Russian-Belarussian Wargames - "West 2009"

[garbon]

Strange that Korea accused me of thinking all adults should be sluts...

[Alcibiades]

She seems to be taking that idea to heart.   

[Josquius]

I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Britain is one of the nations which really needs a military yes- if at least because we'd lose our security council seat without it.
And the world certainly has gotten safer since the end of the cold war. This war on terror stuff is a joke compared to a real war.
Or are you referring to Russia still being the bad guy? True there but they're not quite so bad as the soviets were- they're ruled by buisnessmen and any move against the west would ruin their economy before a shot is even fired. Also of course they're smaller, have no decent allies of note and their military is a shambles.

And when the "real world" comes a calling, who do you complain to?

On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.

You strike me as a hopeless optimist - yes, near neighbours in Europe are less likely to attack each other than ever before. This does not mean that only one or two nations in the world are likely to wage war - I can think of a dozen candidates off the top of my head.

I'm a realist, not a optimist. The world just doesn't work like a strategy game. Britain could invade and overrun Ireland in five minutes....but that's stupid. There's no way they're ever going to do that.

And as for relying on the Americans, as an example they don't seem to be very interested in sub-Saharan Africa, where several invasions have happened in the last few years. The Western Powers don't even really notice them.

We're not speaking about Africa though, I specifically said western Europe.
Nations in Africa work by completely different rules to the rest of the world.
But nonetheless actual foreign invasions remain rare there. Its far far more internal rebels and the like that make Africa a shit hole. I really struggle to think of any actual invasions in the last few years barring Ethopian involvment in Somalia and Eritrea's little local squabbles.

Incidentally, since viable defence industries really need a decent home market to develop in, I have to say that the Armed Forces have been fairly economically beneficial to the UK over the years, so I can't really agree with the "less you have the better" argument.

Yes, see the mention of economic effects.
I'd still doubt though that Britain makes a net profit out of military stuff, foreign sales help recoup some costs but not much.

[jimmy olsen]

I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Britain is one of the nations which really needs a military yes- if at least because we'd lose our security council seat without it.
And the world certainly has gotten safer since the end of the cold war. This war on terror stuff is a joke compared to a real war.

Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.

[Admiral Yi]

On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.

You must be joking.

[Sheilbh]

Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.

That's not true.

[Berkut]

Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.

That's not true.

Don't you think he would know better than you whether he disagrees? Or are you questioning the vehemence of said disagreement?

[Valmy]

the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.

[Admiral Yi]

Definitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.

[MadImmortalMan]

Swingers.   

I thought it was a pretty good movie.

The answering machine scene always annoys me. Yet, its genius always impresses me.

[derspiess]

Definitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.

More dangerous in some parts of the world (though less so for the civilized world).  Definitely less stable.

[Josquius]

On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.

You must be joking.

No.
How?

[Admiral Yi]

No.
How?

When did the UN get anyone to do anything?  The only reason the US led coalition in Korea had UN sanction is because the Russkies were off pouting.  There have been plenty of cross-boarder invasions the UN has done Jack Shit about--Suez 56, Israel 67, Israel 73, India-Pakistan 1.0 & 2.0, India-China, China-Vietnam, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68, South Vietnam-North Vietnam 76 (?), Iran-Iraq, Falklands, there are probably others. 

The one great shining example of UN authorized force is Iraq-Kuwait.  So let me ask you again: who did the UN convince to take part?  Not the Egyptians, who had to be bribed with loan foregiveness from the US.  Not the Syrians, who had to be bought off with a free hand in Lebanon.  Not the Gulf states, who were fighting for survival.  If you want to claim a Danish minesweeper and a Norwegian hospital ship, fine.

[Josquius]

When did the UN get anyone to do anything?  The only reason the US led coalition in Korea had UN sanction is because the Russkies were off pouting.  There have been plenty of cross-boarder invasions the UN has done Jack Shit about--

Suez 56, Israel 67, Israel 73, India-Pakistan 1.0 & 2.0, India-China, China-Vietnam, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68, South Vietnam-North Vietnam 76 (?), Iran-Iraq, Falklands, there are probably others. 

Vietnam is pretty much the only semi-relevant one and these these events were during the cold war. The world was a very different place back then.
Even with this though...

Suez- the UN sorted the situation.
Israel- neither side were listening to the UN. Not really relevant here anyway as the defender won. Had Israel been overran and conquered then you would have saw something.
Kashmir- The UN did arrange a cease fire on both occasions.
Falklands- The UK won before the UN could do anything.
Iran-Iraq- Both sides thought they could win and fought hard, it was the UN who eventually arranged the cease fire.
Hungary/Czechs- Not officially cross border invasions. The local governments asked the Soviets in to help against the rebels. And of course, the UN isn't going to encourage WW3, its job is not to do that.

The one great shining example of UN authorized force is Iraq-Kuwait.  So let me ask you again: who did the UN convince to take part?  Not the Egyptians, who had to be bribed with loan foregiveness from the US.  Not the Syrians, who had to be bought off with a free hand in Lebanon.  Not the Gulf states, who were fighting for survival.  If you want to claim a Danish minesweeper and a Norwegian hospital ship, fine.

The US, UK, Canada, Saudi, France, etc....

[Viking]

The UN has fought 2 wars and authorized 1. The UN fought and won WWII. The UN fought the Korean War and signed a ceasefire. The UN explicitly authorized the first Gulf War.