Poo tin... Put@in...

1…170171173175176…219

Comments

  • masjer
    masjer Posts: 2,643
    focuszing723 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    And what's with the salt thing?

    Oh, nothing.
    Yep, definitely nothing.
    Chr1st, how many posts to a page.
    150, but I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    imposter2.0 said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    There's not a lot to put on the stall however.

    A comparison of British forces with the Russian military that puts our posturing into context:

    https://www.forces.net/news/russia-vs-britain-how-do-militaries-stack

    We are nothing without NATO just as we are considerably downsized outside the EU.

    If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything, it's demonstrated that there is a lot more to military effectiveness than simply sheer weight of numbers.
    NATO training absolutely dominates as well. The amount of hours pilots go through each year to hone their skills compared to Russia is astonishing. If it came down to an air on air battle, Russia would be out the game by lunchtime.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,460
    focuszing723 said:

    The tension keeps upping t1t for tat. I don't see this situation desalinating any time soon and inflation along with it.

    Tough times ahead.

    Thought I'd better quote this as it had got lost on the previous page.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    focuszing723 said:

    The tension keeps upping t1t for tat. I don't see this situation desalinating any time soon and inflation along with it.

    Tough times ahead.

    Thought I'd better quote this as it had got lost on the previous page.
    Did Mal Aprop ever explain this?
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,691
    edited June 2022
    At least one more miss Zing, as always...

    Edit - gaaahhh!!!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,109
    HilaryAmin said:

    First.Aspect said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    There's not a lot to put on the stall however.

    A comparison of British forces with the Russian military that puts our posturing into context:

    https://www.forces.net/news/russia-vs-britain-how-do-militaries-stack

    We are nothing without NATO just as we are considerably downsized outside the EU.

    There's no common EU defence policy, and leaving it has made no difference to the UK militarily.
    Military might costs money. If the UK economy is weakened by leaving our biggest trading partner then our spending power on defence must suffer too. There is also the issue of co-operation with our neighbours. Who'd buy even a used motor off Boris Johnson?

    https://www.forces.net/services/army/uks-delivery-saxons-ukraine-nothing-short-immoral

    As for the USA, who knows where that's going?



    You are conflating all sorts of unrelated issues here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited June 2022
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    _
  • HilaryAmin
    HilaryAmin Posts: 160
    4
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    edited June 2022
    Pross said:

    focuszing723 said:

    The tension keeps upping t1t for tat. I don't see this situation desalinating any time soon and inflation along with it.

    Tough times ahead.

    Thought I'd better quote this as it had got lost on the previous page.
    Damn it!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661


    Wtf
    _
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    I bet his socialite daughters are lovin that.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Everyone focused on Mosely with the fascist dad but it was Bernie who was the fascist all along.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,270
    rick_chasey said:


    Wtf

    His comments regarding those killed - "...it was unintentional."
    WTAF!
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    Him, Nelson Piquet, not a good week for bygone F1.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    This is going to sound real insane, he's not trying to take the heat off Piquet?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,270
    focuszing723 said:

    This is going to sound real insane, he's not trying to take the heat off Piquet?

    More likely attempting to protect his financial investments.
    Who knows where he got his worth from, where it's kept, or where it's going.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    edited June 2022
    pblakeney said:

    focuszing723 said:

    This is going to sound real insane, he's not trying to take the heat off Piquet?

    More likely attempting to protect his financial investments.
    Who knows where he got his worth from, where it's kept, or where it's going.
    Ummm, unless he's lost the plot he's clearly a smart shrewd bloke, so there must be some reason to chuck yourself under a bus.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,270
    focuszing723 said:

    pblakeney said:

    focuszing723 said:

    This is going to sound real insane, he's not trying to take the heat off Piquet?

    More likely attempting to protect his financial investments.
    Who knows where he got his worth from, where it's kept, or where it's going.
    Ummm, unless he's lost the plot he's clearly a smart shrewd bloke, so there must be some reason to chuck yourself under a bus.
    Just maybe he's got investments in Russia.
    More likely.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,109
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
    There does seem to be a large fixed cost when it comes to the military as the US ability to commit forces is well in excess of x8 our effort
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,109
    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
    There does seem to be a large fixed cost when it comes to the military as the US ability to commit forces is well in excess of x8 our effort
    Possibly. Different discussion though.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    Ivan the C*nt has done a runner and fled Snake Island.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
    There does seem to be a large fixed cost when it comes to the military as the US ability to commit forces is well in excess of x8 our effort
    Possibly. Different discussion though.
    No it isn't. It's the same discussion. The spending is a proxy for the size.

    We need to realise the US won't be the security guarantor for Europe forever. Ukraine is a really explicit example of how reliant European security still is on the US.

