Max Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 I don't understand why people claim that Russia would win simply on Nukes. Do you not realise the state of Russia's nuclear weapons? around 11,500 nukes with around 1000 more missing. good condition or not, out of those 11,000, at least 100 would actually cause damage. regarding their airforce, although they dont have advanced plances like B2, A117 and other stealth bombers, they do have the MIG series which was designed to compete with the F series (F15/16/18/22), even though it failed badly, russia still has one of the most advanced missile defence and offence systems in the world. they also have price in their submarines but should the war be done in water, UK would win as they have probably the best navy (just behind the US).
weeyellowbloke Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 You can't really make a good judgment... if a real war came you don't know what kind of secret weapons either sides have. An ion cannon? OK, I think if it was just a one on one bruck, without nukes we'd have them. With nukes, I think we'd probably be annihilated. With back up from the old allies..... hmmm, that's a conundrum. I think I'd go for us if we had support from the USA and Europe, but it would be close and very messy.
Chris the great Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 why are people thinking more nukes = better, two or three nukes would do huge dammage to major cities, and the fall out would ensure that most of the survivors died within a few weeks. one nuke would cause un imaganable damage to the uk, and we have enough nukes to put russia in a simmilar way. simple fact is that when its bassed on nukes, its evenly matched, russia may have more but it hardly matters, unless were pileing them up to see whos got a taller tower. check out the film threads if you want to scare yourself to death at what would happen in a nuclear war. heres the wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads im pretty sure the film is on the google video beta. oh, and we fought the russians in victorian times, the charge of the light brigade (poem) glorifies miscomunication and huge loss of life in one of the battles.
Guest Jordan Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 That person who was talking about the airforce and so on. We already have Eurofighters, battle ready infact and some are serving in the middle east (the ones converted for use in bombing runs when needed). Eurofighter is not only the fastest, but the most versitle and monuverable military aircraft currently out, afaik.
Max Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Eurofighter is not only the fastest, but the most versitle and monuverable military aircraft currently out, afaik. thats debatable between the F-22 100-1, and the MIG 29 (i think). IMO, i think UK has the greatest neval airforce thanks to the british Harrior.
EEVILMURRAY Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 We could just say it was the French. You shit. There's no way The French would ever compare to such a battle, let alone win. An ion cannon? Let's hope they don't plant some Tesla Coils here.
Guest Stefkov Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 You shit. There's no way The French would ever compare to such a battle, let alone win. Exactly why I mentioned it. Because they won't win.
weeyellowbloke Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 why are people thinking more nukes = better, two or three nukes would do huge dammage to major cities, and the fall out would ensure that most of the survivors died within a few weeks. one nuke would cause un imaganable damage to the uk, and we have enough nukes to put russia in a simmilar way. simple fact is that when its bassed on nukes, its evenly matched, russia may have more but it hardly matters, unless were pileing them up to see whos got a taller tower. I generally figure that we are a tiny island and they are massive continent spanning nation. We fire our nukes and we damage maybe a fifth of their country. They fire their nukes and our lovely little land will be completely gone and we'll all have to move to France. Then they invade Europe to finish us off, France surrenders, America steps in, a stand off ensues, Khrushchev is resurrected through voodoo and tie dye t-shirts return to fashion. Be prepared people, dust off your mini skirts, the 60's are coming back. Let's hope they don't plant some Tesla Coils here. You know, I reckon they might just be doing that. They claim it's roadworks, but the guys round the corner from my house look damn shifty, I swear I've heard them talking of the motherland rising once more.
Chris the great Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 look, it dosent matter that russia is huge, our counter strike would be a barrage of missles that would be large enough to destroy their nation. thats why their hasn't been a nuclear war, it would be impossible to win one.
Fresh Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 look, it dosent matter that russia is huge, our counter strike would be a barrage of missles that would be large enough to destroy their nation. thats why their hasn't been a nuclear war, it would be impossible to win one. I suppose whoever presses that red button first would win.
Chuck Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 It would be more Nato vs Warsaw Pact (inc. ex-commuinists). Considering Only Britain, France and Italy are the protectorates - allowed Nuclear weapons.If Russia did something stupid, Britain would be amoungst the first to react. But again we have our almighty friends accross the pond
Chris the great Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 I suppose whoever presses that red button first would win. for a short while, but the early warning systems would allow a counter strike that would destroy the attacking nation.
Ollie Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 As unlikely as it may be, if a war were to happen, and someone started firing nukes about, that would pretty much be the end of the world imo. Other people start getting involved and then you really do have a world war.
EEVILMURRAY Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Exactly why I mentioned it. Because they won't win. You had to soil this thread though with their name!
Haden Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 When the hell have we ever fought the Russians? Crimean War old chap back in the day erm 1853-4 I think (wiki it). Us and the Frenchies teamed up with the Ottoman Empire and smacked down the Russians. They never thought it could get worse than being beaten by the French then the Japs beat them 50 years later! lol My girlfriend who is russian and me had a great conversation about this. It involved her saying Britian was very stupid and would pay big time once the russian secret services got involved and me saying the British Empire will destroy anything that moves including Russia single handidly and we still have the Falkland Islands so we still rule teh waves. Yep that was a productive conversation!
Gizmo Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 The battle would go something like this: UK:"In the name of the Queen, we shall own you with ships and planes!" Russia:"Never! Fire the nukes!" USA:"Don't worry Britain, we'll stop their nukes with our nukes!" *nukes collide over France* France:"Shit we didn't do anything we surrender we surrender!" China:"Oh the US is involved now huh? Send in the infantry!" UK:"Shit guys we need help!" Switzerland:"No chance. We are neutral in this war." Australia:"Throw some shrimp on the barbie m8" Ireland:"God damnit, they've done it again...Those Brits, they're so embarrassing..." North Korea:*manic laughter*
Tellyn Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 When the hell have we ever fought the Russians? What Haden said.
Max Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 well i was right it seems, brits have been kicked out. i guess they can call it evens?
Emasher Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 i'm sure the US would step in and help the UK so i think the UK
Problematique Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Purely on a one to one war (unlikely)...I don't know. I can't see us wanting to invade Russia. They have overwhelming numerical superiority but then our armed forces are among the best trained in the world (if not the best). They're small and powerful. Like urinal cakes (anyone know where I got that saying from? ). I doubt it'd go nuclear otherwise we'll get pwned. Completely.
Chris the great Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 yes, a british invasion probebly wouldent go too well, its generaly more costly on men to in vade then defend. and please people stop saying we would lose if it went nuclear, we'd both lose.
Jackster Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Don't worry it won't happen, if it does I would imagine they would rush in the New World Order before anything gets too bad. http://tinwiki.org/wiki/New_World_Order
mcj metroid Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Nah Britian is too full of chavs. And that is my detailed synopsis
UK Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 look, it dosent matter that russia is huge, our counter strike would be a barrage of missles that would be large enough to destroy their nation. thats why their hasn't been a nuclear war, it would be impossible to win one. Exactly! All we'd have to do is nuke their major cities like Moscow, St Petersburgh, etc, etc. The population of Russia is pretty small, considering a 148 million person strong nation is bettered in men by a smaller country, with over twice as many people (the US). And, Chuck, since when has Italy ever been able to own nuclear weapons? Since never, thats when.
Recommended Posts