I don't have to imagine... throw in a random smattering of emigres from other Eastern Euopean states and that's just a larger version of my high street.... Except they're mostly arguing with each other, rather than indulging in nationalistic rivalry...
I don't have to imagine... throw in a random smattering of emigres from other Eastern Euopean states and that's just a larger version of my high street.... Except they're mostly arguing with each other, rather than indulging in nationalistic rivalry...
Don't forget our trigger happy chums over the pond
The NATO treaty was signed after WW2
How many Nuke equiped Countries have fought recently? Theres lots of diplomatic posturing, but it's never come to blows because it isn't just bombs anymore.
Look at India & Pakistan - at each others throats for years, they both get Nukes and they stop. Why? Because the random brawls on the border that sometimes involve the military mean that India could obliterate Pakistan, and Pakistan could do exactly the same to India before the Nukes hit. Why risk it?
EDIT - Bean0, i meant that most European countries had sworn to defend each other if they needed it, and they all hoped Hitler would stop if they just let him have "this little bit". Eventually people realised "this little bit" would be them, and THEN they stood up.
The year is 2007 not 1939, times are different. Comparing something today to world of WWII is silly. Russia waging war on anyone is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever because the risk it would end up Russia vs. rest of the world because NATO is way too big, and they are not that stupid... I hope.
Times change. People don't.
Everyone is naturally selfish, the human moral is to protect yourself, then your family, then the people around you.
Isn't quite that simple though. Lets look at this picture.
(Notice how the French have run off)
This is the current standing in Afghan, now how many of those flags have the power of nukes, pretty much all, so why don't we jut nuke Afghan, they don't have nukes. Because we might piss off a country that does have nukes, so nukes are left at home and we stick with guns and bullets. Once one country uses a nuke offensively, it will be a free for all and the human race will be fudged.
Source quotations or STFU.
Actually the Germans had been fought off in WW2 without the explicit help of allies, although many foreign nationals fought in the RAF (notably the Polish who were the best fighter pilots we had), but that was 60 years ago, when the UK actually had a military force. Now we don't.
When the German invasion obviously wasn't going to work, they sent their air force off to invade Russia instead, and subsequently Russia handed the German army's arse to it and won the war. While Russia was busy winning the war, the USA sent some men over to organise the parades and everybody had a little celebration with cucumber sandwiches and lashings of ginger beer.
Once again numbers beat the equipment - the Germans had great guns and planes, and yet the sheer volume of Russian soldiers meant that ridiculous slaughters could not stop them. They held the Germans until Winter, and then the Russian winter did the rest.
I'd have to go to uni for that.
We could hold them off, but only as long as we had the supplies, anything metal was being melted because we was running out fast.
The last guy (I can remember) to invade Russia was Napoleon, and he made it all the was to Moscow, but he had the same problem the Germans found when they tried it, the line had become over stretched and was easy pickings, add to the fact the shear size of Russia, an invasion would never work as there are too many people over too much land.
That is because quantity has a quality all of its own. Like I have said before, we train our small army to insane levels, but we only have a small army so we are out numbered and out gunned by bigger (and in some cases) richer armies.
Money has always been the deciding factor in any war - having the best-equipped force and a country that can afford to keep it rolling. Having a squaddie who can finish a 10-mile run quicker than some other country's squaddie is 100% useless.
In the case of the film Threads nuclear weapons where not used offensively, that's the scary thing about that film. The first nuclear weapon fired was a tactical battlefield weapon, what the film Threads portrayed was how easily nuclear war could escalate without them being used offensively at all - that's one of the many things that makes it such a thought provoking and shocking film.
The other is that despite being pre-CG the special effects and attention to detail that went into the production, and the excellent script writing - probably combined with living through some of the cold war and remembering it - makes it such a troubling film to watch.
