You have serious issues discussing this topic in any form that is remotely mature, or civil. You are turning a discussion about Brittian rewing thier nuclear arsenal into a debate over wich country can pwn wich in war; one that you stear in wichever direction you wish to stear it by accusing others of implying ideas or beliefs. Thank you for ruining this thread, I was having fun till I read this and the last post you made.
The purpose of nuclear weapons is to pwn other countries in a war. That's what they are for. The critical importance of the the nuclear bomb is which countries it enables you to pwn. NOW IM JUST SCARED!
Sorry if I ruined your fun. I've been enjoying the thread too. (And others you've taken the time to post in also).
The implication from all your words that I have been taking is American Pwns All. America = Good. Russia = Evil. Sorry but that really is a bit too comic book mentality for me not to take you up on it. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I NEITHER SAID, NOR IMPLIDE THIS. I TYPED WHAT I SAID AND IMPLIED. YOU ARE IMAGINING THINGS!!!!
You view of history is American centric. I have attempted to offer you something of an alternative that is also true. I do not think it is possible to gain a balanced perspective of events without looking at all the angles.
I'm really not trying to dispute that Hamas used American Made Kevlar or M16's. I'm totally willing to take your word for it.
Dude, I don't want to reply, I try not to, but..
Damn! Really, damn! I mean wow man. That....
Crazy.
Just crazy.
So basically what you're saying is that I wouldn't have to type something for you to read it? Regardless of what I type you'll simply see what you wish?
Yes, when you type your opinions, I will begin to form idea's about your personality.
If all your opinions follow or contain a discernable theme, pattern or motif, I may well pick up on it.
It's not just the words people say that help you understand them. It's also what they don't say, they way they say it, and many many other things. You don't explicitly have to spell everything out for people to know things about you or recognise familiar personality traits.
Every soverign nation would be considering its defence in the face of US aggression.
Im not sugessting the US would attack the UK (although its not improbable). But the doctrine of pre-emption puts many otherwise peaceful nations on edge, then they tool up, so others have to as well.
Far from making the world a safer place, US policy has made it radically more dangerous and uncertain. The politics of fear are both the simplest and most effective politics of all.
Actually not so many other countries are perfectly capable of getting facist with us. Yours isn't for example. And if any country does blow us all up, we shall go to our graves with the smug satisfaction, that we took them all with us. Hey. Don't dis my country. We got top biological research facilities. We could make some awesome chem weaps to wipe you out!
And yes any foreign resident gets to vote here. All you need is an address to register. EU, U.S. Campuchean. You live here you get to vote. I know, I know, it's so xenophobic of us. That's one of those well before it's time things Britain has given the world. Is this really true? If it is, then hooray for beating fearmongering, xenophobia and nationalism on one front.
And no, Europeans cannot travel freely without beurocracy and papers. Have you tried it recently? Go to an airport see how far you get. Air travel has gotten more difficult, I'll hand you that. But go interrailing. It's fun and requires little time to prepare for.
Yes all countries in the EU are pursuing their own agendas. And yes they aren't necessarily my agendas. Now you are starting to understand. We are rivals. Not one great big unified supernation of mutual love. Now if all those countries agenda's that weren't my aganda's turned out to be very detrimental to our own agenda's, or worse dangerous to our populous, we might bomb you. Or drive tanks through your houses. We'd like you to bear that in mind during any diplomatic negotiation with us. What I meant to say was there's a number of different people from Britain as well with different agenda's who will connect with other people with similar agendas from different countries as much or more than with the Brits in the parliament. Of course we're not a big happy family. People with different backgrounds and different opinions will have disagreements. But they do not hire killers to kill each other. This is how things are in your house of commons as well, and in the parliaments of any other democratic country.
Obviously being the nice Eurofriendly information age people you are, all you agenda's will actually be highly beneficial to us anyway, so that's not something we really have to dwell on too much, I shouldn't think. Not every politician/person in Finland is Eurofriendly, and not every person/politician from the UK is Eurofriendly.
The length of that border? Currently. 1269km on dry land 1324km with lakes included. Significan land areas that increase the land are were in control of Finland that time so the total border length would be somewhere areound 1400km.
What is it? four roads in? Not many roads, but this doesn't excuse the fact that there were no recon troops to scout the few roads for ambushes.
How many roads on that border are capable of supporting the weight of a tank. Russians had quite mobile tanks that could move through the forest. The forest trails were made for heavy trucks and tractors that would carry lumber.
