Britons face call to fight in the armed forces if UK goes to war with Russia, top chief warns

a reply to: crayzeed

You think that always having a choice is pessimistic?

I suggest the contrary.

Choices are good, they give us direction for a start and empower us as individuals.

I suggest creating an army to Police the UK carries with it plenty of negative connotations.

And all we are apt to end up with is another shower of bastards to contend with who want their slice of the pie and back handers behind closed doors.

I really don't see the government arming immigrants or illegals and expecting them to perform such a task if that is what you alluding to as we have enough problems listening to our own Police nevermind gooberment Polis 2.0.

a reply to: Maybenexttime

The reality is not different, Article 5 is a thing Maybenexttime.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Which is triggered should Russia launch nuclear weapons at any NATO nation.

We would respond in kind, be it conventionally, nuclear, or more likely, a combination of both.

No ifs no buts no coconuts.

www.nato.int...

a reply to: ohahhupthera

The Russians have one Nuclear bomb that could take out most of Scotland. Just one is all that's needed.

Even if true, which it isn't, should our arses fall out and just capitulate and allow Putin to bully and intimidate?
# that.
Do you actually have a pair of balls and a sense of right or wrong?

Yes, in a nuclear exchange Russia could obliterate the UK.
But by itself the UK in turn could wipe out Moscow and St Petersburg....in reality what would be left of Russia then?

NATO would have to retaliate, especially France that has its own nuclear capability.
Imagine how the fall out of a nuclear attack on the UK would have on France and continental Europe?

But it isn't going to happen any time soon, I hope, Russia is as aware of a nuclear exchange as we are.

This was intended to raise awareness that the UK at present is not able to adequately defend its own borders in the event of an invasion from a foreign nation.
No forced conscription, no sending our Armed Forces to fight in a foreign land.

But at no point should we bow down to Putin's aggression and expansionism.
There comes a point when you have to stand up for what you believe in and what is right.

a reply to: Freeborn

The west has been more aggressive than Russia in the last 60 years so it's ironic that we are all losing our sh1t at Russia looking to regain land the soviets had in The USSR.

Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen to name but a few where we had no business being there. Unless you still believe Afghanistan and Iraq were to blame for 9/11 and the latter had WMD's.

All this talk of lobbing nukes at each other is getting boring.
Since US dropped the first bombs 80 years ago, does anybody seriously think that with all the technological advances since then, that countries don't have something more lethal and will keep infrastructure intact by now?
Time to get out of the sandpit....
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: angelchemuel
All this talk of lobbing nukes at each other is getting boring.
Since US dropped the first bombs 80 years ago, does anybody seriously think that with all the technological advances since then, that countries don't have something more lethal and will keep infrastructure intact by now?
Time to get out of the sandpit....
Rainbows
Jane

If we have any sense we would be building tech to neutralise the nukes fired at us while they are in the air.

Even then we would have to deal with the fall out raining down on us.

a reply to: stu119

We are with the likes of the "DragonFire" laser weapons system.

It's not quite powerful enough or has the range to destroy the likes of incoming ICBM just yet.

You're correct all the same as destroying an incoming ICBM may mitigate some of the immediate risks associated with its payload detonation.

But there are still potential dangers such as the dispersion of hazardous material in the atmosphere.

a reply to: angelchemuel

WMD wise Jane the only thing bigger or more powerful than nukes would be some kind of antimatter bomb i suppose.

I don't think we are quite there yet as production would be quite frankly cost-prohibitive and storage of the stuff would be just as dangerous as the device.

They could use the likes of neutron bombs which are designed to release a large amount of radiation while minimising the blast and thermal effects released.

The primary purpose of such a weapon is to kill or incapacitate enemy personnel while minimising damage to infrastructure.

Pretty much an area denial nuke that would have been used to stop Russian mechanised infantry and tanks in Europe.

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm thinking more biological and in particular sound.
But that's just my speculation.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

We have had biological weapons for longer than we have had nukes i suppose, but again if one side chooses to deploy such a weapon against their enemy or a city the other side is apt to do the same.

VX gas is particularly nasty and is of the most toxic of nerve agents on the planet suppose that's more a chemical weapon through.

These sorts of weapons of mass infection don't discriminate anymore than the likes of nukes do through.

Sound and frequency is interesting where crowd control purposes are concerned but as a weapon of mass destruction, i don't really see how it could be deployed.

a reply to: angelchemuel
EMP weapon, anyone. Pure disrupt the country and people but leave the superstructure intact.

a reply to: crayzeed

That would do it.

Think of the chaos and panic the electrical grid going down for even the likes of a few months would cause.

The island would tear itself apart, especially so in the likes of the major towns and cities.

a reply to: crayzeed

Yes, and I'm also thinking sound waves that are at such a low frequency that we can't hear them and it turns our insides into mush.
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stonerwilliam

There was speculation just like with the Ivy Mike device it may ignite the planet's atmosphere.

The thing is the conditions necessary to sustain a chain reaction capable of igniting the atmosphere are highly improbable and far beyond the capabilities of any current or foreseeable human technology to date.

The original design of the Tsar Bomba had a yield of around 100 megatons, which is about 4000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima.

The drop in yield was indeed apparently due to concerns about the potential environmental and humanitarian impact the device may have had on the archipelago and subsequently the rest of the surrounding area.

What I read years ago Andy that it could collapse the atmosphere suckling out all the oxogen if they had used the full load ? .

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: crayzeed

Yes, and I'm also thinking sound waves that are at such a low frequency that we can't hear them and it turns our insides into mush.
Rainbows
Jane

They already have that tech available and have for a lot of years , Frying people in their cars and properties in Maui was just the MIC playing with their toys

a reply to: angelchemuel

I think what you're referring to is called "infrasound".

Infrasound has been associated with various physiological effects, like nausea, headaches, and even vibrations felt within the body.

In reality, it would have to do with amplitude but the notion of it causing substantial physical harm to internal organs is not supported by scientific evidence.

It's possibly worth noting that there are other forms of energy that could potentially cause harm to living tissues, directed microwave systems for instance.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Can you remember where?

I don't really see how nuclear weapons pose significant dangers where collapsing the atmosphere is concerned mate.

They don't have the capacity to cause global atmospheric collapse or remove all oxygen from the atmosphere.

Not that nuclear weapons don't pose significant dangers but comparatively speaking a yield of 50Mt or even 100Mt is simply a drop in the ocean.

The atmosphere is an incredibly massive system, and even the largest nuclear explosions we could produce would only have localised effects.

Cumulatively speaking all the same any sort of large-scale nuclear exchange and we are going to have a really bad day.

a reply to: andy06shake

It was a lot of years ago Andy ? That I came across it , mid 2000s time , I also remember reading one of the tech dudes that was on a project they turned into a film called the Entity by Hollywood , he went in a non believer and came out convinced .

But the dementia is messing with my memory recall these days

a reply to: stonerwilliam

That's okay buddy, i had a cold the other week and nearly put milk in my cup of Lemsip, happens to us all.

Mind the hackers black book from the 90s?