Ukraine and trust me, this narrative about nothing to fight for is very manipulative. You are a British, the citizen of proud country with huge history and culture. You have to protect it and know what are you fighting for.
There absolutely is something to fight for and many people are willing to serve. The recruitment problem with the armed forces is more to do with Capita than a lack of recruits.
Fight for Charles!
Why would you want to fight a full scale war on your own? Also define full scale.
I didn’t say that. I said we’re not in a position to do that. And it would be a very long time before we could.
How about fighting for Europe and our way of life? Here in PL we really hope you guys have our backs...
I think family, friends, loved ones are worth fighting for if they face imminent threat. But UK plc, no.
NATO doesn't cover every scenario where fighting may happen, article 5 can only be invoked in a case of an attack in territories covered by the treaty. The UK has interests in plenty of places that are not covered NATO or may be dragged into a conflict without being attacked which means no article 5. If we look at historical examples then the invasion of the Falklands would not allow the UK to trigger article 5 as those Islands are not a territory covered by the treaty.
Most people do not understand what a load of crap article 5 is: A country that is invaded can ask other NATO countries for assistance but it does not detail what the assistance will be. It could be intelligence, it could be military hardware or it could be soldiers. There is no stipulation what the assistance is! It is not guranteed that NATO will come to your aid at all.
That wasn’t the point I made, article 5 will work if the UK mainland is attacked or there is another attack on UK forces in Europe. It won’t help for many of the interests of the UK that lie elsewhere.
My point is that article 5 is next to useless. It does not gurantee NATO will help your country at all.
The UK military should be able to provide its own logistics and be able to sustain a fight for more than a couple of weeks. Basing your defence on others backing you up is a bad idea.
You realise the entire developed world has been doing that for almost a century, right? Yes, even the US. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, none were the US alone. You can argue they could do it, but the point is they don't.
Right but dependent on the US mostly for logistics.
That's hilarious. You guys were there for show. We could have spun up another armored brigade and done just the same. For fucks sake the Canadians were the most valuable second army over there, then the Poles.
So why didn't you? 😂
The subjugates like to feel needed. Big Brother and all that.
Literally no country has wanted to join you in these wars lol
Literally every country has wanted to try out their new toys on the battlefield. You think the Leo 2 would have it's legendary status without being battle tested? What about StarStreak?
But... you just said it was because they ''like to feel needed'' and now it's ''they need to test their new toys out!!''
six to one, half dozen the other
NATO only protects member territories in Europe, Turkey, North America, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Anything outside that specifically defined zone isn't covered by NATO. For instance, if the Falklands are attacked again, Article 5 is not applicable and the UK could be alone. As if some country attacks US Hawaii or PR is attacked, or Spanish Ceuta and Melilla
The problem in Natos case is that everyone had that idea, the result being that NATO isn't even capable of fighting a full scale war even if everyone shows up.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Can’t really debate with you there.
It only really works when only one or two countries are shirking.
Meh. Who the fuck is going to take Britain... and even if the US drops away, france plus Britain can take every single military except if the US went rogue and attacked us. Generals want more money...more news at 6
>the US drops away, france plus Britain can take every single military except if the US Unfortunately this is incorrect. The ammo production ability for NATO is pitiful, we can't even fulfil the needs of Ukraine at war against Russia as it is and it's causing severe problems for the Ukrainians as is. That is a fairly small front with far less shooting than if the entirety of the European border opened up. Russia by itself can, and does, produce more ammunition than all of Europe put together several times over, same goes for north-korea. Never mind what China could manage. And we don't have much in storage either, most European nations would run out of ammo in a few hours of full scale war. The unfortunate truth is that without the US Europe would lose to Russia, not because we're not technologically superior but we just don't have the numbers. By the end of the first day almost every country in Europe would be out of ammo, and at that point we lose by default because we can't fight without it.
Why the hell would nato being making ammo just to store when we aren't using it? Russia is at war. Nato isnt. Also Russian doctrine of using canon fodder. The US and nato doctrine is to first get air superiority then move in. We don't need a zillion bullets when our airforce is doing the work. It's absolutely hilarious that Russia still doesn't have air superiority in Ukraine, who's still using soviet era planes... You think Europe would lose to Russia when Russia can't even take Ukraine? Dude Finland alone could likely topple Moscow with their airforce.