How many bridges can I blow that will not only totally stop that advance but trap an entire army in the base of a valley to be picked of by snipers in the mountains. Not a lot of rivers, many lakes. Also pioneers can easily construct bridges, and could do it even back then.
How many of those roads go past mountains and hills. How many supply trucks can one man ambush in that kind of terrain. Again. Finland has no mountains. No deep valleys either. The hills I've seen would not be ideal places for ambush through sustained fire, especially since Finnish troops had extremely limited ammunition. The way convoys would be immobilized would be to take out the first and last trucks, and leaving the enemy to freeze themselves in the cold, and terrorizing any that would try to escape.
Have a look at the casualty rates for the fighting in Italy. See what the Germans did to the allies at Monte Casino. See the kill ratio there. That's a similar kind of fight, except the allies had a veteran army and the ability to manouvre up and down the coast with marine landings while the Russians in Finland had no such option. Finland had limited ammo, not enough weapons for all it's men, only 30 tanks and 130 planes (compared to 1,000 and 3,800) and minimal artillery support (the Finnish lines were under constant bombardment). The Russians could have attempted maneouvers, and did attempt maneouvers over the ice on lake Ladoga and the gulf of Finland. These were thwarted by the only real artillery Finland had, coastal cannons. And on lake Ladoga by pioneer sappers. Read up on the Winter war. It's quite interesting. The conditions were on Finland's side, as was all the military genious. The Russians only had brute force, and it failed.
The main reasons the Russians failed in Finland: Low morale of troops(mainly brought in from Caucasus and Tschetchenya and other such places), and the use of an own secret police that could shoot officers if they disagreed with them. The Russians had also killed 90% of their generals since they were aristocracy and had oppressed the workers. They focused their forces primarily on the Karelian Isthmus, the only place where Finland had any real fortified defences. The forces were not equipped for the unnaturally cold down to -40 celcius winter conditions of 1939-1940.
hehe oh yer. Forgot what this thread was originally about. Hope i Didnt come across nasty babuun. The world you see would be great to live in but I'm just a scinic I really cant see it . Hopefull I'm wrong. But as to the op I Give thumbs up to replacing trident not adding to it.
Sorry for the derail. I've been a smartass prick as well so I guess we're even I don't believe I'll see a warless world either, but at least we could try to take care of nukes or chem weaps that flay the flesh off your bones and stuff like this
Lets see if I understand this Defence of Finland thing. In 1939. The Russian army invades Finland. Finland Defeats Russia, therefore the Germany army are weak. WTF. The Russian army in 1939 were a ragtag bunch with archaic weapons and no officer corp. They were fighting in a mountainous region where defense is traditionally very easy and large open tank warfare impossible. You beat the Russians. Gratz. Last time we fought them. We got as far as Sebastopol. How far did you get? What's that you say, you didn't make it outside of your own country? O. You couldn't even hammer the Russians? It's a good thing you never met the Germans really then isn't it. They took the same Russians you fought all the way back to Moscow and Stalingrad.
Had to answer to this still. NO MOUNTAINS IN FINLAND. THE HILLS ARE NOT STEEP AT ALL, EITHER.
After defending itself during the Winter War, Finland did attack Russia in the continuation war, and did make it far into Karelia. Because Finland saw there was no help coming from the Allies, they made a pact with Germany. The Germans made it far into Russia as well. However, the Russians DID start beating the Germans back... Along with the Finns. The rag tag bunch got their act together, utilised some excellent multi-purpose tanks (compared to the assault only German tanks), and overpowered German and Finnish forces alike. For this Finland had to: A. Pay humongous war reparations (that would help the country fully industrialize as well on a positive note). B. Lost mineral rich areas and lost it's coastal access to the Arctic Ocean in the north and strategically important areas in Karelia. C. Got Lapland sacked, looted and landmined by the Germans for failing them. D. Had to live 50 years in the shadow of Russia, having to please both it's western democratic counterparts and the Soviet Union and communist countries.
But Finland moved on from this. Why? Because it's about time we (any country referring to democracy in it's constitution) put fascism behind us and became the democracies we set out to be.
Likewise a few years later British and French forces regrouped and re-armed and beat the Germans.
(Apologies for my incredably weak Finnish Geography, I've yet to have the pleasure of visiting).
This democratic nation has always hired killers to settle it's disputes, since long before it became democratic. Most nations do. In fact I can't think of one that doesn't.
