Citizens Army, Whose up for it

[Dogbert]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

[Glaston]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Its amazing the number of senior Generals all around Europe singing from the same play book.
Belgium, Dutch, German, Swedish, Finnish and now the Brits all want to prepare for the next war.

[fishfoodie]

I can see it now.





You can tell it's an Election year, & they're under pressure, as they're rolling out all the old favorites

- Conscription

Now we're waiting for:

- Longer Prison Sentences for everything
- Bring back the Birch
- The Death Penalty

[Hal Jordan]

I'm afraid I am and always have been ineligible, due to epilepsy. But have no fear, I will stay behind doing essential war work, such as comforting the fretful ladies whilst their loved ones are at the front.

[Blackmac]

I think my bone spurs rule me out.

[Blackmac]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Melted cheese and bacon grill mixed together. Food of champions.

[Tichtheid]

Isn't this just an out-going Big Kahuna of the military saying that we should be spending more on a professional armed service, and if we don't we get Captain Mainwaring and all that?

edit - not saying he's wrong, btw

[Jock42]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Been a regular, about to leave the Reserves would this give me the hat-trick?

[Paddington Bear]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Been a regular, about to leave the Reserves would this give me the hat-trick?

I think you go back in at the rank of Lieutenant-General. People like myself who have won internet arguments and had a positive KD on Call of Duty will command battalions.



I don’t actually think he’s wrong, but I question what their plan is to train and equip a mass army.

[Sandstorm]

I’m happy to be a cook.

[Dogbert]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Melted cheese and bacon grill mixed together. Food of champions.

[inactionman]

I'm out. I'm not sure I'd trust any organisation stupid enough to give me a gun.

[sockwithaticket]

Isn't this just an out-going Big Kahuna of the military saying that we should be spending more on a professional armed service, and if we don't we get Captain Mainwaring and all that?

edit - not saying he's wrong, btw

Basically. Of course in the midst of a cost of living crisis and services being in the poorest state in a generation, the public maybe doesn't have the appetite for increased defence spending, so he's putting an unpalatable alternative out there for everyone to chew over.

[Niegs]

Still taking Commonwealth citizens? I'm a bit old and fat for the front line, but I'd be a non-corrupt supply and logistics Sgt.

[Chilli]

I can see it now.

You do not have my permission to post a photo of me.

Please remove it or I'll get you banned.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ASMO]

I can see it now.

You do not have my permission to post a photo of me.

Please remove it or I'll get you banned.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chilli i thought this was a pic of you

[geordie_6]

Yeah, MURICA!!

Wait, no...

[I like neeps]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

[Jock42]

Sine we are in the hiatus of no rugby till the 6N

Now that the Tories ( the party that prides itself on Defence, although I suspect Labour would be no better ) have gutted the Army

General Sir Patrick Sanders - the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) has suggested that Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on to stave off the Russian Hordes

I'm in on 2 provisos

1. I get my SLR back - none of your SA80 nonsense

2. Limitless supplies of Menu A ration packs - Bacon Grill / Oatmeal Blocks / Chicken Curry , and Spangles and a brew from a Hexi cooker

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68086188

Who else is in, and what are your demands

Been a regular, about to leave the Reserves would this give me the hat-trick?

I think you go back in at the rank of Lieutenant-General. People like myself who have won internet arguments and had a positive KD on Call of Duty will command battalions.



I don’t actually think he’s wrong, but I question what their plan is to train and equip a mass army.

I'll take that (and the pension that goes with it), I'm in.

It's a passive aggressive shot across the bow at the reduction of HM Forces. Even with troops numbers of the 70s and 80s conscription would be instated for a war with Russia. I get the comparison with the late 1930s but I don't think we're at that stage although I'm sure there were many that said that. I do whole heartedly agree with bolstering the Forces though.

[Paddington Bear]

Been a regular, about to leave the Reserves would this give me the hat-trick?

I think you go back in at the rank of Lieutenant-General. People like myself who have won internet arguments and had a positive KD on Call of Duty will command battalions.



I don’t actually think he’s wrong, but I question what their plan is to train and equip a mass army.

I'll take that (and the pension that goes with it), I'm in.

