Russia vs UK. a joke or what?

Question

does anyone really think if the UK had the audacity and stupidity to take on Russia with the UK's 38.000 combat troops and its 156 nukes that it would fair any better than Georgia?

Russia vastly out numbers the UK in every way and means of military strength?

do you think the USA is up to the challenge considering the ilegal wars its already fighting with its dropping enlistment and reenlistments falling at a staggering rate.

do you think that NATO (no action taken organization) AKA the debate club. would if they decided to come to the UK's aid and risk their very survival or oil supplies?

i think the UK should shut up, sit down and ponder on the fact the UK is NO LONGER A SUPER POWER and is not even though of as effective on any level. true or false?

Answer 1

Well said that man, and the sooner that twittering t**t Milliband realises it the better.

Answer 2

we should join china, there the ones to watch

Answer 3

It's not the size that counts ;-)

PS: The UK wasn't any bigger when we did have an Empire, it's the might that counts!

Ah, a Scot, that explains the negativity!

Answer 4

we would be annihilated

my uncle was stationed in berlin during the cold war, they were told that if it kiced of they had a 24 hour life expectancy, max

and for people saying the tech russia sent to georgia was outdated, duh! you dont send your best new stuff to fight a war you know youll win easily, we sent post ww2 vulcan bombers to the falklands instead of the "new" tornedos, in iraq recently the us sent f14's a10s and the like instead of f22's, you dont use your best weapons for no reason otherwise people see them in action and determine their weaknesses

Answer 5

I agree.

I think that insect Millipede should shut up.

It is only to advance his attempt to be P.M

The Labour Party should sort out the disaster at home before they even think of interfering in the global issues.

What a waste of space, and we've got them for ages yet.

God knows what they'll manage to do in that time.

Answer 6

I think we (the UK) should think again before we start this up with Russia, it is ridiculous we are a tiny tiny island and once again it seems we are following the US although the repercussions for our country could be catastrophic.

Answer 7

true, very true, its always uk and usa kicking everything off, because they want a new world order.

Answer 8

IT'S NOT LIKE BLOODY KIDS A PLAY GROUND. Russia arn't going to nuke us just because we warned them about starting another cold war.

Commenwealth

Nato

Usa

European Union

Is what Russia fights against, if war is delcared etc on Britain.

I THINK you'll find that out matches Russia a tad more.

However this isn't world war 3, so perhaps you need to calm down.

BRING BACK TONY BLAIR!

Answer 9

I'll bet Medvedev is quaking in his boots at the sight of Milliband.  I wish he would shut up instead of trying to strut the world stage.

Russia could nuke us out of the water in no time, if we were worth nuking.  Our forces are spread thin enough as it is.  Ill equipped and some ill trained for what they are expected to do.

NATO is now a joke.

Answer 10

It isn't a credible threat so we should not be making it - Miliband is an idiot.  His pompous posturing looks ridiculous.  He is making us a laughing stock.

Answer 11

May be its not about winning.  perhaps its about new labour slaughtering its unwanted population of indigenous Brits. they know dammed well that the Muslims will never fight for this country, and so they will stay at home while the Brits die. when its all over! the Islamic oil money will make Britain the centre of Europe. and Britain can be concreted over as Europe's industrial island. lots of MPs will make a lot of money, and the world will blame Russia. its quite brilliant...... HEY MONKEY MAN. might i remind you of the falklands where nato actualy refused to help us, and the French..'our marvelous aly's actualy sold the Argies the missiles to fire at us. ...i wouldnt be too relient on Nato or the EU for support if i were you. when the going gets tough! both of those little organisations are renowned for running away.

Answer 12

Milliband should keep his mouth shut if he doesnt want to see the UK wiped off the map.

Answer 13

As long as people like 'alberto g' believe Russia is not a mighty military machine with in fact more nuclear weapons than the US so long will people underestimate Russia. I think this  government while stupid are not that stupid.

Answer 14

How little you know. The UK doesn't need superior numbers...you've got me.

Answer 15

Russia have always been a country of disorganized citizens including their Arm Forces. They don't have any discipline, the government don't pay them and they go into the black market to sell their arms including the nukes. Now how could you say that they could go and take England which is the opposite of them. Russia could only deal with country like Georgia, small countries that they can't defend them self. You are right Russia is a joke!!

Answer 16

Russia may have military strength, but it is vulnerable to attack.  The UK has the capability of taking out Russia's capital and most of it's resources in a single suicide attack - and Russia knows that.  Neither Russia or the UK is a superpower.

