TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UK, Powerful Country or just a country that follows others
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Project T hmm 1 daisy cutter agianst a group of unorganised indians with stick, i know who i'd bet against

Ok, my lengthy post which compares UK and India has been deleted because of stupid internet explorer error, so I'll keep it short.

India is spending about 10 billion $ per year on its military. It has newest Russian built fighter planes like SU30 and is about to buy an aircraft carrier from Russia. Also, it has larger GDP purchasing power parity, larger GDP growth rate (5% compared to 2.9%), and its population growth rate is about 1.5% while the british is 0.24%. India is not what it was 20+ years ago.

On the other hand, british SA80 guns have frequently shown not to work in desert/swamp/you name it conditions, while the good old AK47s function perfectly in any environment. The british navy excercises don't enclude firing real ammo, but the soldiers are supposed to yel "boom" instead. In Ivory coast, the british communication relay went down, and they were forced to communicate with cell phones instead. In Iraq, the brits constituted about 25% of the attacking force, but suffered more than half allied casualties. Oh, yes, let's not forget your coast is guarded by a submarine borrowed from Germany because all the british ones have shown to have problems with the engine core.

Besides, daisy cutters are prohibited by geneva conventions, are they not?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, my lengthy post which compares UK and India has been deleted because of stupid internet explorer error, so I'll keep it short. India is spending about 10 billion $ per year on its military. It has newest Russian built fighter planes like SU30 and is about to buy an aircraft carrier from Russia. Also, it has larger GDP purchasing power parity, larger GDP growth rate (5% compared to 2.9%), and its population growth rate is about 1.5% while the british is 0.24%. India is not what it was 20+ years ago. On the other hand, british SA80 guns have frequently shown not to work in desert/swamp/you name it conditions, while the good old AK47s function perfectly in any environment. The british navy excercises don't enclude firing real ammo, but the soldiers are supposed to yel "boom" instead. In Ivory coast, the british communication relay went down, and they were forced to communicate with cell phones instead. In Iraq, the brits constituted about 25% of the attacking force, but suffered more than half allied casualties. Oh, yes, let's not forget your coast is guarded by a submarine borrowed from Germany because all the british ones have shown to have problems with the engine core. Besides, daisy cutters are prohibited by geneva conventions, are they not?

So basically you've listed all the good features of the indian military, and all the bad features of the british military - to try and 'proove' indian superiority. Well you could use this method to proove anything, surely?


Having your neck chopped off vs eating a doughnut

The axe is nice and shiny!

the doughnut is high in fat

therefore its better to have your neck chopped off with an axe than eat a doughnut .

quote:

On the other hand, british SA80 guns have frequently shown not to work in desert/swamp/you name it conditions, while the good old AK47s function perfectly in any environment. The british navy excercises don't enclude firing real ammo, but the soldiers are supposed to yel "boom" instead. In Ivory coast, the british communication relay went down, and they were forced to communicate with cell phones instead. In Iraq, the brits constituted about 25% of the attacking force, but suffered more than half allied casualties. Oh, yes, let's not forget your coast is guarded by a submarine borrowed from Germany because all the british ones have shown to have problems with the engine core.

The British army have contracts with Heckler and Koch and a lot of the problems with the firing bolts in SA80s and the problems with being used in certain enviorments have been getting dealt with and pal you can't fuck with German Engineering. You think the SA80 is the only weapon that gets used, there is the GPMG, Minimi. Lots of units pick their own firearms which they usually use the M4 Carbine complete with all the extras. The radio's which had the problem got replaced by new radio's

Iraq war casulties there was 200,000 troops there by the way. And How many were killed in combat conditions exactly mate? to my knowledge it was about 5 and 20 were killed in transport accidents as their was two big helichoper crashes so I think you can back down out of that arguement mate.

They Don't own one submarine mate theres about 20. No one knows how many protect the UK mainland exactly. And Doe's India have submarines? If they do I bet their old u boats. The British government are spending around 20 Billion pounds on building 3 new aircraft carriers so I wouldn't really call its navy shit.

And a war with India let me think. 20 to each 1 British soldier I'd put my money on a Brit anyday. Think of it this way aswell think of the structure of the governments If London got nuked Britain wouldn't come to a total stand still as the government has many other establishments to command from, the goverment has prepared for it aswell during the cold war so they got lots of practice and are well trained in what to happen in a worst case scenario. Now India I don't know the Government structure but I know if Dehli or Calcutta got nuked the government might be safe but it would be in tatters as a country whats the state of their countries medicine and logistics? They have big enough problems with diease could you imagine it with millions or 100,000s of dead bodies? the disease problem would be a hell of lot worse.