    It's not sustainable for anyone, and the chasm between what Europe can do militarily and the US is vast.
    _
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    After the recent drone footage of the UFs MRLS strikes I'm not surprised.
  • HilaryAmin
    HilaryAmin Posts: 160
    First.Aspect said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    First.Aspect said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    There's not a lot to put on the stall however.

    A comparison of British forces with the Russian military that puts our posturing into context:

    https://www.forces.net/news/russia-vs-britain-how-do-militaries-stack

    We are nothing without NATO just as we are considerably downsized outside the EU.

    There's no common EU defence policy, and leaving it has made no difference to the UK militarily.
    Military might costs money. If the UK economy is weakened by leaving our biggest trading partner then our spending power on defence must suffer too. There is also the issue of co-operation with our neighbours. Who'd buy even a used motor off Boris Johnson?

    https://www.forces.net/services/army/uks-delivery-saxons-ukraine-nothing-short-immoral

    As for the USA, who knows where that's going?

    You are conflating all sorts of unrelated issues here.
    In human affairs issues are all related. You just have to work out where the dots join up.

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,109
    HilaryAmin said:

    First.Aspect said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    First.Aspect said:

    HilaryAmin said:

    There's not a lot to put on the stall however.

    A comparison of British forces with the Russian military that puts our posturing into context:

    https://www.forces.net/news/russia-vs-britain-how-do-militaries-stack

    We are nothing without NATO just as we are considerably downsized outside the EU.

    There's no common EU defence policy, and leaving it has made no difference to the UK militarily.
    Military might costs money. If the UK economy is weakened by leaving our biggest trading partner then our spending power on defence must suffer too. There is also the issue of co-operation with our neighbours. Who'd buy even a used motor off Boris Johnson?

    https://www.forces.net/services/army/uks-delivery-saxons-ukraine-nothing-short-immoral

    As for the USA, who knows where that's going?

    You are conflating all sorts of unrelated issues here.
    In human affairs issues are all related. You just have to work out where the dots join up.

    Profound.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,109
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
    There does seem to be a large fixed cost when it comes to the military as the US ability to commit forces is well in excess of x8 our effort
    Possibly. Different discussion though.
    No it isn't. It's the same discussion. The spending is a proxy for the size.

    We need to realise the US won't be the security guarantor for Europe forever. Ukraine is a really explicit example of how reliant European security still is on the US.

    It's not sustainable for anyone, and the chasm between what Europe can do militarily and the US is vast.
    So you've had the epiphany that more money buys more stuff?

    It isn't reasonable for the UK, or France or anyone else to match military spending of a far larger and more populous country. Even Trump was only arguing for a gdp proportionate spend. So yes, there's a pretty good argument that Germany et al. have been remiss. And us to a lesser extent.

    However if you upped that spending throughout NATO it would still rely heavily on the US. The US can act unilaterally in relation to its military. The rest of NATO will be fragmented and hamstrung by vested interests and divergent opinions.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    thegreatdivide said:

    After the recent drone footage of the UFs MRLS strikes I'm not surprised.

    Seems to be trickier in the Donbas itself, where Russia seem to be making slow progress but progress nonetheless.
    _
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 678
    First.Aspect said:



    In human affairs issues are all related. You just have to work out where the dots join up.

    Profound.


    Sometimes they are just dots
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    US spends $800bn on defence a year. UK spends $57bn and the UK is one of the biggest military spenders in Europe. France spends about the same.

    So you'd only need the combined spending of Europe's two biggest spenders almost 8 times over to get to the US.

    Proportional to GDP is a better comparison. US gdp is about 8 times that of the UK, and the population is 5 times, so the contrst isn't quite as stark as it seems.
    When it comes to fighting I don’t think proportional size matter that much.

    Otherwise Ukraine would have won already.
    Your point was paultry spending by other NATO members, and I explained that you hadn't provided adequate context.

    Not sure how that relates to your last post, other than it enables you to proceed with some form of argumentation.

    You are sometimes just plain wrong you know RC. It's okay to admit it.
    There does seem to be a large fixed cost when it comes to the military as the US ability to commit forces is well in excess of x8 our effort
    Possibly. Different discussion though.
    No it isn't. It's the same discussion. The spending is a proxy for the size.

    We need to realise the US won't be the security guarantor for Europe forever. Ukraine is a really explicit example of how reliant European security still is on the US.

    It's not sustainable for anyone, and the chasm between what Europe can do militarily and the US is vast.
    There is too much duplication across NATO members. To get anywhere close to the USA they would need to triple spend and have one combined army.

    Maybe they should just get better at fighting proxy wars

Categories