Yes well done, the UK is no longer imperialistic, get used to it, we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
Name me one war, wherever, when in defense a large amount of young brave folk on the ground wasn't needed.Vilham wrote:
Yes well done, the UK is no longer imperialistic, get used to it, we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
And the defense of the 21st century stretches to beyond your own borders. Everyone minding their own business is a terrible way of dealing with things, you're not the only one on this planet.
inane little opines
one of the single most ignorant statements i have ever seen.Vilham wrote:
we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
having boots on the ground is one of the basic needs in a war.
Last time we had to defend (key word here) ourselves was the Falklands.Parker wrote:
one of the single most ignorant statements i have ever seen.Vilham wrote:
we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
having boots on the ground is one of the basic needs in a war.
EDIT: *prepares of onslaught of Iraq and 9/11 based nonsense*
Last edited by ghettoperson (2009-01-26 11:28:30)
Name we one time in the last 1000 years that the UK was invaded by an external force?dayarath wrote:
Name me one war, wherever, when in defense a large amount of young brave folk on the ground wasn't needed.Vilham wrote:
Yes well done, the UK is no longer imperialistic, get used to it, we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
And the defense of the 21st century stretches to beyond your own borders. Everyone minding their own business is a terrible way of dealing with things, you're not the only one on this planet.
/shocked expression
O wait it hasn't, that's because our navy has always kept us from any potential enemies.
You guys really need to start understanding that the OP was about the UK. Start applying your claims to the actual situation rather than assuming all countries are under the same situation.
In the last 1000 years? Well, 1066 rings a bell. Along with whenever it was the Vikings used to come hang out.Vilham wrote:
Name we one time in the last 1000 years that the UK was invaded by an external force?dayarath wrote:
Name me one war, wherever, when in defense a large amount of young brave folk on the ground wasn't needed.Vilham wrote:
Yes well done, the UK is no longer imperialistic, get used to it, we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
And the defense of the 21st century stretches to beyond your own borders. Everyone minding their own business is a terrible way of dealing with things, you're not the only one on this planet.
/shocked expression
O wait it hasn't, that's because our navy has always kept us from any potential enemies.
You guys really need to start understanding that the OP was about the UK. Start applying your claims to the actual situation rather than assuming all countries are under the same situation.
Indeed and land forces were not even needed in that country.ghettoperson wrote:
Last time we had to defend (key word here) ourselves was the Falklands.Parker wrote:
one of the single most ignorant statements i have ever seen.Vilham wrote:
we don't need a large ground based force any more, it is unnecessary to our DEFENCE.
having boots on the ground is one of the basic needs in a war.
so what?
you guys have the super navy that can never be defeated?
well, lets fucking hope, huh?
you guys have the super navy that can never be defeated?
well, lets fucking hope, huh?
We're saying that we're not planning on getting invaded any time soon, so a large army is no longer needed.
sorry 945 years...
Even if you want to credit the Vikings as an invasion, military tactics from then don't apply any more.
Tbh whatever. You guys keep claiming the UK is at threat of invasion, im going to keep laughing at your stupidity.
Even if you want to credit the Vikings as an invasion, military tactics from then don't apply any more.
Tbh whatever. You guys keep claiming the UK is at threat of invasion, im going to keep laughing at your stupidity.
It's why we didn't get invaded in WWII.Parker wrote:
so what?
you guys have the super navy that can never be defeated?
well, lets fucking hope, huh?
You don't need a massive ground force for DEFENCE in a tiny country like the UK.
If you want to go invading other countries then it's another story entirely.
so your efforts in both WWI and WWII were not out of self defense?Vilham wrote:
Name we one time in the last 1000 years that the UK was invaded by an external force?
/shocked expression
O wait it hasn't, that's because our navy has always kept us from any potential enemies.
You guys really need to start understanding that the OP was about the UK. Start applying your claims to the actual situation rather than assuming all countries are under the same situation.
the enemy didn't get a foothold on your land because you kept him from doing so, but if you didn't have a land army there would also be nothing to stop him from trying again. Nevermind the fact that we might've lost those two wars if you didn't have a landforce backing in. Do you actually understand the importance of a land force? you don't.
Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-26 11:34:49)
inane little opines
They weren't vikings, they were Normans.Vilham wrote:
sorry 945 years...
Even if you want to credit the Vikings as an invasion, military tactics from then don't apply any more.
Tbh whatever. You guys keep claiming the UK is at threat of invasion, im going to keep laughing at your stupidity.
We beat the vikings up at Stamford bridge very shortly before the Norman invasion.
Your army is anything but large.ghettoperson wrote:
We're saying that we're not planning on getting invaded any time soon, so a large army is no longer needed.
inane little opines
I believe he was referring to Vikings resting on Scottish soil temporarily now and then.Bertster7 wrote:
They weren't vikings, they were Normans.Vilham wrote:
sorry 945 years...
Even if you want to credit the Vikings as an invasion, military tactics from then don't apply any more.
Tbh whatever. You guys keep claiming the UK is at threat of invasion, im going to keep laughing at your stupidity.
We beat the vikings up at Stamford bridge very shortly before the Norman invasion.