It's a passive aggressive shot across the bow at the reduction of HM Forces. Even with troops numbers of the 70s and 80s conscription would be instated for a war with Russia. I get the comparison with the late 1930s but I don't think we're at that stage although I'm sure there were many that said that. I do whole heartedly agree with bolstering the Forces though.

I remain convinced that a large reserve is the way to go, not mandatory but strongly encouraged. Finland (aware there’s is mandatory and the threat very immediate), give you mandatory time off in addition to your holiday for reserve training. Pretty sure there’s preferential tax treatment as well.

I can’t pretend this is fully thought out, but I’m reasonably confident there are a lot of us out there who would be persuadable to be part of some sort of reserve if it didn’t have likely career consequences and bugger up every weekend. Oh and also because the army is so short staffed, the blokes I do know in the reserves are deployed pretty much all the time anyway, which defeats the purpose

[inactionman]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

[I like neeps]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

I get the thought that if Russia invaded Finland or Poland the US might not want to destroy the planet. But by the time Russia has even got to the UK they've have to have destroyed so much of Europe including multiple NATO members seems vanishingly unlikely the UKs citizens army wouldn't mostly be radioactive dust like the rest of the world.

[inactionman]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

We're not Russia though. I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you suggesting/questioning if we'd nuke Russia if they invaded?

We'd fight conventional wars with conventional arms, not much point everyone and everything being turned to ash and glass.

[I like neeps]

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

We're not Russia though. I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you suggesting/questioning if we'd nuke Russia if they invaded?

We'd fight conventional wars with conventional arms, not much point everyone and everything being turned to ash and glass.

Yes I expanded on the below but it seems incredibly unlikely that Russia could invade the UK without a nuclear war having already been triggered. And it doesn't make sense to have nukes if we don't use them as a foreign power invades.

[Chilli2]

I can see it now.

You do not have my permission to post a photo of me.

Please remove it or I'll get you banned.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chilli i thought this was a pic of you

The first pic was taken before I got fat.

Please ban yourself.

[inactionman]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

I get the thought that if Russia invaded Finland or Poland the US might not want to destroy the planet. But by the time Russia has even got to the UK they've have to have destroyed so much of Europe including multiple NATO members seems vanishingly unlikely the UKs citizens army wouldn't mostly be radioactive dust like the rest of the world.

Missed your additional second paragraph.

Our strategic deterrent (nukes) are on submarines so our ability to launch nuclear weapons is not tied to any situation on land. They are two separate things.

If Russia launched nuclear weapons (note - strategic only, jury's out on what response to tactical would be although it's been discussed in relation to Ukraine) it would be up to the PM what the response is (it's pre-canned but not declared - otherwise what's the point in MAD?), but it's generally accepted that Russia would at that point exist for only as long as the flightime of trident.

To cut to chase- if Russia tried to use nuclear weapons to obtain land grabs or fight expeditionary wars, Russia would in all likelihood be destroyed. That's the justification for nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly.

[Brazil]

We'd need a big army to replace losses incurred during a land war in Europe that had invoked treaty obligations. It's likely that our current army would be BEF'd pretty early on given what we've seen in Ukraine, where both sides have had to reconstitute their armies one and half times since the start of the war.

Like Jock says above, this is a swipe at a Tory Government that, being the party of patriotism and defence, has cut our armed forces to the bone. Again.

[I like neeps]

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

I get the thought that if Russia invaded Finland or Poland the US might not want to destroy the planet. But by the time Russia has even got to the UK they've have to have destroyed so much of Europe including multiple NATO members seems vanishingly unlikely the UKs citizens army wouldn't mostly be radioactive dust like the rest of the world.

Missed your additional second paragraph.

Our strategic deterrent (nukes) are on submarines so our ability to launch nuclear weapons is not tied to any situation on land. They are two separate things.

If Russia launched nuclear weapons (note - strategic only, jury's out on what response to tactical would be although it's been discussed in relation to Ukraine) it would be up to the PM what the response is (it's pre-canned but not declared - otherwise what's the point in MAD?), but it's generally accepted that Russia would at that point exist for only as long as the flightime of trident.