Finnish chemical weapons? You could make some, I'm sure. So could we. Oh wait a minute, we already have. What you could have is not the same as what you do have. I could get a black belt in Kung Fu, but if I am in a fight, it's the belt I DO have that is going to count. We have nukes we have chem weapons. Ready to launch, right now. Today. Within a minute or two, your factories won't have time to start production if we don't want them to. The same goes for almost every other nation on the planet. There are very few people capable of putting up a fight and this is how it should be. The less people capable of defeating us, the safer we are.
There aren't any guarentee's of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take as many steps as we can in that direction.
hehe oh yer. Forgot what this thread was originally about. Hope i Didnt come across nasty babuun. The world you see would be great to live in but I'm just a scinic I really cant see it . Hopefull I'm wrong. But as to the op I Give thumbs up to replacing trident not adding to it.
Sorry for the derail. I've been a smartass prick as well so I guess we're even I don't believe I'll see a warless world either, but at least we could try to take care of nukes or chem weaps that flay the flesh off your bones and stuff like this
Like all weapons, the idea is that they flay the flesh off your enemies bones and not yours.
I don't want my enemies to have flesh on their bones. This is not in my best intrests. If all my enemies were dead the world would be a better place.
I personally prefer universal nuclear disarmament. No one really benefits by anyone else having nuclear weapons, so no one should have them. Everyone should stick to conventional weapons. The only reason we (Americans) and the British are developing new nukes is because we dont want to get caught with our pants down when China takes over the world.
Likewise a few years later British and French forces regrouped and re-armed and beat the Germans. Also the Germans were fighting on too many fronts on top of this. And they weren't fighting the Blitzkrieg their armies (especially the armoured divisions) were designed for. Soviet armies (and especially the armour divisions) were multi-purpose. The Soviets helped the Allies at least as much as the Allies helped the Soviets.
(Apologies for my incredably weak Finnish Geography, I've yet to have the pleasure of visiting). Finland isn't really such a tremendous place to visit . And I understand why you would think we had mountains. We have tundra (with a few extremely gentle sloped and eroded mountains) in the very north, which is probably the only thing you hear about Finland, since it's the only definite travel location that can be advertised. Also we have no polar bears nor eskimos.
This democratic nation has always hired killers to settle it's disputes, since long before it became democratic. Most nations do. In fact I can't think of one that doesn't. Political assassinations are far and wide, and target dictators. You can argue that the army is a group of killers, but the primary purpose of any national army is defence first. If an army cannot defend it's base of operations, it's doomed. And defending means someone else will have to proclaim themselves the killers and you'll just be stopping their attempts.
Finnish chemical weapons? You could make some, I'm sure. So could we. Oh wait a minute, we already have. What you could have is not the same as what you do have. I could get a black belt in Kung Fu, but if I am in a fight, it's the belt I DO have that is going to count. We have nukes we have chem weapons. Ready to launch, right now. Today. Within a minute or two, your factories won't have time to start production if we don't want them to. The same goes for almost every other nation on the planet. There are very few people capable of putting up a fight and this is how it should be. The less people capable of defeating us, the safer we are. Finland would not make chemical weapons. It was a satirical comment. We would have to rely on luck to deploy them since we don't have enough planes nor powerful enough ballistic/missile weapons to hurl them anywhere else but Sweden or Russia. Or quite uninhabited parts of Norway. There would definitely be guerilla groups if Finland was invaded by fascists. And ethnic cleansing isn't as easy as it sounds. Especially in a country covered in forests to hide in. There's always agent orange of course.
There aren't any guarentee's of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take as many steps as we can in that direction. There are no guarantees of you (as a person) not going to poison me at any minute so I'll just carry some antidotes and a gun just in case. And if I get food poisoning, you're getting the bullet, no matter what the food poisoning's from.
Course we bloody should, I can't see what sense it'd make to get rid of them! The only people that want us to do so are lefties with no sense of reality what-so-ever.
There aren't any guarentee's of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take as many steps as we can in that direction. There are no guarantees of you (as a person) not going to poison me at any minute so I'll just carry some antidotes and a gun just in case. And if I get food poisoning, you're getting the bullet, no matter what the food poisoning's from.
Attaboy. That's the spirit.
Keep that up and I'll be poison testing your every meal in no time. At least I would if I didn't have a gun of my own. Got to keep up with the Jones.
My geography of Finalnd comes form Strategic Simulations Steel Panthers Game, which has a little Finland Vs Russia scenario. It looks like Finland is going to get totally creamed, but they don't. You could write what I know about Finland on the back of a matchbox, I'll have to rely on you for all the Finnish expertise if that's alright?