Russia's greatest vulnerability is financial.  If the EU turned the screws, the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (surrounded on land by EU countries) would no longer be viable.  The present Russian leadership would not survive if the people had to go back to poverty and queuing for essentials.

Answer 17

Ever heard of the battle of Thermopylae?(You know 300 the one where THIS IS SPARTA!!! comes from)

Numbers won't count for squat if the enemy is smarter than you.

Answer 18

What you seem to forget is that the UK is a member of NATO which has a policy that an attack on one nation is an attack on all. Russia may have more soldiers and weapons than us but Russia is no much for the combined force of NATO. Especially with NATO's superior weaponry compared to Russia's. Russian Generals were surprised to find that Georgian tanks where superior to theirs and their anti-aircraft shot down several Russian planes.

The reason that Miliband is more vocal than the rest of the EU is because the UK doesn't rely on Russian gas (yet). And as long as we have are security council seat we are a superpower.

Answer 19

Three major reviews of the British Armed Forces have been conducted since the end of the Cold War. The Conservative government produced the Options for Change review in the 1990s, seeking to benefit from a perceived post-Cold War "peace dividend".[23] All three services experienced considerable reductions in manpower, equipment, and infrastructure.[24] Though the Soviet Union had disintegrated, a presence in Germany was retained, albeit in the reduced form of British Forces Germany. Experiences during the First Gulf War prompted renewed efforts to enhance joint operational cohesion and efficiency among the services by establishing a Permanent Joint Headquarters in 1996.[25][26]

An increasingly international role for the British Armed Forces has been pursued since the Cold War's end.[27] This has entailed the Armed Forces often constituting a major component in peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations or NATO, and other multinational operations. Consistent undermanning and the reduced size of the Armed Forces has, however, highlighted the problem of "overstretch" in recent years.[28] This has reportedly contributed to personnel retention difficulties and challenged the military's ability to sustain its overseas commitments.[28][29][30]

The Strategic Defence Review – described as "foreign-policy-led" – was published in 1998.[31][32] Expeditionary warfare and tri-service integration were central to the review, which sought to improve efficiency and reduce expenditure by consolidating resources.[33][34] Most of the Armed Forces' helicopters were collected under a single command and a Joint Force Harrier was established in 2000, containing the Navy and RAF's fleet of Harrier Jump Jets. A Joint Rapid Reaction Force was formed in 1999, with significant tri-service resources at its disposal.[35]

The first major post-11 September restructuring was announced in the 2004 Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities review, continuing a vision of "mobility" and "expeditionary warfare" articulated in the SDR.[36][37] Future equipment projects reflecting this direction featured in the review, including the procurment of two large aircraft carriers and a series of medium-sized vehicles for the Army. Reductions in manpower, equipment, and infrastructure were also announced. The decision to reduce the Army's regular infantry to 36 battalions (from 40) and amalgamate the remaining single-battalion regiments was controversial, especially in Scotland and among former soldiers.[38] Envisaging a rebalanced composition of more rapidly deployable light and medium forces, the review announced that a regiment of Challenger 2 main battle tanks and a regiment of AS-90 self-propelled artillery would be converted to lighter roles.[39][37]

[edit] Current strength



A Trident II SLBM being launched from a Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine. These inter-continental nuclear missiles greatly increase the United Kingdom's military strength.According to 2007 CIA estimates, the UK has the second largest military expenditure in the world, after the United States. It is also the second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology.[40] Despite Britain's wide ranging capabilities, recent defence policy has a stated assumption that any large operation would be undertaken as part of a coalition. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan (Herrick), Iraq (Granby, Desert Fox and Telic) may all be taken as precedent – indeed the last large scale military action in which the British armed forces fought alone was the Falklands War of 1982.

The Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the world in terms of gross tonnage, with 90 commissioned ships. The Naval Service (which comprises the Royal Navy and Royal Marines) had a strength of 35,470 in July 2006[41] and is charged with custody of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent consisting of four Trident missile submarines, while the Royal Marines provide commando units for amphibious assault and for specialist reinforcement forces in and beyond the NATO area. According to the same source, the British Army had a strength of 100,010, while the Royal Air Force had a strength of 45,210. This puts the total number of regular Armed Forces personnel at 180,690 (not including civilians), nine percent of whom were women. This number is supported by reserve forces, including over 35,000 from the Territorial Army. The total number of serving personnel, including reserve forces, is therefore in the region of 225,000 (taking into account Navy, Marines and Air Force reserves

Just thought id bring up the fact that we spend second most on military in the world :)