To cut to chase- if Russia tried to use nuclear weapons to obtain land grabs or fight expeditionary wars, Russia would in all likelihood be destroyed. That's the justification for nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly.

Oh I see it's sending the citizens army to Poland/Finland to fight for NATO and not Russia somehow conquering Europe and getting to Great Britain despite (a) their lack of equipment and manpower to do that and (b) destroying most of NATO without somehow causing nuclear Armageddon.

I genuinely can't forsee a NATO Russia hot war that doesn't result in nuclear Armageddon fwiw.

[Jock42]

I think you go back in at the rank of Lieutenant-General. People like myself who have won internet arguments and had a positive KD on Call of Duty will command battalions.



I don’t actually think he’s wrong, but I question what their plan is to train and equip a mass army.

I'll take that (and the pension that goes with it), I'm in.

It's a passive aggressive shot across the bow at the reduction of HM Forces. Even with troops numbers of the 70s and 80s conscription would be instated for a war with Russia. I get the comparison with the late 1930s but I don't think we're at that stage although I'm sure there were many that said that. I do whole heartedly agree with bolstering the Forces though.

I remain convinced that a large reserve is the way to go, not mandatory but strongly encouraged. Finland (aware there’s is mandatory and the threat very immediate), give you mandatory time off in addition to your holiday for reserve training. Pretty sure there’s preferential tax treatment as well.

I can’t pretend this is fully thought out, but I’m reasonably confident there are a lot of us out there who would be persuadable to be part of some sort of reserve if it didn’t have likely career consequences and bugger up every weekend. Oh and also because the army is so short staffed, the blokes I do know in the reserves are deployed pretty much all the time anyway, which defeats the purpose

My main reason for leaving is the lack of consideration for my work/life balance. I get 2 weeks leave and an additional 3 days to use for training. The problem is everything is at the weekend (which traditionally worked) and for a medical regiment with a lot of NHS staff this doesn't work. I was using annual leave and shift swaps to make weekends as I work half anyway. The knock on effect of this is that I'm selective in which weekends I go to, it's usually the ones that get me bounty qualified so the weekends where I'm doing some proper trade training (half the reason I signed up, the other being to deploy again) I was missing in order to have a social life. With a larger government incentive to do midweek training days, supplement my working weekends or a change to the way the ITRs are managed would make me rethink leaving. The other issue it often depends on what trade you are to get a deployment, often the regular unit will wait til the last minute to bin your deployment as it costs extra from their budget to use a reservist.

[Blackmac]

If we're scared of a Russian land invasion, what is the justification for the nukes?

Our nukes? Glibly, to dissuade Russia lobbing a Topel-M missile at Piccadilly Circus. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the logic of MAD is pretty clear.

Russia have stated they'll resort to nuclear warfare if the threat to Russia itself was existential, which would presumably (yes, yes) preclude foreign wars of adventure - but no-one in their right mind trusts them.

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

I get the thought that if Russia invaded Finland or Poland the US might not want to destroy the planet. But by the time Russia has even got to the UK they've have to have destroyed so much of Europe including multiple NATO members seems vanishingly unlikely the UKs citizens army wouldn't mostly be radioactive dust like the rest of the world.

Given the decimation of Russia's standing forces in Ukraine and their complete inability to make any decent progress in this war, at what point in the future do we see Russia getting their shit together to take on the rest of Europe.

[TB63]

Blackadder.jpg (122.06 KiB) Viewed 682 times

[inactionman]

Right, but Russia launching a significant land invasion in the UK which has seem they take out a significant portion of our navy and air force to get here is a fairly existential threat to the UK, no?

I get the thought that if Russia invaded Finland or Poland the US might not want to destroy the planet. But by the time Russia has even got to the UK they've have to have destroyed so much of Europe including multiple NATO members seems vanishingly unlikely the UKs citizens army wouldn't mostly be radioactive dust like the rest of the world.

Missed your additional second paragraph.

Our strategic deterrent (nukes) are on submarines so our ability to launch nuclear weapons is not tied to any situation on land. They are two separate things.