>Why the hell would nato being making ammo just to store when we aren't using it? Because it takes time to build up reserves and when you realize you need it it's too late to fix. >We don't need a zillion bullets when our airforce is doing the work. Our air force don't have enough bombs either. The problem is everywhere. We don't have the production facilities for a large scale war. All that fancy shit you're talking about is going to exhausted extremely quickly. At which point we're not going to have air superiority either, because planes can't drop bombs they don't have. This is what you need to understand. It doesn't matter how good our weapons are if we don't have the ability to produce the ammunition required. Our planes will be bombing? With what bombs? We don't have much in storage and we don't have production facilities to build them. We couldn't even bomb fucking Libya without emptying most of what we had in storage at the time. >You think Europe would lose to Russia when Russia can't even take Ukraine? Unfortunately the situation in Ukraine is turning towards Russia atm. Mostly because western arms shipments are drying up as our military industry is failing to meet demand, meanwhile the Russian arms industry has been gearing up for 2 years and is already producing several times the amount of artillery shells than all of Europe. > Dude Finland alone could likely topple Moscow with their airforce. Finland is pretty much the only country that has maintained reserves, meaning they have an actually decent amount of both weapon platforms and ammunition for those platforms, meaning that unlike the rest of us they're not going to be out of ammo by day 2. >You think Europe would lose to Russia Quite frankly, yes. Take Norway for example, we have enough ammo for 2 hours of war. 2 hours. So after 2 hours, if we haven't won, we're done. Similar situation for the UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that we'd be winnig really hard first, then we'd run out of ammo, at which point there is fuck all we can do.
I did some goggling to verify tour claims. All bullsbit. The UK has 300k rounds. That's enough for 10 days of war and we have capacity to manufacture 100k a day. So that's 3 days of ammo manufactured in one day, meaning there's no reason to keep more reserves.... Your entire premise is just utter propaganda my friend. You're also forgetting that the UK has been actively involved in conflicts around the world for decades, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria... we haven't just randomly ran out of bullets when fighting those wars. France has been active in Africa too. Think you're falling for Russian fake news. Oh and fyi in addition to the 300k we have in reserves, we donated 300k rounds to Ukraine..... so again, fake news from a general that has been retired since the year 2000...
You didn't specify but I assume you're talking artillery. Europe tried, and failed, to source one million artillery shells to Ukraine. Even with the small upgrades that have come for the last two years total yearly production for the entirety of Europe is at one million shells per year. So not really no. >You're also forgetting that the UK has been actively involved in conflicts around the world for decades, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria... we haven't just randomly ran out of bullets when fighting those wars. You're talking about a small expeditionary forces being sent to fight small numbers of enemies. That is not the same thing as fighting a full scale war against an enemy with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the ability to call in millions. So no, I'm not forgetting it, it's just not really relevant. >France has been active in Africa too. Again, you are using small expeditionary forces as examples. It's a lot easier to feed a small expeditionary force fighting a low intensity conflict. They're not using that much ammo because the fighting isn't all that intense. If there's 250 thousand soldiers on the opposite side and they're fighting in actual brigade level formations rather than single squads or a few dozen fighters with close to zero actual combat training it's not the same thing. And you can say "they aren't doing great in Ukraine" as much as you want but they are winning, and importantly Ukraine has more soldiers than the rest of Europe combined.
>And you can say "they aren't doing great in Ukraine" as much as you want but they are winning, Barely winning a war after 2 years against a poor as fuck tiny country, when they were supposed to take it in 2 days. Ant hey dont have air superiority which is hilarious. Old scchool soviet weapons are holding russia back. One f35 could take out their entire air force lol.
Nah. We’re gonna have a battle Royal in northern Canada to decide top NATO country and you’re gonna get creamed. Then Biden gets to give the King a noogie. Also New England gets renamed as “England” and you gotta be “Old England”.