And with the population number remember the Uk is use to fighting populations much vaster then the UKs its always been that way with them. And remember they've fought a lot of countries and been outnumbered in modern and old warefare. Also with India they've been there done that seen the film, read the book got the t shirt.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, my lengthy post which compares UK and India has been deleted because of stupid internet explorer error, so I'll keep it short. India is spending about 10 billion $ per year on its military. It has newest Russian built fighter planes like SU30 and is about to buy an aircraft carrier from Russia. Also, it has larger GDP purchasing power parity, larger GDP growth rate (5% compared to 2.9%), and its population growth rate is about 1.5% while the british is 0.24%. India is not what it was 20+ years ago. On the other hand, british SA80 guns have frequently shown not to work in desert/swamp/you name it conditions, while the good old AK47s function perfectly in any environment. The british navy excercises don't enclude firing real ammo, but the soldiers are supposed to yel "boom" instead. In Ivory coast, the british communication relay went down, and they were forced to communicate with cell phones instead. In Iraq, the brits constituted about 25% of the attacking force, but suffered more than half allied casualties. Oh, yes, let's not forget your coast is guarded by a submarine borrowed from Germany because all the british ones have shown to have problems with the engine core. Besides, daisy cutters are prohibited by geneva conventions, are they not?

I agree that the Russian Su-30s are probably better aircrafts than the Jaguars or Tornadoes, however I think you are forgetting two factors. The British have many more advanced aircraft, and secondly, the British pilots are far better trained, in similar methods as American pilots are trained. The challenger tank is top notch and their submarine force is actually superb. The trafalgar class nuclear submarines are quiet and carry the spearfish torpedos which are the fastest torpedoes in the water (designed to kill russian alfa class submarines). Lastly they are developing the astute class submarine which is comparable to the American seawolf class submarine. Compare this with the second hand diesel boats and second hand submarine crews India possesses and I think you'll find the British to be vastly superior. Keep in mind, the American and British military and ESPECIALLY their submarine forces have been training for total war since the 50's ... I doubt you would find better fighting forces anywhere else except for Russia.

Why are you guys arguing about military spending and "who is stronger"? Isn't it totally ridiculous? It seems as if you WANT another World War to burst out.

As I understood it, the purpose of this thread was to discuss the UK's political position. In that regard, then, I think that it is safe to say that the general consensus in the world is that the UK is pretty much Bush's lapdog and nothing more. So much for "the sun never sets on the British Empire..."

india spent 1.8 billion on exactly 2 squadrons of 40 su 30 flankers...

consider this, the brits have right panavia tornadoes, however, they do have the EF-2000 and JSF (both forefront technological aircraft).

su 30's flankers are compared to f15 eagles and f14 tomcats, while EF-2000 is on par with the F-22 (supposedly) and su 35 super flankers.

so doin the math i'd think the brits would win any air war...and with occrider analysis of submariner fleets, i'd think brits are clear winners on any air and sea components of war.

btw...10 billion is paltry in military spending, what does canada have? we spend around 9 billion...and we have nothing...buwahahhahahahahha (i wouldn't have it n e other way...more for my tuition!).

DrUg_Tit0: din't stop them being used in baghdad did it???

also we have the best trained special forces in the world, especially the sbs, and you only know about the indian technology because they don't safeguard it. new allied technology is kept under wraps to the maximum, put it this way, i wouldn't like to fight us

I am not saying British army is inferior to the Indian one, I have just responded to a thread which said indians are unorganized and are fighting with sticks. I do admid Britain might have the edge as far as its army goes (although it doesn't have the Eurofighter or the JSF yet, as they still haven't been produced), but that edge is not nearly as great as some of you think it is. But I based my assumption on indian power on several other factors as well. Besides, India at least has independent foreign policy.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, my lengthy post which compares UK and India has been deleted because of stupid internet explorer error, so I'll keep it short. India is spending about 10 billion $ per year on its military. It has newest Russian built fighter planes like SU30 and is about to buy an aircraft carrier from Russia. Also, it has larger GDP purchasing power parity, larger GDP growth rate (5% compared to 2.9%), and its population growth rate is about 1.5% while the british is 0.24%. India is not what it was 20+ years ago. On the other hand, british SA80 guns have frequently shown not to work in desert/swamp/you name it conditions, while the good old AK47s function perfectly in any environment. The british navy excercises don't enclude firing real ammo, but the soldiers are supposed to yel "boom" instead. In Ivory coast, the british communication relay went down, and they were forced to communicate with cell phones instead. In Iraq, the brits constituted about 25% of the attacking force, but suffered more than half allied casualties. Oh, yes, let's not forget your coast is guarded by a submarine borrowed from Germany because all the british ones have shown to have problems with the engine core. Besides, daisy cutters are prohibited by geneva conventions, are they not?

^^ Quite a lot of mistakes in there...

SA80 isn't the greatest gun ever made, but i know that the special forces don't use it, they use the 203s....m16 with 40mm grendade attachment thingy. Also other different guns.

I remember reading that with the SA80, you have to use your trigger finger to take the safety catch off...lol...

that mini-rocket launcher thing that was used in iraq, i want one of them

this thread is great! went from one person asking how the world views the UK to a debate about the UK vs. India in war ! we should have a new thread every week pitting 2 countries against each other for discussion in an elimination bracket .. and of course , the US would referee ..

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL this thread is great! went from one person asking how the world views the UK to a debate about the UK vs. India in war ! we should have a new thread every week pitting 2 countries against each other for discussion in an elimination bracket .. and of course , the US would referee ..

The only reason they would referee - is because in any contest they were in they would clearly loose - but then just say 'your an ass' and think they won the arguement.

It happens every day, HERE ON TA!
(which rhymes)

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 The only reason they would referee - is because in any contest they were in they would clearly loose - but then just say 'your an ass' and think they won the arguement. It happens every day, HERE ON TA! (which rhymes)

Lol you're an ass.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Lol you're an ass.

I can't win this argument!!!

its not that UK likes to follow bush, its just that UK does a better job at minding its own business than the US does. But i guess when it comes to terrorism, everyone is effected so i guess taht is why UK is tagging along with the US on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Lol you're an ass.

you're a bigger ass

quote:

Originally posted by Busy Child its not that UK likes to follow bush, its just that UK does a better job at minding its own business than the US does. But i guess when it comes to terrorism, everyone is effected so i guess taht is why UK is tagging along with the US on this one.

The UK has been tagging along with the US ever since their Brettonwood agreement and the beginning of their special relations. I'd say it's most probably because Churchill realised UK was no longer in shape to remain a superpower so he decided instead to support another anglo-saxon country which had the potential of becomming one.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The UK has been tagging along with the US ever since their Brettonwood agreement and the beginning of their special relations. I'd say it's most probably because Churchill realised UK was no longer in shape to remain a superpower so he decided instead to support another anglo-saxon country which had the potential of becomming one.

plus Churchill was so wrapped up in appeasment that he had dug himself his own grave.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 plus Churchill was so wrapped up in appeasment that he had dug himself his own grave.

grr, i was gonna say that!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The UK has been tagging along with the US ever since their Brettonwood agreement and the beginning of their special relations. I'd say it's most probably because Churchill realised UK was no longer in shape to remain a superpower so he decided instead to support another anglo-saxon country which had the potential of becomming one.

The UK goes with the US because both countries share many of the same principles, but the UK does not tag along, did you see us pull out of the Kyoto agreement, for example? the opposite infact tony blair said blatantly in a public speech that Bush was a bellend for pulling out (or words to that effect )
It would be right to say that some of our decisions are US influenced by the US, but the same can be said the other way, the US wasnt going to bother to try and seek UN approval for the Iraq war (because tbf they knew they wouldnt get it, sensible), but tony blair knew his cock was for the chop if didnt at least try to get UN approval, so he managed to persuade the US, so really you could call them tag alongs in this instance, its called a relationship as you said, but no tagging along involved.........much.

quote:

Originally posted by eLe_vatE The UK goes with the US because both countries share many of the same principles, but the UK does not tag along, did you see us pull out of the Kyoto agreement, for example? the opposite infact tony blair said blatantly in a public speech that Bush was a bellend for pulling out (or words to that effect ) It would be right to say that some of our decisions are US influenced by the US, but the same can be said the other way, the US wasnt going to bother to try and seek UN approval for the Iraq war (because tbf they knew they wouldnt get it, sensible), but tony blair knew his cock was for the chop if didnt at least try to get UN approval, so he managed to persuade the US, so really you could call them tag alongs in this instance, its called a relationship as you said, but no tagging along involved.........much.

quite

and if any1 cares 2 cast their minds back to the WWs who entered from the off in the name of peace, oh yea... the UK. America only came in when it suited them, which is fair enough but i think it's worth remembering.

quote:

Originally posted by Project T quite and if any1 cares 2 cast their minds back to the WWs who entered from the off in the name of peace, oh yea... the UK. America only came in when it suited them, which is fair enough but i think it's worth remembering.

Well, America's isolationism policy is the reason why the U.S. didn't enter so fast. They felt it was none of their business. Until Pearl Harbor, they felt they had no reason, since there was money to be made selling weapons and stuff to Europe.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.