If Russia launched nuclear weapons (note - strategic only, jury's out on what response to tactical would be although it's been discussed in relation to Ukraine) it would be up to the PM what the response is (it's pre-canned but not declared - otherwise what's the point in MAD?), but it's generally accepted that Russia would at that point exist for only as long as the flightime of trident.

To cut to chase- if Russia tried to use nuclear weapons to obtain land grabs or fight expeditionary wars, Russia would in all likelihood be destroyed. That's the justification for nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly.

Oh I see it's sending the citizens army to Poland/Finland to fight for NATO and not Russia somehow conquering Europe and getting to Great Britain despite (a) their lack of equipment and manpower to do that and (b) destroying most of NATO without somehow causing nuclear Armageddon.

I genuinely can't forsee a NATO Russia hot war that doesn't result in nuclear Armageddon fwiw.

It's all a rhetorical question, ultimately.

I just can't see a land war in NATO that doesn't see Russia thoroughly spanked conventionally, despite all the doom-mongering. Therefore, I can't really see a land war with NATO. Putin fails utterly in any situation if he resorts to nukes in any meaningful capacity. Therefore I can't really see how it goes nuclear, as I refuse to believe any NATO power will fire nukes first.

Even he'd feel the consequences of nuclear war - at fucking last, you might add - as it wouldn't just be a case of sending a bunch of serfs to die in a foreign land to enrich him and his cronies, this is Moscow being razed.

I expect the usual sad set of proxy wars (Syria, Vietnam etc). I'd wonder about localised use of nukes, just short of invoking doomsday responses, in these proxy wars. Even that is pretty far-fetched, but Putin has effectively used radioactive and biochemical weapons in the UK already.

[Brazil]

I suspect my Bunions would render me hors de combat, but I'd be up for some sort of POLAD role with one-to-two star level perks.

[Dogbert]

Missed your additional second paragraph.

Our strategic deterrent (nukes) are on submarines so our ability to launch nuclear weapons is not tied to any situation on land. They are two separate things.

If Russia launched nuclear weapons (note - strategic only, jury's out on what response to tactical would be although it's been discussed in relation to Ukraine) it would be up to the PM what the response is (it's pre-canned but not declared - otherwise what's the point in MAD?), but it's generally accepted that Russia would at that point exist for only as long as the flightime of trident.

To cut to chase- if Russia tried to use nuclear weapons to obtain land grabs or fight expeditionary wars, Russia would in all likelihood be destroyed. That's the justification for nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly.

Oh I see it's sending the citizens army to Poland/Finland to fight for NATO and not Russia somehow conquering Europe and getting to Great Britain despite (a) their lack of equipment and manpower to do that and (b) destroying most of NATO without somehow causing nuclear Armageddon.

I genuinely can't forsee a NATO Russia hot war that doesn't result in nuclear Armageddon fwiw.

It's all a rhetorical question, ultimately.

I just can't see a land war in NATO that doesn't see Russia thoroughly spanked conventionally, despite all the doom-mongering. Therefore, I can't really see a land war with NATO. Putin fails utterly in any situation if he resorts to nukes in any meaningful capacity. Therefore I can't really see how it goes nuclear, as I refuse to believe any NATO power will fire nukes first.

Even he'd feel the consequences of nuclear war - at fucking last, you might add - as it wouldn't just be a case of sending a bunch of serfs to die in a foreign land to enrich him and his cronies, this is Moscow being razed.

I expect the usual sad set of proxy wars (Syria, Vietnam etc). I'd wonder about localised use of nukes, just short of invoking doomsday responses, in these proxy wars. Even that is pretty far-fetched, but Putin has effectively used radioactive and biochemical weapons in the UK already.

Imagine if Russia destabilised one of the Baltic states,, Estonia for example, and then mounted an invasion similar to Crimea.

Imagine too , that this happens during Trumps second term.
Now Estonia is a member of NATO

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

Do you trust Trump to carry through on the obligation, and if not where does that leave the rest of the NATO members
( For that matter if Trump does get re-elected, and cuts of the military aid to Ukraine - what future for Ukraine )

[PCPhil]

Flat feet. Sorry. But I'll wave you off when you go.

[Hal Jordan]

I would assume tactical nukes are the reason a D-Day style massing of troops for an invasion wouldn't be a thing these days.

