• Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets
    209 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Vasili;25497101]One aircraft carrier will risk the invasion of the Falklands? Oh no.[/QUOTE] But it's not just one aircraft carrier is it?
[QUOTE=SteelReal;25496937]Heh, it's funny, because when bush was in office, everything was his fault. Now the tables have turned and it's your turn to defend the jackass who weaseled his way into presidency.[/QUOTE] how? [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=jgerm529;25498368]This is why I love being an American with our massive amounts of military spending that keeps us a world super power. [editline]18th October 2010[/editline] I am just fascinated with military technology I am not country bashing or whatever[/QUOTE] wasting money for useless shit is... a good thing? are you like autistic?
[QUOTE=David29;25506574]What the hell are you talking about? Thanks.[/QUOTE] Massive military build ups result in wars.
[QUOTE=Vasili;25508390]Massive military build ups result in wars.[/QUOTE] International tensions do, military power resolves them.
[QUOTE=Vasili;25508390]Massive military build ups result in wars.[/QUOTE] That has sod all to do with my point. I wasn't saying that military build up doesn't result in wars - because it does - I was saying that military complacency results in wars. Case point: "Barker believed that the intention expressed in Defence Secretary John Nott's 1981 review to withdraw the Royal Navy ship HMS Endurance, Britain's only naval presence in the South Atlantic, sent a signal to the Argentines that Britain was unwilling, and would soon be unable, to defend its territories and subjects in the Falklands." It's also just pure common sense - it would be no problem to fight and defeat a small country such as Cuba, but you would have to have to be insane to attack China or the USA.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25508600]International tensions do, military power resolves them.[/QUOTE] how do i ww1 [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Bravehat, are you retarded? Like seriously, military power has been proven time and time again what a useless load of shit it is. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;25508737] It's also just pure common sense - it would be no problem to fight and defeat a small country such as Cuba, but you would have to have to be insane to attack China or the USA.[/QUOTE] Who is going to attack and defeat Cuba and win? China and the US?
I wish nobody would have to keep any army. :frown: [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;25508390]Massive military build ups result in wars.[/QUOTE] Cold War. Biggest military buildup in history, and we are still here.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;25509193]I wish nobody would have to keep any army. :frown: [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Cold War. Biggest military buildup in history, and we are still here.[/QUOTE] Sweden had an army of roughly 600 thousand and the worlds third largest airforce in the 60's, today we have 50 thousand men and a nonexisting airforce :v: Not that we need anything more. Actually, it seems that we could gather up to a million men during the 80's just before the fall of the soviet union. Don't quote me on this though, i'm not sure :v:
Cuts in Britain - complaining Cuts in France - Rioting Thing is though, the French usually get their way. :sigh:
[QUOTE=Warhol;25509125]how do i ww1 [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Bravehat, are you retarded? Like seriously, military power has been proven time and time again what a useless load of shit it is. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Who is going to attack and defeat Cuba and win? China and the US?[/QUOTE] World war 1 was caused entirely by the fucking systems of alliance and you know it., if germany and austria weren't allied with each other then the war would have been entirely been serbia and austria.
Stop moaning about not having a big navy anymore, the age when war in the western world was possible is long over, it's not like anyone's going to invade Britain, there is no need for this, the corporations are the real ones in charge and all you fucking care about is a global dick waving contest involving militarism.
If any nation in the developed world attacked another now, every other nation would cease trading with them and they'd be fucked. Plus nuclear retaliation if a foreign army invades means that war isn't going to happen if we decrease spending on military anymore. The government is doing the right thing by scaling back all military operations and saving here.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25509793]World war 1 was caused entirely by the fucking systems of alliance and you know it., if germany and austria weren't allied with each other then the war would have been entirely been serbia and austria.[/QUOTE] So militarism had NOTHING to do with anything, and therefore militarism is... good? Are you retarded?
[QUOTE=Haywood;25494495]Like Liechtenstein. Except the aircraft carrier is probably bigger than Liechtenstein.[/QUOTE] How about The Vatican?, thats classed as a diffrent state...
[QUOTE=Warhol;25509125]Who is going to attack and defeat Cuba and win? China and the US?[/QUOTE] What? I never said China and the USA were going to attack Cuba - I was merely comparing their military strength and how this reflects on how likely they would be to be attacked as a result.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25510093]So militarism had NOTHING to do with anything, and therefore militarism is... good? Are you retarded?[/QUOTE] I don't see why a large army is instantly seen as a sign that someone wants to go out into the world looking for a fight. It's what the army is used for. And you putting words in my mouth then drawing conclusions from it? like usual warhol.
[QUOTE=Cheryl Cole;25494389]Man, it'd be cool to buy that thing and live on it.[/QUOTE] Let's buy it, then use it to invade Sealand and set up an FP nation there, and use the ship as our defence.
In all honesty, the Royal Navy has very rarely launched aircraft from it's carrier in offensive capacity. The Falklands and the Gulf War was the only real demonstration of Naval air operations, and if I'm totally honest that kind of warfare isn't in use nowadays as much. The British forces do not have the aircraft capable of launching from these carriers - we had the BAE Harrier, which is now ageing and about to retire from service, and the F-35s that have been rumoured to be bought haven't been seen yet so, what have we to use on them that is reliable and cutting edge? Nothing.. We can't use Typhoons, our new frontline ground and air attack fighter, atleast not from the go we can't.. They just aren't designed for carrier ops, they never were. Harriers were, and all aircraft which see service on carriers around the world were. Whilst it is a shame that we are retiring our carrier fleet early and ahead of schedule I see the logic in it..