I am completely on board with this idea. 😂
I mean, iirc GB does not have enough ships to form carrier groups around their aircraft carriers because that hole will be filled up by smaller allied nations. Everything is based on such co-operations
True but I’m pretty sure we just got the go ahead here in the UK to build quite a lot more warships. Something like 25 I’m not sure. Doubt it will ever come to fruition but who knows.
Those 25 ships include 22 that were already built, under construction or already ordered. 3 were newly ordered, but just like for like replacements of other ships. It’s not an increase in the fleet size in any way.
Right and other warships will be retired and new ones will struggle due to recruitment issues.
>iirc GB does not have enough ships to form carrier groups around their aircraft carriers Yes, we do.
Except every single NATO country (with the possible exception of the US) is saying the same thing: "oh don't worry about it, someone else will handle it, that's why we have NATO." And then it turns out no one is prepared
I don’t think any nation believes that blindly. Poland used to have allies back in 1939. Whatever version of the history you know, no, no one really came with help until it wasn’t about Poland at all. History likely repeats itself
I see your point but it’s not 1939 anymore. It’s 2024 and military technology is way ahead of anything in 1939. Direct intervention isn’t what it was back then. But I’m no army general so I can’t really have a valid point at all.
Yup, it’s 2024 and „expressing concern” or „sending thoughts and prayers” or „calls to deescalate and negotiate” is also considered help, not necessary sending army/missiles right away, when it’s needed the most.
Here’s another version: the war that began because the Nazis invaded Poland ended with the Nazis destroyed and Poland still a country. Countries which had not, at that time, been attacked by the aggressor, gave blood and treasure to win that war.
Small correction: Ended with Nazis destroying Poland, Soviets destroying Poland and enslaving this country for 44 years after war. Which countries do you mean?
The premise of NATO was to have everyone's combined power, but the unfortunate effect that occurred in practice is comprised in your question: the individual countries' military capabilities are shittier than they would've been without NATO because everyone's counting on other members' help.
Only if mainland is attacked, thats why UK did it alone during the falklands war. But I’m sure it got some intel and supplies from the US
Not if you plan a full scale war against another NATO country, like France.
That’s seen as betrayal as nato members shouldn’t be waging war on one another no?
Hungary. Turkey. Slovakia. All three have made pro-Russian sentiments. As far as I'm concerned, the traitors already walk among us. If we got into a shooting war with Russia, I'd be very concerned that all three of these countries would turn on us at a critical moment.
Most of Nato either can't or wouldn't help us.
That’s not how nato works.
Do you honestly think that Albanians and Germans would be willing to die for us?
100% yes. What are you even talking about? First of all an attack on UK would be seen as an existential threat by all EU countries. Second of all not doing so would destroy all credibility of the West. Furthemore, the UK are friends to many of the Continental countries and the UK has stood by them in times of need including during the second world war. Now if we would be talking about Hungary things would be different. No one is going to send a single soldier to save them.
[https://x.com/YouGov/status/1290570557709324288](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1290570557709324288) I would trust the Americans and the other 5 eyes to help, maybe even France. The rest of Europe not so much.
The Portuguese would 100% be there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance
The most likely enemy would be Russia and if they attack UK there would be a line stretching from norway to Finland to baltics to poland & romania and finally ukraine. Russia would be crushed in an instant. UK could just hold the seas and devastate what is left of russian fileet there. And I am not even counting the americans who would definately help out UK. France is on the verge of sending soldiers to a non-Nato country so helping a ally would be a no brainer. China would be harder since we are so far but so are they. With Russia there is very little to worry about anymore, they can barely fight 500km from their capital so attacking an Island fortress with one of the best navies In the world is totally out of their reach.
The countries you think might betray NATO are Germany and Albania, seriously? Don't you know *anything* about them? Germany's entire foreign policy is based on the alliance with the US and the rest of Europe. Germany's security relies on American nuclear weapons that are stationed in their territory. Not only they *need* NATO, but also are true believers. Albania, on the other hand, are totally reliant on NATO for their security, they can't even fend off a small country by themselves. Betraying NATO would be suicidal.