[inactionman]

Oh I see it's sending the citizens army to Poland/Finland to fight for NATO and not Russia somehow conquering Europe and getting to Great Britain despite (a) their lack of equipment and manpower to do that and (b) destroying most of NATO without somehow causing nuclear Armageddon.

I genuinely can't forsee a NATO Russia hot war that doesn't result in nuclear Armageddon fwiw.

It's all a rhetorical question, ultimately.

I just can't see a land war in NATO that doesn't see Russia thoroughly spanked conventionally, despite all the doom-mongering. Therefore, I can't really see a land war with NATO. Putin fails utterly in any situation if he resorts to nukes in any meaningful capacity. Therefore I can't really see how it goes nuclear, as I refuse to believe any NATO power will fire nukes first.

Even he'd feel the consequences of nuclear war - at fucking last, you might add - as it wouldn't just be a case of sending a bunch of serfs to die in a foreign land to enrich him and his cronies, this is Moscow being razed.

I expect the usual sad set of proxy wars (Syria, Vietnam etc). I'd wonder about localised use of nukes, just short of invoking doomsday responses, in these proxy wars. Even that is pretty far-fetched, but Putin has effectively used radioactive and biochemical weapons in the UK already.

Imagine if Russia destabilised one of the Baltic states,, Estonia for example, and then mounted an invasion similar to Crimea.

Imagine too , that this happens during Trumps second term.
Now Estonia is a member of NATO

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

Do you trust Trump to carry through on the obligation, and if not where does that leave the rest of the NATO members
( For that matter if Trump does get re-elected, and cuts of the military aid to Ukraine - what future for Ukraine )

How trump mucks up NATO is a whole topic all of itself.

You would hope that NATO would recognise that biting off pieces of NATO piecemeal is just a tactic.

[petej]

We know NATO works because Putin went for the non-NATO easy (in putins opinion) target.

[I like neeps]

Missed your additional second paragraph.

Our strategic deterrent (nukes) are on submarines so our ability to launch nuclear weapons is not tied to any situation on land. They are two separate things.

If Russia launched nuclear weapons (note - strategic only, jury's out on what response to tactical would be although it's been discussed in relation to Ukraine) it would be up to the PM what the response is (it's pre-canned but not declared - otherwise what's the point in MAD?), but it's generally accepted that Russia would at that point exist for only as long as the flightime of trident.

To cut to chase- if Russia tried to use nuclear weapons to obtain land grabs or fight expeditionary wars, Russia would in all likelihood be destroyed. That's the justification for nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly.

Oh I see it's sending the citizens army to Poland/Finland to fight for NATO and not Russia somehow conquering Europe and getting to Great Britain despite (a) their lack of equipment and manpower to do that and (b) destroying most of NATO without somehow causing nuclear Armageddon.

I genuinely can't forsee a NATO Russia hot war that doesn't result in nuclear Armageddon fwiw.

It's all a rhetorical question, ultimately.

I just can't see a land war in NATO that doesn't see Russia thoroughly spanked conventionally, despite all the doom-mongering. Therefore, I can't really see a land war with NATO. Putin fails utterly in any situation if he resorts to nukes in any meaningful capacity. Therefore I can't really see how it goes nuclear, as I refuse to believe any NATO power will fire nukes first.

Even he'd feel the consequences of nuclear war - at fucking last, you might add - as it wouldn't just be a case of sending a bunch of serfs to die in a foreign land to enrich him and his cronies, this is Moscow being razed.

I expect the usual sad set of proxy wars (Syria, Vietnam etc). I'd wonder about localised use of nukes, just short of invoking doomsday responses, in these proxy wars. Even that is pretty far-fetched, but Putin has effectively used radioactive and biochemical weapons in the UK already.

The Russia being spanked is why I think you would see nukes being used. There's no sensible man in Russia waiting to Avery disaster, they've been purged.

[Paddington Bear]

NATO obviously spanks Russia in a long war. In a short war? I’m not convinced European armies have the ammunition and equipment to hold their ground. And we don’t know what China might do that may distract the Americans. Our current defence posture seems like a massive gamble