[QUOTE=runtime;25510857]In all honesty, the Royal Navy has very rarely launched aircraft from it's carrier in offensive capacity. The Falklands and the Gulf War was the only real demonstration of Naval air operations, and if I'm totally honest that kind of warfare isn't in use nowadays as much. The British forces do not have the aircraft capable of launching from these carriers - we had the BAE Harrier, which is now ageing and about to retire from service, and the F-35s that have been rumoured to be bought haven't been seen yet so, what have we to use on them that is reliable and cutting edge? Nothing.. We can't use Typhoons, our new frontline ground and air attack fighter, atleast not from the go we can't.. They just aren't designed for carrier ops, they never were. Harriers were, and all aircraft which see service on carriers around the world were. Whilst it is a shame that we are retiring our carrier fleet early and ahead of schedule I see the logic in it..[/QUOTE] Well ain't it a crying shame that argentina has recently been acting like it wants to make another move on the falklands, and oddly enough we are in pretty much the exact same situation as we were when the last crisis happened, about to decommission an aircraft carrier. Mind you last time we had aircraft that could operate of carriers, this time we won't since we have scrapped the harrier and don't have the joint strike fighter in our arsenal yet.
[QUOTE=MasterG;25510970]Welp, if I was Argentina, I'd be launching a retaking of the falklands right about now. UK's armed forces are busy in Afghanistan Our main ally, the USA, is busy in its own shit in Afghanistan We now have fuckall air superiority. Hell, they could launch a fucking assault on the UK itself, and we'd be hard-pressed to fight back with only the current jets we have. It's a fucking joke.[/QUOTE] Thankfully we have a few subs that could do a great deal of fighting for us, but presumably after the last war they learned a lesson after the Belgrano was sunk by a WW2 torpedo.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25510613]I don't see why a large army is instantly seen as a sign that someone wants to go out into the world looking for a fight. It's what the army is used for. And you putting words in my mouth then drawing conclusions from it? like usual warhol.[/QUOTE] For a paranoid fucking delusion, wasting money and lives is now good? [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;25510503]What? I never said China and the USA were going to attack Cuba - I was merely comparing their military strength and how this reflects on how likely they would be to be attacked as a result.[/QUOTE] Who would attack Cuba then?
[QUOTE=Warhol;25511076] Who would attack Cuba then?[/QUOTE] USA, eventually.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25511014]Thankfully we have a few subs that could do a great deal of fighting for us, but presumably after the last war they learned a lesson after the Belgrano was sunk by a WW2 torpedo.[/QUOTE] This is assuming they'll do anything of the sort. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] which they won't
[QUOTE=bravehat;25510920]Well ain't it a crying shame that argentina has recently been acting like it wants to make another move on the falklands, and oddly enough we are in pretty much the exact same situation as we were when the last crisis happened, about to decommission an aircraft carrier. Mind you last time we had aircraft that could operate of carriers, this time we won't since we have scrapped the harrier and don't have the joint strike fighter in our arsenal yet.[/QUOTE] Indeed. It's not like we have the balls to go on an offensive these days either; do you really see David Cameron giving the go to conduct what could be full scale war with Argentina? Personally, I don't. If push came to shove and Argentina made a move on the Falklands again, although I would like to see every carrier vessel sail from Plymouth and make best speed toward the Falklands I doubt it would happen. The Harriers we have are serviceable and still in active service, but I daresay by the end of 2011 we'll be seeing the last of them going.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25511076]For a paranoid fucking delusion, wasting money and lives is now good? [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Who would attack Cuba then?[/QUOTE] Allow me to rephrase, it doesn't matter the size of the army, it matters how it is used and what it is used for. And dude I really don't care if you think everyone should join hands, make each other daisy chains and sign happy songs, but most of us live in the real world and realise that shit will happen in the future, a strong army allows one to handle any shit thrown their way. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;25511103]This is assuming they'll do anything of the sort. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] which they won't[/QUOTE] ...if britian was invaded I'm pretty sure that cameron would give the all clear to go fucking nuclear, never mind sinking a couple of fucking boats in coastal waters. The falklands though, probably not despite the fact that a sizeable chunk of the islanders like to see themselves as british.
[QUOTE=runtime;25511128]Indeed. It's not like we have the balls to go on an offensive these days either; do you really see David Cameron giving the go to conduct what could be full scale war with Argentina? Personally, I don't. If push came to shove and Argentina made a move on the Falklands again, although I would like to see every carrier vessel sail from Plymouth and make best speed toward the Falklands I doubt it would happen. The Harriers we have are serviceable and still in active service, but I daresay by the end of 2011 we'll be seeing the last of them going.[/QUOTE] Oh sure, only pussies don't engage in pre-emptive wars! Lets just fucking bomb anyone we don't like. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;25511198]Allow me to rephrase, it doesn't matter the size of the army, it matters how it is used and what it is used for. And dude I really don't care if you think everyone should join hands, make each other daisy chains and sign happy songs, but most of us live in the real world and realise that shit will happen in the future, a strong army allows one to handle any shit thrown their way. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] ...if britian was invaded I'm pretty sure that cameron would give the all clear to go fucking nuclear, never mind sinking a couple of fucking boats in coastal waters.[/QUOTE] I severely doubt Cameron would use nuclear weapons. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Wow, you are one blood thirsty cunt. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Argentina isn't going to fucking invade England.
If Britian was being invaded by a conventional army, I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons would be authorised. Low yield of course.
First of all, they're not going to be. second of all, what kind of proof or even logic do you have that they will? Third, who is going to invade England?
[QUOTE=bravehat;25511276]If Britian was being invaded by a conventional army, I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons would be authorised. Low yield of course.[/QUOTE] ohdeargod Are you serious?
Cameron tried calming everyone down by telling us "we're not cutting military equipment and funding because of one of the worst econimic crisis's this countries ever been in". It fucking is. It fucking, is......
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.