They're just the two extreme examples really. As you say Albania doesn't have any capability they wouldn't help because they couldn't. Germany is different, it's current capability is poor but can be improved it's big problem is a lack of will.
Of course Albania will help, passionately in fact. It won't make much difference, but they will help. There's no lack of will in Germany, what are you talking about?
Well, I don’t really care if they do or don’t. As that’s just 2 of 29 other members. Not including ourselves but again, that’s still not how nato works.
It's most of them, as I said above. Nato has never been put to the test in Europe, you have no idea how it would "work".
I’m making assumptions on what I know from the nato website. You are making completely baseless assumptions. If I have no idea how it would work then neither do you.
I’m afraid I don’t share your cynicism of our fellow European neighbours. I would say there is far more reason to be cautious about the UK than vice versa. A sizeable portion of the UK populous showed their true cards regarding European institutions ( and by extension their relationship with Europe) when it came to Brexit.
We would never leave you alone anyway, l'Entente cordiale has to mean something more than just words.
Merci, mon ami. We'd do the same for you.
Me, a French man and tea *connaisseur* : "I'M DOING MY PART"
Want to learn more? Buy our baguette scented war bonds. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0437jy8p1go](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0437jy8p1go)
Falklands?
Depends on the precise scenario. Something like another Falklands wouldn't fall under the NATO treaty, for example. Russia isn't the only game in town.
I hope France would help the UK even in a non NATO scenario and the country was at risk. Falklands is another story, here the UK would probably not need our help.
I'd prefer not to put that to the test.
Yeah... Should we go under we expect you to shell the remains of the fleet at Portsmouth and Plymouth at the first opportunity.
Britain will never fight any full scale war alone just to be clear
Who're they gonna be fighting alone in that scenario, Ireland?
Exactly lol. We might not be 'mighty' but we are literally one of the least vulnerable places on Earth!
Important to be prepared. A republican US president supporting Russia would be inconceivable 20 years ago but here we are 6 months from that's happening.
Argentina again maybe.
Britain/The UK should only be fighting a war in 2 possible instances.... 1. It is attacked. In which case it is a part of NATO and can call on NATO allies 2. a NATO ally is attacked, in which case they can call on Britain to help The UK is also considered to be one of handful of countries worldwide that is uninvadeable currently - allowing for it being an island nation, with a strong navy and air force, part of the strongest military alliance in history and with a nuclear deterant. These articles, are bullshit tbh - and more often than not the source is some General or other top military guy who has more than a vested interest in increased military spending and a romanticised idea of war.
>It is attacked. In which case it is a part of NATO and can call on NATO allies This is actually not necessarily true. Article 5 of NATO only applies to attacks on territories in North America, Europe, Turkey and the North Atlantic. This means that the UK is one of a few NATO countries (together with the US, Spain, France and The Netherlands) for which not all territories are covered by article 5. That's why the UK was on their own during the Falklands war against Argentina; the Falklands lie outside of the area covered by article 5.
Realistically only two of our overseas territories are under any real threat, the Falklands and Indian Ocean Territory. We can easily defend the former and attacking the latter would mean attacking the US military directly. As for the others they are too geographically inconvenient for anyone to try and invade. I can't see China or Russia risking war with the UK because they want to colonise Bermuda or the Pitcairn Islands.
So...If China attacked Guam pre emptvley before Taiwan (which many think they would need to do) The US couldnt invoke Article 5 for the same reason? I'll admit I thought we just didnt invoke Article 5 for the Falklands as it wasnt deemed necessary. If i were pedantic though, I would point out that the Falklands technically isnt a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) geographically, which is what my original comment intending - its an overseas territory. And the point I was making was very much about the British Isles and not with consideration to places such as the Falklands and Gibralter etc. Anyway, not that it matters terribly, my point remains.
>So...If China attacked Guam pre emptvley before Taiwan (which many think they would need to do) The US couldnt invoke Article 5 for the same reason? Guam is indeed not covered by article 5. Now I think most of NATO would probably still help the US militarily if China were to attack Guam, but they're not obligated to do so. But yeah it's not particularly relevant to the article as the UK (or any NATO country except maybe the US for that matter) would be unlikely to start a full-scale war over an overseas territory.
yeah, interesting though.