And that is what killed our Armed forces, everyone wanted tax brakes, but no one wanted to give up the services that paying taxes gets you, so a little was taken from the military here, and a little more there, until we are using weapons that were obsolete when they were designed, wear gear that was made so cheaply add sweat and it falls apart (the biggest selling item on any garrison is panty liners, because everyone sticks it to their clothing around high sweat areas so it lives a little longer), radio gear and boots that melt in hot weather.
Personally, I think EVERYONE should watch Threads, it may be an old film, but it's a bloody horrifying and shocking film.
Here you go look, I'll even provide a link to watch the whole film > http://video.google.co.uk/vide ... type=search&plindex=0
Here you go look, I'll even provide a link to watch the whole film > http://video.google.co.uk/vide ... type=search&plindex=0
Funnily enough it came up in conversation here a couple of weeks back, prompting Jakg and myself to watch it again. It's still very impressive for a 20 year old film made for TV.
I remember watching it at home when it was first screened - I must've been 10 years old. :eek:
It's a hell of a film, had a MASSIVE impact on me as when I saw it at about 12 years of age, can't believe it's over 20 years old, still makes you think though (does look a tad dated now though........)
I've never seen it or even heard of it, being that I was one 20 years ago there is no real surprise. However it is currently downloading with Google Video, so I'll watch it when it's done.
Watched it....now i wish i didn't. Man that was too much for me, I'm way too shocked to build any meaningful sentences atm. Only comfort for us here is that we most probably won't get a direct hit. Just a huge cloud of radiation (sooner or later). Like we got after the Chernobyl meltdown. But in this case of 8000 megatons being exchanged, makes the radiation unimaginable. In threads they were speaking of thousands of rads, too many people survived in the movie. I mean 210 megaton blast? That is bleeding ridiculous. The burn area would be 6500 km (4038 miles). Or was it 210 megatons dropped on UK in total. Ok then, let's say that each nuke is 10 megatons. For a 10 megaton blast, the severe damage would extend out about ten times as far, to 17.7 km. (Figures from Microsoft Encarta).A 10 megaton blast would create a fireball about 4.8 km and moderate flash burns to 32 km. Accompanying the blast is a burst of neutrons and gamma rays, as well as lingering residual radiation from radioactive fallout.
Oh crap...I just realised that my post is way too offtopic...sorry.
/me goes to sleep
Who would rather be? the guy in the street who is vaporized instantly? the guy who is blinded and burned and died of radiation poisoning? or the guy who sees the horrors around him and escapes with minor burns and lives on through the apocalypse into a post-apocalyptic society?
I'd say the latter is worse than death by a long shot.
My choice? The bloke who didn't fall for the nationalistic bullshit in the first place. The bloke who realised that the words politician and gangster are interchangeable whatever country you live in. The bloke who had more in common with a drunk Russian in a town thousands of miles from my own, than I do with anyone who would seek authority over me.
I think it was 210 megatons on the whole of the UK. The strike that directly affects the people in the film hits RAF Finningley, an air base about fifteen miles away from the city.
Very few people do survive in Threads. Of those who shelter from the initial blast, many die later from sickness. The film postulates that the UK population is reduced to around five million people, so that's about a 90% death rate.
in case you havent noticed us continentals dont exactly like you
the ones who are always late for world wars ?
now what should i do install defcon or watch threads ?
Just finished watching threads. All I can say is damn.
I might get back with a thought out response in an hour or two, maybe.
I might get back with a thought out response in an hour or two, maybe.
Regarding the original subject in this thread, Russian fighters have intruded Finnish airspace (on land, not on sea) at least two times in last 1-2 years, can't remember specifically when. Probably on purpose. Too bad our government thinks licking Putin's ass is good idea and welcomed the jet fighters to visit again soon, so there was no political skirmish at all.
If you haven't seen Threads, I would watch that
It's just a shame you can't see it in the context I saw it, 12 years old, mum a CND protester, greenham common etc etc, I distinctly remember her saying to us, it she ever heard the 3 minute warning, she would "slip something into our drinks", god damn it was awful LMAO.
A what now?
Good thing the government never ran drills like the US, eh?
Cold war FTW!!!
(94 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG