Conquer Club

President Donald J. Trump has issued a promise to save Britain with a very big trade deal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49462613



The last time there was a very big trade deal between the USA and UK was 1941 when the USA traded 50 destroyers to the UK and then the UK and USA bombed Germany into the stone age.

Nightcore Britannia!

(The trade deal is dependent on the UK agreeing to sell the Shetland Islands to the United States for £17 and a half-eaten package of Jaffa cakes.)

The future's bright, the future's Brexit.

saxitoxin wrote:The last time there was a very big trade deal between the USA and UK was 1941 when the USA traded 50 destroyers to the UK and then the UK and USA bombed Germany into the stone age.

I dont think that the British made the decisive blow to the Germans... That one arrived from the other side, from the Soviet Union.
That being said I think that Germans learned the lesson who their ally should be in the next world conflict.

Sovs broke the back of the Wehrmacht @ Stalingrad - this is widely known.

riskllama wrote:Sovs broke the back of the Wehrmacht @ Stalingrad - this is widely known.

Stalingrad was expensive, to be sure, but it would be wrong to say that any one event was decisive.

Every component of the alliance was important. Britain, Russia, and the U.S. all made huge contributions, and it's possible that if any one of the three didn't do their share, the other two would have failed.

Dukasaur wrote:

riskllama wrote:Sovs broke the back of the Wehrmacht @ Stalingrad - this is widely known.

Stalingrad was expensive, to be sure, but it would be wrong to say that any one event was decisive.

Every component of the alliance was important. Britain, Russia, and the U.S. all made huge contributions, and it's possible that if any one of the three didn't do their share, the other two would have failed.

The difference is that failure for Britain or the Soviet Union would have meant invasion and destruction. Failure for the United States would have meant the loss of Midway Island, the world's #3 per capita guano producer.

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

riskllama wrote:Sovs broke the back of the Wehrmacht @ Stalingrad - this is widely known.

Stalingrad was expensive, to be sure, but it would be wrong to say that any one event was decisive.

Every component of the alliance was important. Britain, Russia, and the U.S. all made huge contributions, and it's possible that if any one of the three didn't do their share, the other two would have failed.

The difference is that failure for Britain or the Soviet Union would have meant invasion and destruction. Failure for the United States would have meant the loss of Midway Island, the world's #3 per capita guano producer.

Yeah, it's been 205 years since anyone thought about invading the U.S. as anything other than a fantasy role-play.

Which makes it really ironic when Americans try to justify their stomping around the world as "defense". Defense from what? Jackalopes and wyverns?

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

riskllama wrote:Sovs broke the back of the Wehrmacht @ Stalingrad - this is widely known.

Stalingrad was expensive, to be sure, but it would be wrong to say that any one event was decisive.

Every component of the alliance was important. Britain, Russia, and the U.S. all made huge contributions, and it's possible that if any one of the three didn't do their share, the other two would have failed.

The difference is that failure for Britain or the Soviet Union would have meant invasion and destruction. Failure for the United States would have meant the loss of Midway Island, the world's #3 per capita guano producer.

Yeah, it's been 205 years since anyone thought about invading the U.S. as anything other than a fantasy role-play.

Which makes it really ironic when Americans try to justify their stomping around the world as "defense". Defense from what? Jackalopes and wyverns?

it must be nice knowing you live in a country that spends $21 billion in 2019 on it's military.. while sitting next to a country that spends $649 billion in 2019 because you know the guy sitting next to you will not allow you to be invaded..
1 aircraft carrier costs $5 billion..
1 nuclear submarine cost $2.5 billion..
1 battleship costs $1.8 billion
1 fighter jet costs $130 million..
1 tank costs $8 million
1 black hawk helicopter costs $25 million..
1 Tomahawk missile cost $1 million

in 2019 Canada could afford:
1 aircraft carrier , a submarine, 3 battleships, 20 fighter jets, 50 tanks, 20 helicopters , 100 Tomahawk missiles
and that leaves 4 billion for everything else a military would use not including ammunition, food, medical supplies & gas..

Canada couldn't defend itself for 3 days.. good thing America is right next door..... right

NomadPatriot wrote:
Canada couldn't defend itself for 3 days.. good thing America is right next door..... right

Actually, America is the only one who could attack us. So it's a good thing we're on friendly terms.

Against the U.S., yeah, Canada couldn't defend itself for 3 days. Against anybody else, not a problem. You don't need vast forces when you're protected by an ocean. It's a massive undertaking to bring an army across any body of water. When you get across, home field advantage is huge. The home side repairs, rebuilds, refuels, reinforces at will. The invader has to bring everything from home. Easy when you're next door, much harder when you're crossing an ocean.

The Canadian Forces are small, but large enough for the job. The home team in an invasion re-arranges and reinforces at will. The invader, once he selects a landing ground, is constrained by that choice and has only a few obvious and predictable directions to go from there.

Canada is out of range for everything except the largest Soviet bombers. As far as fighters, only the tiny number that a carrier carries would be useful to the invader. Only Newfoundland and some of the vacant parts of Quebec are within the useful range of fighter jets from Europe, and nothing at all is within the useful range of fighter jets from Asia.

Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you. When you invaded Nazi Germany, the forces had to be gathered and assembled in Britain. In the Korean War, American forces had to stage in Japan. For Iraq, they staged in Saudi Arabia. Etc. For a foreigner to come and invade you, where would they stage? Cuba maybe, and then they could seize Miami and get on a narrow peninsula with no room for maneouver, for a few days until you mobilized the National Guard and came to wipe them out.

You could park every plane, every ship, every tank, and there's nobody out there that would have a hope in hell of coming and invading you. Whatever little threats did materialize, the National Guard could easily deal with. The only reason for a professional defense establishment is for you to go stir up shit in other people's countries. None of it is needed to deal with the non-existent threats to yours.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
Canada couldn't defend itself for 3 days.. good thing America is right next door..... right

Actually, America is the only one who could attack us. So it's a good thing we're on friendly terms.

Against the U.S., yeah, Canada couldn't defend itself for 3 days. Against anybody else, not a problem. You don't need vast forces when you're protected by an ocean. It's a massive undertaking to bring an army across any body of water. When you get across, home field advantage is huge. The home side repairs, rebuilds, refuels, reinforces at will. The invader has to bring everything from home. Easy when you're next door, much harder when you're crossing an ocean.

The Canadian Forces are small, but large enough for the job. The home team in an invasion re-arranges and reinforces at will. The invader, once he selects a landing ground, is constrained by that choice and has only a few obvious and predictable directions to go from there.

Canada is out of range for everything except the largest Soviet bombers. As far as fighters, only the tiny number that a carrier carries would be useful to the invader. Only Newfoundland and some of the vacant parts of Quebec are within the useful range of fighter jets from Europe, and nothing at all is within the useful range of fighter jets from Asia.

Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you. When you invaded Nazi Germany, the forces had to be gathered and assembled in Britain. In the Korean War, American forces had to stage in Japan. For Iraq, they staged in Saudi Arabia. Etc. For a foreigner to come and invade you, where would they stage? Cuba maybe, and then they could seize Miami and get on a narrow peninsula with no room for maneouver, for a few days until you mobilized the National Guard and came to wipe them out.

You could park every plane, every ship, every tank, and there's nobody out there that would have a hope in hell of coming and invading you. Whatever little threats did materialize, the National Guard could easily deal with. The only reason for a professional defense establishment is for you to go stir up shit in other people's countries. None of it is needed to deal with the non-existent threats to yours.

Canada is ranked :
#31 in Air Power
--> https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

#38 in Available Manpower fit for military service
--> https://www.globalfirepower.com/manpower-fit-for-military-service.asp

#39 in Naval Power
--> https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

#111 in Rocket Projectors Strength ( you have zero...)

--> https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-mlrs-total.asp

where as North Korea is ranked #1 in Naval Power & #1 in Rocket Projectors Power & ranked #11 in Air Power...

they have 5,000 Rocket Projectiles vs your Zero..
they have 967 boats in their navy vs your 63 boats..
they have 949 planes vs your 384 planes..

North Korea could devastate Canada without ever having to step foot on your soil.. then it would be whatever is left of your 13 million people fit for military service that is left alive vs the 10 million North Koreans that are fit for Military Service...

San Francisco to Tokyo is 5124nm, which would be 9.2 hours no wind at 560 ground speed.. North Korea could launch it's air force at sundown and be bombing Canada by sunrise the next day..
it only takes 12 days for a fully loaded cargo ship to cross the pacific from South Korea to Seattle.. the #1 ranked navy at full speed might be able to do it in a week...


and guess who would be begging America to step up and .. DEFEND.. them from North Korea..
yeah . Canadians..
" please Mr. Trump.. can you tell your Friend to stop kicking our ass.. pretty please.. sir... you can have Quebec. "

so . your welcome.

you in the military, NP?

riskllama wrote:you in the military, NP?

when the invasion begins.. just start cooking these so they won't kill you Dave...

--> Korean Pancake

are you a member of the US govt. , NP?

Dukasaur wrote:Soviet bombers.

Peking alert.

The only reason for a professional defense establishment is for you to go stir up shit in other people's countries. None of it is needed to deal with the non-existent threats to yours.

Americans are aware of this, and seem to relish in the idea of dropping bombs on Muslims and Asians.

NomadPatriot wrote:
where as North Korea is ranked #1 in Naval Power & #1 in Rocket Projectors Power & ranked #11 in Air Power...

they have 5,000 Rocket Projectiles vs your Zero..
they have 967 boats in their navy vs your 63 boats..
they have 949 planes vs your 384 planes..

North Korea could devastate Canada without ever having to step foot on

No, not exactly.

North Korea's military forces are designed entirely around the task of recapturing South Korea. Everything is short-range. Very little of it has the capability of long-range deployment.

Have a quick look at the Air Force:
Most dangerous things on the list are the Mig-29s. Maximum range of 2400 km, which means 1200 km before you have to turn around and come back. Might be a headache for Tokyo. Not for Toronto.
Mig-23. Maximum range of 2600 km with drop tanks.
Mig-21. Tough plane. Proved itself in Vietnam, in the Middle East, and in the wars between India and Pakistan. But it's a short-range fighter. Has a range of 660 km, which can be stretched to 800 km with two drop tanks. Wow. It would not even be a headache for Tokyo! (Couldn't get there and back home)
Shenyang J-5. Obsolete. China stopped using them in 1986. North Korea still has over a hundred, but experts believe fewer than half could leave the ground.
Shenyang J-6. Designed as a cheap-to-produce short-range interceptor back when China was more interested in quantity than quality. Last time somebody used one in combat was in 1978, in the war between the powerhouses of Somalia and Ethiopia. The Chinese estimate 100 hours of service before the thing is ready for scrap. Cash-strapped Pakistan allegedly stretched that to 130 hours with diligent maintenance! (link) Whether any of the J-6s in Korea can still fly is anybody's guess.
Illyushin-28. I saw one once, in a museum. In Czechoslovakia we scrapped the last one in 1962. Albania held on until 1990. Afghanistan held on to a couple as trainers only until 1994, when they were deemed unsafe at any speed. North Korea still has 80 of them. Whether they can get off the ground long enough to make an emergency landing in the East China Sea is anybody's guess.

I was going to go on and do the Navy and then the Army, but I'm bored with this game. Suffice it to say that I'm a lot more worried about being bitten by a rabid groundhog than about the impending North Korean attack.

Just one final note, about the ICBMs. Yes, they have nukes, and they have some ICBMs. Any student of strategy can tell you: building an ICBM is the easy part. Building a guidance system that can actually hit anything is a lot harder. I know your government likes to frighten people with the bugbear of the Korean ICBM hitting San Francisco, but it's far more likely that one aimed at San Francisco would hit Yellowstone. It could be a really nasty terrorist attack. It would not be a definitive blow.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
where as North Korea is ranked #1 in Naval Power & #1 in Rocket Projectors Power & ranked #11 in Air Power...

they have 5,000 Rocket Projectiles vs your Zero..
they have 967 boats in their navy vs your 63 boats..
they have 949 planes vs your 384 planes..

North Korea could devastate Canada without ever having to step foot on

No, not exactly.

North Korea's military forces are designed entirely around the task of recapturing South Korea.

Think you'll find North K's military is actually designed around the task of precluding an invasion by the US.

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Plus Americans' high percentage of body fat would make them super buoyant and therefore ideally suited to carrying out amphibious assaults.

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Argentina was never invaded. A tiny Argentine expeditionary force attacked a British possession far away and was counterattacked by a tiny British expeditionary force. Neither side brought the numbers that you would need to attack a nation.

Dukasaur wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Argentina was never invaded. A tiny Argentine expeditionary force attacked a British possession far away and was counterattacked by a tiny British expeditionary force. Neither side brought the numbers that you would need to attack a nation.

Argentina was not invaded.. they accepted the Nazi refugee's with open arms after WW2......

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Argentina was never invaded. A tiny Argentine expeditionary force attacked a British possession far away and was counterattacked by a tiny British expeditionary force. Neither side brought the numbers that you would need to attack a nation.

Argentina was not invaded.. they accepted the Nazi refugee's with open arms after WW2......

That had 0 to do with the Falklands War, which is what they were talking about, bud.

Dukasaur wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Argentina was never invaded. A tiny Argentine expeditionary force attacked a British possession far away and was counterattacked by a tiny British expeditionary force. Neither side brought the numbers that you would need to attack a nation.

Its true that Argentina's mainland was not invaded, but their objective was different.
The British expeditionary force was not as tiny as you say it... 127 ships and ~30.000 men(~10% of British military personal).

What I want to say is that the British demonstrated how an invasion over the ocean can be carried out... They secured place close enough, but in the same time remote enough, and good enough to establish air superiority on the location for the mainland invasion... For the attack on the Argentina's mainland initially they would have probably needed 10 to 15 times more men.

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway, my point here is not to brag, but to point out that the sheer size and distance makes a trans-oceanic invasion virtually impossible. The U.S. enjoys the same geographic isolation. There is nobody at all who has any realistic chance of invading you. The whole professional army is completely unnecessary. The difficulties of putting an army across an ocean can't be exaggerated. Even for you.

Argentina was playing on that card as well... until the British decided to swim across the Atlantic ocean.

Argentina was never invaded. A tiny Argentine expeditionary force attacked a British possession far away and was counterattacked by a tiny British expeditionary force. Neither side brought the numbers that you would need to attack a nation.

Its true that Argentina's mainland was not invaded, but their objective was different.
The British expeditionary force was not as tiny as you say it... 127 ships and ~30.000 men(~10% of British military personal).

What I want to say is that the British demonstrated how an invasion over the ocean can be carried out... They secured place close enough, but in the same time remote enough, and good enough to establish air superiority on the location for the mainland invasion... For the attack on the Argentina's mainland initially they would have probably needed 10 to 15 times more men.

I don't disagree. And to take and hold in the long term, more again.

Invading a tiny island group was quite an ambitious project. Taking a large nation, when you have no common border and you have to bring everything across the sea, is beyond everyone except the superpowers. Even for them, very unlikely.