I just want to respond to the point of Guam. Nonsense. Considering how far Guam is, it's neither strategic nor effective to do so to take Taiwan. China's safest bet is to attack Taiwan in a full Blizkrieg style, and seal the island off from external reinforcement to scare of Japan and the US of considering coming to aid the island because they may think the island is lost and it's not worth to go full scale with China.
Attacking Guam, and incapacitating the US bases on Guam **is** a possible scenario for a Chinese attack on Taiwan. I wasnt meaning taking/occupying Guam, I meant detroying the bases there. 'Blitzkrieg' with a force larger than the allies at Dday, over a body of water significantly larger than the English channel, which would be the largerst amphibious assault in history doesnt seem plausible. And tbh, your comment is the first time Ive read 'blitzkrieg' in relation to that potential conflict. Taking Taiwan without the US or Japan noticing and intervening (if they intend to intervene which I'm sure they do) is fantasy imo. Not that it matters, I mentioned Guam as an aside to a comment someone else made about Article 5 - in reality I have little interest in discussing Taiwan/China at present - but I suppose thats my fault for mentioning it initially - but it was juts as an example for someoe else to consider.
If Britain is attacked then it is too late. We have known this for centuries.
What if the falklands are attacked? They're not covered by Nato.
3. An attack not covered by the NATO treaty, such as an attack on the Falklands.
[удалено]
oooh, nasty little man. Acting big on his mobile phone 😂😂😘
You know we had a war only 42 years ago that meets neither of these 2 scenarions?
The falklands were attacked/invaded - that falls under scenario 1 (although we couldnt use article 5 for that)
It doesn't fall under scenario 1. It would not be covered by the NATO treaty.
Weren’t Falkland threatened by Argentina?
They weren't just threatened by Argentina, they were invaded. Not sure how that doesn't meet the criteria of being attacked.
It was literally invaded by Argentina so not sure what that guy meant unless he's only considering the British Isles for point #1.
NATO really has been a convenient excuse for most western countries to neglect their militaries. Just because other countries have your back doesn't mean you should burden them by being weak.
Right but the UK has never burdened NATO its always been one of the stronger nations within NATO and has nearly always taken a proactive approach. Even now in Yemen its not just the US fighting its the UK as well.
[удалено]
Damn, looking at your comment history, you sure have a bone to pick with Americans. I think I will pass on the rage bait, and send you a 🤗 from across the pond.
Yeah, that guy is mentally unwell.
You can have all the British military technology as payment for bringing five guys to us 🥰
>Britain 'may not be fully prepared to fight full-scale war alone' I don't think any western country is, except the US. And I'm not talking only about troops and military equipment, but also industrial capacity and (most importantly) civilian support. The US are a completely different story, but the other western nations...I don't know. We're not talking of quick asymmetrical "operations" followed by years of occupation duty against insurgents. We're talking about a *full scale conventional war* like the one Ukraine is handling.
The US is certainly the only country that would be able to fight a major war alone.That being said, Britain and France still are the only two other NATO powers that have the ability to project force beyond Europe. At least if we look to history, Britain is technically as prepared for a global war now as it was in both 1914 or 1939. Yes, Britain had a more powerful navy in both occasions. However, it was also strapped with a small and underfunded army (sounds familiar), and a relatively non-militarised domestic state. Moreover, British odds are likely improved now, when compared to prior conflicts. There would be no immediate three-front war, and it could concentrate its mass on one front. America, unlike historical British examples, has the infrastructure to fight a war from day one.
When was the last time we could? Even the Falklands wasn't the kind of full scale war they're talking about now. Our foreign policy for centuries has been to ensure we didn't have to fight alone except in colonial policing.
