Does it need support to launch nukes? Those are their own nuclear assets.
@_Anonymous_ Yaha to wahi haal hai - 'Tujhe pata hai mera baap kaun hai?' Inse TW ka T nahi bachega agar baap bhaag gaye toh.
I hope you are aware that the UK's action in Mali was late and insignificant. It's like saying that even to go into Iraq, the US needed the Australians.
Why would they hide anywhere? It is nuclear deterrence we are talking about to prevent Russians for marching into NATO members. What are you on about?
Donald Trump getting elected was also a silly scenario. What is sillier is the Ukies decided to disarm and give up nukes. These things happen. Can you guarantee that this is impossible?
So if Russia sends some troops into Poland, France is going to stay home and just nuke them
Sure, why not stranger things have happened. The Frenchmen on the forum will attest to it. There some crazies out there in France.
It's not our fault that everyone loves us and wants to help us! It's only in rapid operations that we can remain alone, like in Kolwezi, for example (Operation Bonite).
This thread has finally managed to reach its end goal. France was the supposed to be in AUKUS in place of you know who.
LOL You can't even lie well
"The Battle of Kolwezi was an airborne operation by French and Belgian airborne forces that took place in May 1978 in Zaire during the Shaba II invasion of Zaire by the Front for the National Liberation of the Congo (FLNC). It aimed at rescuing European and Zairean hostages held by FLNC rebels after they conquered the city of Kolwezi. The operation succeeded with the liberation of the hostages and light military casualties."
The Belgians were there just to evacuate the hostages and maintain order in the areas liberated by the French. We mustn't forget that this was the former Belgian Congo: there were many Belgians to rescue. And then the Belgians speak French, so if Putin succeeds in invading Ukraine, we could invade Wallonia by applying the same principles of brotherhood.
Could be Putin is greasing Carrot Top's palms.
Yo Pops ! This sounds suspiciously like a recipe to side line Little Britain & for the US to adopt a more hands off attitude in the Indo Pacific region by strengthening the hands of their local t̶h̶u̶g̶ sorry v̶a̶s̶s̶a̶l̶ sorry ally.I think you misunderstand what AUKUS is
There is pillar one, which is the sub
More important is Pillar 2
AUKUS Pillar 2, Japan and South Korea
On 16 September 2021, Australia, the UK and the US signed the AUKUS trilateral security partnership. Although not a formal military alliance, AUKUS enables members to develop and transfer advanced military capabilities. AUKUS is intended to facilitate ‘integratedwww.aph.gov.au
Pillar 2 originates from ‘The Technical Cooperation Program’ of the Five Eyes countries. It is organised under 8 working groups – ‘innovation’, ‘information-sharing’, and the 6 ‘advanced capabilities’ listed in Australia’s National Defence Strategy:
From the latter's PoV it's a welcome development given the US is being stretched thin , but I fail to see how can this be in favour of Little Britain . This is a further erosion in its standing in the comity of nations.
If things proceed like this Little Britain would only be a P5 power on paper not that it hasn't already achieved this distinction.
A Brit account, that does some OSINT and war commentary, with a sizeable following posted this on X. As you can imagine, the replies are very creative.
Who or what is causing these delusions when it comes to kinetic action in Asia or Europe?
@Subgradewalker @redpanda @babablacksheep @RationalGuy @Rajput Lion feel free to weigh in.
Who or what is causing these delusions when it comes to kinetic action in Asia or Europe?
@Subgradewalker @redpanda @babablacksheep @RationalGuy @Rajput Lion feel free to weigh in.
Last edited:
US have never fought a sustained war against a credible military power. Let alone a peer power. Even in WW2, they were neither alone nor at advantageous situation which would make them confidence to crush 2 next biggest military and one on par military alone.
No doubt they've got a huge tech advantages but all they have fought against are guys with Ak-47 or near junk military.
Then there's the fact that most of their ground troops are built for special missions or city wide conflict. That's why they built huge ISR tech over decades and soldier gears.
But war.. the only drawback Chinese have right now is lack of battle experience. That they can get avisory from Russians too
The cause is lack of knowledge and interest in economic aspect, and only focusing on military aspect.
The cause is also the improper on paper comparision of military might.
Even if it were a proper comparision of on paper military might it would be wrong, for example indian military crushes UK's military on paper, doesn't mean India has the ability to go halfway around the world and fight against UK's military.
With chinese rise, US has lost the ability to challenge china even in second island chain, though they still dominate in far away open oceans.
In a pacific war for taiwan.
US also doesn't have any battle experience on the kind of warfare that will take place.
They do have More training experience.
Last edited: