Daily Mail posits terrifying new European war

[Mise]

Re Britain vs France: We both have SLBMs, so there is absolutely no way that either country would actually get occupied.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

We have to rely on America for our nuclear missiles though, don't we? They showed how much of an ally they were during the Falklands war.

 

[GoodGame]

Challenge accepted.

Title Suggestion:

The 100 Days War: Joan D'Arc Avenged

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Title Suggestion:

The 100 Days War, Pt.2: Electric Waterloo

Fixed

 

[Leonel]

I'm definitely going to watch this movie!

Sounds like the European version of Red Dawn.

Also, I want distribution rights to whatever Mr. Sandbrook has been smoking.

BADGERS!

"These guerrillas are named after a small vicious animal that attacks venomous snakes called a 'badger.'" / "I know what a God damn badger is!"

 

[kochman]

We have to rely on America for our nuclear missiles though, don't we? They showed how much of an ally they were during the Falklands war.

We were still recovering from Viet Nam!

 

[Silurian]

We have to rely on America for our nuclear missiles though, don't we? They showed how much of an ally they were during the Falklands war.

The US supplied the latest version of the sidewinder, logistic support and intelligence.

It would have been better if the USA had played up how they had helped but that would have not helped Thatcher win the next election.

 

[Dachs]

Fixed

This post wins

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

This will never happen but would be interesting.

 

[strijder20]

Don't think this is entirely fictional. We are at a crossroads.
The world is at a crossroads.
Oh wait, it has been the last ten centuries... But a lot is depending on chance, and noone can accurately predict how Earth will be like in 50, 20, 10 or even 5 years.
Noone expected the NA countries to rebel, for example.

 

[imperialman]

We have to rely on America for our nuclear missiles though, don't we? They showed how much of an ally they were during the Falklands war.

Only for routine maintenance. It wouldn't be hard to carry it out here, just expensive.

 

[imperialman]

Their military spending is not the same though. France doesn't have to rely on the sea for energy, and since both Gibralter is within range of their land based aircraft and currently the UK has no serious carrier force to speak of making the Med a French lake only vulerable to a an outnumberd British sub force is a real possiblity.

The British navy actually have more submarines than the French navy with a little bit more capability. The French navy isn't in much of a position to bottle up the UK in any decisive way. Plus, IIRC, the French AAW force is 2 ships smaller than the UK force though not that this makes such a big difference given the Charles de Gaulle.

Neither country has the military capability to occupy the other despite the greater capability the British Navy has for moving men and equipment by sea. Though minor details would surely alter the outcome of any conventional conflict short of occupation, things like the French not having naval cruise missiles or the British currently not having fixed-wing carriers.

Te UK Type 23 class frigates are exceptionally good submarine hunters and the first generation French SSN's are a little bit less capable imo than many SSN classes so that acts as a fantastic force multiplier for the British navy in stopping any bottling up of the UK.

To sum up, I don't believe either nation has the military capability to win out against the other in a war geared towards occupation. Indeed, the Britiah armed forces rely more on "strategic raiding" I believe.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the British armed forces don't seem to be set up to rely on land power, more naval but that has suffered greatly recently due to budget cuts. Thankfully this is well on this way to being fixed, giving us a level of air power at sea we haven't had for half a century.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Fortunately, no. These days, the presence of nuclear weapons and economic ties between the major players more or less prevents widespread conventional warfare. The most we need fear is limited conflicts(no one will push the other too far), or unconventional wars by groups that don't have a presence on the map. And until the latter get suitcase nukes, there's no reason to lose much sleep over them either.

Now suuuure, someone will surely say, "But World War I had alliances!" World War I was also 100 years ago, with a radically different economic setup and, surprise surprise, no nuclear weapons. The reason the Cold War never turned hot was neither side was crazy enough to risk total destruction. Most of the major powers, regardless if you love or hate their governments, seem sane enough to me. The only country I'd possibly be fearful of is MAYBE North Korea.

But between Europeans? Certainly not. Unless we're in Call of Duty and rebels are going to take control of a nuclear-armed nation and shoot its nukes at rival nations, completely ignoring the principles of MAD and MADWE.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Didn't GWB say he was prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons if he felt the need in The War Against Terrorism?

 

[imperialman]

I forgot to add that the UK has full and complete control over the use of its nuclear weapons.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Didn't GWB say he was prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons if he felt the need in The War Against Terrorism?

If he did, I'm sure he meant depleted uranium shells and whatnot.

While those are controversial due to their side-effects, they are nowhere NEAR an actual ICBM's level of power, obviously, or else all of Iraq would be gone.

But, if terrorists had the numbers and spread to actually qualify for usage of such destructive weapons, I imagine they're no longer terrorists, but a serious quasi-military organisation.

GWB said a lot of stupid things, though.

 

[Winner]

Even Gordon Brown's wife is hotter than Mrs. Cameron

Ew, no.

EDIT2: I meant "horse face" btw.

What have you against horses?

 

[Princeps]

Laughable.

 

[Tahuti]

But, if terrorists had the numbers and spread to actually qualify for usage of such destructive weapons, I imagine they're no longer terrorists, but a serious quasi-military organisation.

That's why I'm quite fearful of the situation in Pakistan: Pakistan has nukes, but never has shown any desire to disarm, despite the risk such weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists. A non-state actor that has nuclear weapons basically has no reason not to use nukes against their enemies, as there isn't any clearly defined territory they live, thus making any likewise retialiation impossible.

 

[Snorrius]

That's why I'm quite fearful of the situation in Pakistan: Pakistan has nukes, but never has shown any desire to disarm, despite the risk such weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists.

Despite the risk any sane state which does not want to be destroyed by USA & friends have to have nukes.