My grandfather was preparing for the massive invasion of Japan during WW2...seeing how my grandfather had already surived being shot down twice during the Pacific campaign and survived the D-Day landing at Normandy...
This is totally off topic, but your grandpa basically owns all.
Comments
The purpose of nuclear weapons is to pwn other countries in a war. That's what they are for. The critical importance of the the nuclear bomb is which countries it enables you to pwn. NOW IM JUST SCARED!
Sorry if I ruined your fun. I've been enjoying the thread too. (And others you've taken the time to post in also).
The implication from all your words that I have been taking is American Pwns All. America = Good. Russia = Evil. Sorry but that really is a bit too comic book mentality for me not to take you up on it. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I NEITHER SAID, NOR IMPLIDE THIS. I TYPED WHAT I SAID AND IMPLIED. YOU ARE IMAGINING THINGS!!!!
You view of history is American centric. I have attempted to offer you something of an alternative that is also true. I do not think it is possible to gain a balanced perspective of events without looking at all the angles.
I'm really not trying to dispute that Hamas used American Made Kevlar or M16's. I'm totally willing to take your word for it.
Dude, I don't want to reply, I try not to, but..
Damn! Really, damn! I mean wow man. That....
Crazy.
Just crazy.
So basically what you're saying is that I wouldn't have to type something for you to read it? Regardless of what I type you'll simply see what you wish?
Wow, man. Just wow.
Yes, when you type your opinions, I will begin to form idea's about your personality.
If all your opinions follow or contain a discernable theme, pattern or motif, I may well pick up on it.
It's not just the words people say that help you understand them. It's also what they don't say, they way they say it, and many many other things. You don't explicitly have to spell everything out for people to know things about you or recognise familiar personality traits.
Every soverign nation would be considering its defence in the face of US aggression.
Im not sugessting the US would attack the UK (although its not improbable). But the doctrine of pre-emption puts many otherwise peaceful nations on edge, then they tool up, so others have to as well.
Far from making the world a safer place, US policy has made it radically more dangerous and uncertain. The politics of fear are both the simplest and most effective politics of all.
After defending itself during the Winter War, Finland did attack Russia in the continuation war, and did make it far into Karelia. Because Finland saw there was no help coming from the Allies, they made a pact with Germany. The Germans made it far into Russia as well. However, the Russians DID start beating the Germans back... Along with the Finns. The rag tag bunch got their act together, utilised some excellent multi-purpose tanks (compared to the assault only German tanks), and overpowered German and Finnish forces alike. For this Finland had to: A. Pay humongous war reparations (that would help the country fully industrialize as well on a positive note). B. Lost mineral rich areas and lost it's coastal access to the Arctic Ocean in the north and strategically important areas in Karelia. C. Got Lapland sacked, looted and landmined by the Germans for failing them. D. Had to live 50 years in the shadow of Russia, having to please both it's western democratic counterparts and the Soviet Union and communist countries.
But Finland moved on from this. Why? Because it's about time we (any country referring to democracy in it's constitution) put fascism behind us and became the democracies we set out to be.
Likewise a few years later British and French forces regrouped and re-armed and beat the Germans.
(Apologies for my incredably weak Finnish Geography, I've yet to have the pleasure of visiting).
This democratic nation has always hired killers to settle it's disputes, since long before it became democratic. Most nations do. In fact I can't think of one that doesn't.
Finnish chemical weapons? You could make some, I'm sure. So could we. Oh wait a minute, we already have. What you could have is not the same as what you do have. I could get a black belt in Kung Fu, but if I am in a fight, it's the belt I DO have that is going to count. We have nukes we have chem weapons. Ready to launch, right now. Today. Within a minute or two, your factories won't have time to start production if we don't want them to. The same goes for almost every other nation on the planet. There are very few people capable of putting up a fight and this is how it should be. The less people capable of defeating us, the safer we are.
There aren't any guarentee's of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take as many steps as we can in that direction.
Like all weapons, the idea is that they flay the flesh off your enemies bones and not yours.
I don't want my enemies to have flesh on their bones. This is not in my best intrests. If all my enemies were dead the world would be a better place.
Attaboy. That's the spirit.
Keep that up and I'll be poison testing your every meal in no time. At least I would if I didn't have a gun of my own. Got to keep up with the Jones.
My geography of Finalnd comes form Strategic Simulations Steel Panthers Game, which has a little Finland Vs Russia scenario. It looks like Finland is going to get totally creamed, but they don't. You could write what I know about Finland on the back of a matchbox, I'll have to rely on you for all the Finnish expertise if that's alright?
"Kaneda! What...do you see?"