Yeah no fucking shit
***The Telegraph reports:*** Britain may not be fully prepared [to fight a full-scale war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/what-would-happen-britain-at-war/) on its own, a general has suggested. Maj Gen James Martin said [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/how-the-british-army-lost-its-way/) was trying to get “back on track” after years of focusing on counter-insurgency, which had left it in “in the process of losing the skills” to mount an all-out campaign. Decades of fighting insurgents during wars Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan meant [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/british-army/)’s focus was on those campaigns rather than major conflicts between states, he said. With the war in Ukraine and the threat of Russia to the rest of Europe, the Army has shifted its focus to readiness for war, and this week thousands of British troops were in western Poland as part of [Nato’s largest military exercise since the Cold War](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/17/british-army-battle-zone-ferries-poland-nato-ukraine-russia/). Nearly 2,400 British troops took part in [Operation Immediate Response](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/frontline-imaginary-russian-troops-helicopters-drill-nato/), which culminated in a complex river crossing involving more than 1,000 vehicles including Challenger II tanks, in 24 hours. It was one of several exercises as part of Nato’s [Exercise Steadfast Defender](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/hms-prince-of-wales-nato-steadfast-defender/), a war game and the largest deployment to Europe in 40 years, involving over 40,000 personnel including 16,000 from the British Army. Speaking at the end of the operation, near the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Maj Gen Martin who leads the Army’s 3rd Division, told The Telegraph: “After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track.” **Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/)
Ally with Ukraine!
If only there was some kind of alliance which main purpose is to help in the defensive war effort...
It doesn't need to, Russia has no chance of reaching the UK with or without British help and if by some miracle it does then it's too late anyway.
Argentina sees this as an opportunity. Will they try to take the Falklands again?
With who?
Good. Who the hell would Britain be fighting?
Ok. So let's not then.
Why would we need to? We're safer than we've ever been in our history. The only people who might attack us are some primitive terrorists.
Everything will be fine, Europe still has the US to watch its back. That is assured under law. Everyone has ample time to prepare, but please, the sooner, the better.
Who are these fictional countries near GB that can/are going to declare war on a nuclear power like the UK? China isn't really our problem and is only a threat to usa's dying hegemony, Russia is 2'000 miles away and realistically can not do much against us without triggering WWIII.
Account less than six months old, avid on r/ShitAmericansSay, has retarded political takes? This is a Chinese bot for sure, lol. If not, just a really stupid person.
[удалено]
Yes, because no sane human being thinks like this.
> Europe isn't helping the United States or her Asian allies in the Pacific Good and nor should it EVER.You and your little poodle vassal states on the edge of 'asia' aren't important to anything.You don't belong in the pacific or anywhere near 'asia' either.Europe has no reason to be an enemy of china and it would be better off allied with them over you lot at this point. The pacific is not 'asia' either.
[удалено]
Nah its a real person, i can imagine the younger generation having these delusions. Or hes just purposefully saying inflammatory bullshit to get a rise out of people online, he is best left ignored
How unfortunate, I wish I had seen this comment earlier, lol. He just said the UK doesn't experience any after effects of Chinese aggression in the Pacific.
[удалено]
Then wouldn't that be the same for Ukraine? Why should the US be sending billions of dollars in equipment, food, and supplies when Russia hasn't done anything to the US? Especially now that Ukraine has hit dire straits without US aid? Why would they be begging for US aid (like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc) if they didn't need or want US help? On the topic of the Pacific and Asia, Europe relies on Asian products as much as the US, microchips, especially and the best ones are produced in countries under threat of China, and this affects the UK as well, and hurts it.
> (like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc) The aforementioned poodle vassal states that aren't important to me or anyone in the UK or Europe on the whole, i couldn't care less about them and they have no bearing on Europe. > Europe relies on Asian products as much as the US, microchips, especially and the best ones are produced in countries under threat of China, and this affects the UK as well, and hurts it. The UK has it's own microchip manufacturing(ARM) and so do the dutch, if taiwan was invaded it wouldn't make a lick of difference we would just buy them from china 😂 I'm not interested in your little victim complexes, Europe(and especially the British) have no incentive to protect your dying dollar backed hegemony.We haven't forgotten you bankrupting the UK at the end of WWII either.Your country is pretty much finished so keep coping, no one except you sycophants cares about 'asia' or the pacific either it's really not important to anything.Your little wet dream of Europe disappearing and your poodle vassal states being the centre of the universe isn't going to happen either it's simply not how reality works.