Your dick is anything but large. What's your point? We don't need it.dayarath wrote:
Your army is anything but large.ghettoperson wrote:
We're saying that we're not planning on getting invaded any time soon, so a large army is no longer needed.
i havent said you are under a threat of invasion.
you are the ones that are trying to base your entire defense on your navy and air force.
and frankly, i DO care if you get invaded...WE will be the ones to come bail you out if it does happen. because WE will continue to maintain a proper army.
sleep well knowing that we will rescue the inept when the time comes.
you are the ones that are trying to base your entire defense on your navy and air force.
and frankly, i DO care if you get invaded...WE will be the ones to come bail you out if it does happen. because WE will continue to maintain a proper army.
sleep well knowing that we will rescue the inept when the time comes.
2nd largest defence budget in the world.dayarath wrote:
Your army is anything but large.ghettoperson wrote:
We're saying that we're not planning on getting invaded any time soon, so a large army is no longer needed.
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.Parker wrote:
i havent said you are under a threat of invasion.
you are the ones that are trying to base your entire defense on your navy and air force.
and frankly, i DO care if you get invaded...WE will be the ones to come bail you out if it does happen. because WE will continue to maintain a proper army.
sleep well knowing that we will rescue the inept when the time comes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_WarVilham wrote:
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Firstly wasn't the six day war before Israel got control of nukes. Secondly, six day war was such a lack of an invasion, it turned out to be the opposite. Massively out numbered the Israelis thrashed their enemies, so much for needing a larger army.
Fire superiority now comes from the air. air superiority gives you ground superiority due to the power and accuracy of airborne missiles. Then you have the range and accuracy of land based support.
We are not living in the same era as WWI or WWII, weapons have become hundreds of times more powerful. Having a line of men preventing the enemy advance is no longer a viable strategy.
Fire superiority now comes from the air. air superiority gives you ground superiority due to the power and accuracy of airborne missiles. Then you have the range and accuracy of land based support.
We are not living in the same era as WWI or WWII, weapons have become hundreds of times more powerful. Having a line of men preventing the enemy advance is no longer a viable strategy.
they had two at that time.Vilham wrote:
Firstly wasn't the six day war before Israel got control of nukes.
im sorry...you said "any country" and "invasion"...i went by those guidelines. sorry the example i provided wasnt up to parVilham wrote:
Secondly, six day war was such a lack of an invasion, it turned out to be the opposite.
again, please read up on fire superiority.Vilham wrote:
Massively out numbered the Israelis thrashed their enemies, so much for needing a larger army.
ok, i take back my earlier statement....THIS^^ is the most ignorant thing i have ever seen.Vilham wrote:
Fire superiority now comes from the air. air superiority gives you ground superiority due to the power and accuracy of airborne missiles.
what exactly qualifies as "land based support" in your world?Vilham wrote:
Then you have the range and accuracy of land based support.
really?Vilham wrote:
We are not living in the same era as WWI or WWII, weapons have become hundreds of times more powerful.
thank you for that, as weapons are something that are just beyond me.
and once again, you show your lack of understanding even the most basic principles in warfare.Vilham wrote:
Having a line of men preventing the enemy advance is no longer a viable strategy.
with the vast majority of the money going to the airforce and navy plus it's projects. Actually I'd like them to skip out more on their projects and use more money for the soldiers on the ground. They could re-equip the whole marine corps with the money of just one or two of the air force's investments.Bertster7 wrote:
2nd largest defence budget in the world.dayarath wrote:
Your army is anything but large.ghettoperson wrote:
We're saying that we're not planning on getting invaded any time soon, so a large army is no longer needed.
your ARMY consists of volunteers, it's SMALL in comparison to what world powers have been / are. Hell it's for the first time ever in most countries that there is no draft.
Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-26 12:01:18)
inane little opines
The men on the ground are just about the most important part of any military, anywhere. All other military branches were started to support those with their feet on the ground.
Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-26 12:03:39)
inane little opines
If Israeli had thought for a second that the invasion was a threat they would have used their nukes. The fact that they then thrashed the invasion pretty much counts it out of any consideration of it I have. Indeed maybe I should have been more specific. Name a single country with nukes that has faced a credible invasion that actually posed a threat to that country.
Sorry parker I forgot about the tanks that fire hundreds of miles and the special solders that can cover huge areas of land. I think you are the one who doesn't understand the concept of fire superiority, you seem to think that the fire needs to come from a land based unit. Fire superiority is kinda explained in the word. Superior fire-power, that can come from anywhere.
eg. A bunch of soldiers are ambushed by enemy troops, they get into defensive positions and don't even bother returning fire, they simply call in air support and decimate the enemy with superior fire-power.
Are you claiming the ambushers have fire superiority... lulz
Land support as in artillery and ground based missile sites.
and holy crap that you think "Having a line of men preventing the enemy advance is no longer a viable strategy." is a viable strategy. K you can have your troops, ill have my tomahawk missiles.
anyway as interesting as this has been. You guys keep thinking the UK is going to get invaded, ill keep laughing.
Sorry parker I forgot about the tanks that fire hundreds of miles and the special solders that can cover huge areas of land. I think you are the one who doesn't understand the concept of fire superiority, you seem to think that the fire needs to come from a land based unit. Fire superiority is kinda explained in the word. Superior fire-power, that can come from anywhere.
eg. A bunch of soldiers are ambushed by enemy troops, they get into defensive positions and don't even bother returning fire, they simply call in air support and decimate the enemy with superior fire-power.
Are you claiming the ambushers have fire superiority... lulz
Land support as in artillery and ground based missile sites.
and holy crap that you think "Having a line of men preventing the enemy advance is no longer a viable strategy." is a viable strategy. K you can have your troops, ill have my tomahawk missiles.
anyway as interesting as this has been. You guys keep thinking the UK is going to get invaded, ill keep laughing.