The day that Britain resigned as a global power

[Bry Nylon]

Has Mustafa gone yet?

 

[Hampster Gull]

My understanding is that, whatever they knew of the Manhattan Project, the actual dropping of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan had a profound effect on the Russians.

Whether or not they knew that the Americans would have at least half a dozen more bombs ready by the end of 1945 (which they did) is immaterial, the Russians had none at all and no realistic prospect of stopping the Americans delivering theirs.

It is a great shame that the USA did not have the resolve to push the Russians back out of Eastern Europe and back over their border or preferably remove Stalin and his fellow criminals completely, they had a window of opportunity that will never come again.

Many have tried the old "lets just take russia" and many have come a cropper

 

[The Spanish]

Have you rumbled Atilla's 2nd account?

hahahaha! yeah i reckon

 

[jakarta]

Many have tried the old "lets just take russia" and many have come a cropper

Do you reckon Russia was nuclear bomb proof in 1945 then?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Do you reckon Russia was nuclear bomb proof in 1945 then?

Yes, they had an invisible shield over the country

 

[GT49er]

The day that Britain resigned as a global power

To get back to the thread title, I think history will judge it as the Suez crisis.

 

[crookie]

U wot m8?

Shame they can only fly helicopters as we flogged our Harriers off for a pittance, but yes, it does look impressive, and will be when it has jets, in a few years, let's hope we don't need it before then

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

As David Cameron arrives in Riga, a columnist for the Washington Post writes about the inward turn of the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tain-resigned-as-a-global-power-10269098.html

DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
regards
DR

 

[GT49er]

DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
regards
DR

Not on NSC I bloody don't!

 

[Triggaaar]

If we had gotten to Berlin in strength first, they just would have thrown us out.
Either starting WWIII on the spot (worst case) or starting the Cold War 4 years early (best case).

If they'd have started WWIII then, they'd have lost pretty quickly. How many Atom bombs do you think they could have taken?

You could count the US nuclear arsenal on the fingers of one hand in 1945, and two of those were expended.

It might have been as many as a dozen by mid-1946.

All in the 10-20kt range. When you see pictures of what conventional airpower did to places like Hamburg, and Berlin, it's a difference of degree, not a difference of nature.

Actually I think you could count them without any hands. I don't think they had any after Japan, but they didn't take long to make, and they could have destroyed Russia pretty quickly. And it's a lot easier to drop one bomb than it is to drop the thousands that created the firestorms in Germany.

 

[jakarta]

Yes, they had an invisible shield over the country

So that's a No then......

 

[Hampster Gull]

So that's a No then......

Having the biggest weapons doesnt mean you necessarily win. There are many many example the other way, eg US Vietnam.

 

[Surf's Up]

Selling off Britain's assets and creating an economic underclass is SUCH great thinking from this government.

It's going to be even more spectacular once Dave's billionaires mates jump ship.

This government is destroying this country - I pray to God that the damage they are doing is reversible, I love this country, I don't want to have to leave.

Mr Mustafa, if you don't like it then can I respectfully suggest you f**k right off?

 

[jakarta]

Having the biggest weapons doesnt mean you necessarily win. There are many many example the other way, eg US Vietnam.

The US was constrained by the Cold War Balance of Terror NOT to use nuclear weapons by Vietnam in the 1960's.

As the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in 1945 they could have done what they wanted and could easily have turned Russia into a radioactive wasteland.

Not necessarily a win of course but not a good result for Russia either.....

 

[Hampster Gull]

The US was constrained by the Cold War Balance of Terror NOT to use nuclear weapons by Vietnam in the 1960's.

As the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in 1945 they could have done what they wanted and could easily have turned Russia into a radioactive wasteland.

Not necessarily a win of course but not a good result for Russia either.....

There is always a reason

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I know you enjoy posting stuff that bashes the UK but strange don't you think that the American who wrote the article failed to mention that only three members of NATO hit the 2% target currently - the UK being one of them and the other two being Estonia and the US. The US being by far the biggest contributor and whom has been reported as being somewhat bitter that they pick up the biggest tab. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather our money was spent on health and education than defence.

#You can spend all the money you want on health and education...but if you cannot defend the realm,then it is a complete waste of resources,what good are the finest hospitals and schools if they are under a foreign powers control?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Shame they can only fly helicopters as we flogged our Harriers off for a pittance, but yes, it does look impressive, and will be when it has jets, in a few years, let's hope we don't need it before then

Yes,but the Harrier was miles out of date,the QE is being equipped with the American jump jet fighter that is well advanced of every other plane used at sea. The QE is huge,it can take in size... two type 21 frigates in it's hangars,for years we have invented most updates to carriers,mirror landing signals,steam capapult,angled flight deck,ski ramp,but for once we are using an American system of having a side lift to bring planes into action rather than bringing them up on deck lifts which interrupts Take off/Landings...the biggest ship I ever served on was the "|Vanguard" and that was small in comparision to this monster.

 

[Hampster Gull]

The Labour candidates are all talkin about how they should have run a surplus prior to the crash, how they should have been more pro business erc (its like a re run of the arguments on here before the elecion, although with one difference, no one is arguing with them now, the light has been seen!). The next thing will be to spend more on defence!!

 

[RexCathedra]

As the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in 1945 they could have done what they wanted and could easily have turned Russia into a radioactive wasteland.

First you'd have to deliver them. The USSR had a working air force -- by mid 1944 the USAAF was flying over Japan with more-or-less impunity.

Then you'd have to have enough of them to 'turn Russia into a radioactive wasteland' -- which the US did not. At the end of 1946, the US had 11 weapons.
Pick ten cities to burn out, then burn out half of them. And then the USSR surrenders.

OK.

It didn't break Germany, it wouldn't have broken Russia.
Ground combat would still have been requires.

September 1945 USAAF target map of USSR.

July/August 1945 War Cabinet study pf requirements for victory in Europe over the USSR. There's a detailed discussion of which bridgeheads on the Continent to hold after Soviet forces reach the Atlantic.