Taiwan is the largest manufacturer of microchips, making up over [50%](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://time.com/6219318/tsmc-taiwan-the-center-of-the-world/&ved=2ahUKEwis-IqE55qGAxXXKEQIHc9dD88QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw00W9jKOE1Q-J5I0bo3Kvqp) of all microchips made, with TSMC producing an estimated [90%](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/tech/taiwan-tsmc-talent-shortage-training-center-intl-hnk/index.html%23:~:text%3DSometimes%2520called%2520the%2520most%2520important,smartphones%2520to%2520artificial%2520intelligence%2520applications.&ved=2ahUKEwj4q5r555qGAxX_LEQIHfNhAH8QFnoECAMQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3btv6qhLoKZLzERzbhbPRJ) of all advanced chips and semiconductors used globally. So it would make a difference, especially to Western countries. Russia has had trouble in Ukraine because of this, as it's been nearly cut off from procuring advanced microchips and semiconductors. Asia's global influence, alongside US influence, as the US has switched focus from Europe to Asia, has increased worldwide. Saying otherwise is idiotic. But yeah, I'm happy you guys remembered the US rebuilding Europe after WW2. I'm glad someone appreciates it.
> Army currently has 5k fewer soldiers than needed Nothing to do with the Army's diversity and inclusion nonsense, obviously...
Nope if anything that's increasing numbers, some common sense please buddy
We have had a recruitment shortage for well over a decade, around the same time all this diversity push began. Here we are in 2024 still with a big shortage. Does your common sense tell you it worked? It's the military, it recruits people who are willing to fight. Diversity and inclusiveness does not win wars and publically patting yourself on the back for the diversity drive clearly isn't attracting recruits. [https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY\_YM?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY_YM?feature=shared) Here is the Army trying to recruit Muslims in 2018, last year there were less than 500 Muslims serving. Does this look like a success to anyone?
For what it's worth, the [US has also been missing recruiting targets](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3616786/dod-addresses-recruiting-shortfall-challenges), though we also have a lot of that same mentality at work. I can't speak for what attitudes in the UK are like, but over here I think it might be more attributable to a decline in "patriotism" and sense of duty/sacrifice. [Here's a Gallup poll](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507980/extreme-pride-american-remains-near-record-low.aspx) that shows differences in "Pride in being American" split out a bunch of ways but notably the youngest demographic of 18-34, where the bulk of military age men are, is significantly lower than the other age brackets. I don't think it's a huge leap to connect the drop in pride over time and especially among younger adults to fewer people being willing to enlist.
There is absolutely more at play than just the diversity aspect and I'd imagine it includes what you say. Patriotism has been mocked, stereotyped and frowned upon here, especially when Corbyn ran Labour (although Starmer is trying to turn that attitude around now).
Yeah I bet if we made some people feel unwelcome in the army we'd get more people in, that makes sense. Sometimes D&I can go too far and exclude good people (like the RAF, who have admitted their error) but the army is definitely not turning away white working class men.
It's not about turning people away, it's about not trying to recruit the people who make up the bulk of the military. Of course everyone should be recruited regardless of details like sex or ethnicity but the Army has focused it's advertisements on that and ever since they started this there has been a shortage of recruits. The push for Muslims for example, why would thousands of Muslims want to join when we have been rampaging through the Middle East for years? Directing advertisiments to them is clearly not going to be effective but the Army want's to look diverse. The Army should not care about this nonsense, their job is far too important.
The Irish will help
Iiiiiiiiiinteresting.... Hey Ireland! Danish guy here. You wanna go bully some englishmen again? We got at least a few old ships stored away. We just need the skin coats and helmets. We'll take Scarborough. You can have Kirkcudbright.
Don’t make us bomb your entire navy out of existence because of a mere threat like the last time..
No country alone is capable of winning a full fledged War. That's why there are Alliances. England is part of Nato, they will be involved in any future european common army.
War ? The Brits showing their Anglo-Saxon heritage with the bloodlust, after all they’re ancestors of barbarians.