More than 1,000 British troops and 500 armoured vehicles have been taking part in a military exercise in Poland, in a display of force not been seen since the Cold War.

Working alongside Polish counterparts, they've carried out live fire exercises and tactical training.

In a highly symbolic image, Challenger Tanks and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles have been on manoeuvres on the plains of Eastern Europe.

Some 1,350 soldiers from The King's Royal Hussars, 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh and 26 Engineer Regiment are involved.

It is intended as a show of strength against an increasingly aggressive Russian neighbour.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon described the exercise as "sustained and substantial support to NATO’s eastern border".

Troops taking part have been prevented from using mobiles phones and iPads in case they're hacked by Russians.

The exercise was put together after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down in Ukraine.

At the NATO Summit in Wales, member states agreed a series of military exercises in a show of support to alliance partners in Eastern Europe.

Speaking from the exercise, Lieutenant Colonel Justin Kingsford said: "It's been a few years since we deployed a force such as this at such high speed.

"But, we've got the capabilities to project force when we need to, albeit it in a training scenario such as this, at fairly high speeds and at fairly long distances."

Black Eagle is the largest British commitment to the region in almost a decade..

The Challenger tanks last saw action in Iraq in 2003. Some of them were brought out of storage in Germany.

The UK also deployed Typhoon fighter jets earlier in the year to bolster the Baltic Air Policing Mission.

Speaking on a tour of the region on Thursday, Nato's secretary general Jen's Stoltenberg revealed that jets have been scrambled 400 times in the past 12 months to ward off Russian planes flying towards Nato-controlled airspace.

This is a 50% increase on 2013.

"Russian air activity has increased all over Europe," he told reporters on a stopover in Estonia.

"This pattern is risky and unjustified. NATO continues to remain vigilant."

http://news.sky.com/story/1377455/uks-show-of-force-against-russian-aggression

Bring it on

The U.S caused all this shiit,it should be Washington vs Moscow.

UK is a third world and irrelevant country, they are no match against the Russian empire without their master (usa)

CAMNEWTON4PRES:
UK is a third world and irrelevant country, they are no match against the Russian empire without their master (usa)

seriously they're irrelevant,I don't know why they're on the list of top 5 power countries,USA,Russia,China,Uk,France,the funny thing is USA controls most of these countries especially UK,then France,Israel,not too much for china but they can never control Russia,that's why the US are tryna go against Russia through Ukraine crisis,imposing sanctions etc,now NATO members are all against Russia,I think The US are doing all this to still maintain their "world power" thing,they're struggling to maintain it,cos Russia and china are closing the gap militarily,weapon advancement even in world economy.

Diffdeef:
seriously they're irrelevant,I don't know why they're on the list of top 5 power countries,USA,Russia,China,Uk,France,the funny thing is USA controls most of these countries especially UK,then France,Israel,not too much for china but they can never control Russia,that's why the US are tryna go against Russia through Ukraine crisis,imposing sanctions etc,now NATO members are all against Russia,I think The US are doing all this to still maintain their "world power" thing,they're struggling to maintain it,cos Russia and china are closing the gap militarily,weapon advancement even in world economy.

Russia closing the gap economically? loooool!!!

Diffdeef:
seriously they're irrelevant,I don't know why they're on the list of top 5 power countries,USA,Russia,China,Uk,France,the funny thing is USA controls most of these countries especially UK,then France,Israel,not too much for china but they can never control Russia,that's why the US are tryna go against Russia through Ukraine crisis,imposing sanctions etc,now NATO members are all against Russia,I think The US are doing all this to still maintain their "world power" thing,they're struggling to maintain it,cos Russia and china are closing the gap militarily,weapon advancement even in world economy.

Lies..The U.K is as militarily advanced as Russia itself..No Nuclear armed state can be dubbed "irrelevant"..Any Nation with Naval Carriers that can project force anywhere in the world cannot be irrelevant...all that about the U.K "serving" the U.S's interests is complete B.S..The Britain and the U.S have been allies since the 2nd World War..the War on terror only helped strenghten their alliance..As for Russia, its only a matter of time. When the sanctions start biting hard, it will disgracefully back out of the illegal pseudo State it has created in Ukraine.

bookface:



Russia closing the gap economically? loooool!!!

china specifically,they surpassed America's PPP recently.

celeron40:
Lies..The U.K is as militarily advanced as Russia itself..No Nuclear armed state can be dubbed "irrelevant"..Any Nation with Naval Carriers that can project force anywhere in the world cannot be irrelevant...all that about the U.K "serving" the U.S's interests is complete B.S..The Britain and the U.S have been allies since the 2nd World War..the War on terror only helped strenghten their alliance..As for Russia, its only a matter of time. When the sanctions start biting hard, it will disgracefully back out of the illegal pseudo State it has created in Ukraine.

There's a difference between them being allies and one of them being a lapdog for the other.

celeron40:
Lies..The U.K is as militarily advanced as Russia itself..No Nuclear armed state can be dubbed "irrelevant"..Any Nation with Naval Carriers that can project force anywhere in the world cannot be irrelevant...all that about the U.K "serving" the U.S's interests is complete B.S..The Britain and the U.S have been allies since the 2nd World War..the War on terror only helped strenghten their alliance..As for Russia, its only a matter of time. When the sanctions start biting hard, it will disgracefully back out of the illegal pseudo State it has created in Ukraine.

No nuclear armed state be deemed irrelevant?
Please tell me what is relevant about North Korea and Pakistan apart from the fear of loose nukes.


Any nation with Naval Carriers can project force anywhere in the world?
Please tell us how Brazil and Thailand are projecting power with their carriers.


And Yes! Britain is a US vassal state. take it or leave it. UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent and the nukes are merely symbolic.

Missy89:


No nuclear armed state be deemed irrelevant?
Please tell me what is relevant about North Korea and Pakistan apart from the fear of loose nukes.


Any nation with Naval Carriers can project force anywhere in the world?
Please tell us how Brazil and Thailand are projecting power with their carriers.


And Yes! Britain is a US vassal state. take it or leave it. UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent and the nukes are merely symbolic.

Can we get married?



However, you can't take away the fact the U.K has the world's best Infantry men. It would be very tough for the Russians, and their conscripts army.

Henry120:

Can we get married?

jeez! Just like that? Grow up dude.


@topic. UK doesn't matter.Russian can take them out within 72hrs.

Nobleval:
jeez! Just like that? Grow up dude.


@topic. UK doesn't matter.Russian can take them out within 72hrs.

Yep, just like that.

Henry120:




Yep, just like that.

okay,..

Waiting for her reply though.

Henry120:


Can we get married?



However, you can't take away the fact the U.K has the world's best Infantry men. It would be very tough for the Russians, and their conscripts army.

World best might be over the top but better than Russian conscripts? most likely!

Missy89:


World best might be over the top but better than Russian conscripts? most likely!

They are top down the best infantry in the world. All british engagements from the Falklands war with Argentina till today have mostly ended in a success for the british army. When stacked up against the americans in the same period, it is clear they are ahead of the americans in decisive military victories.


On the other hand, the Russians only recently began actively modernising their military. Although Russia's engagement over Georgia in 2006 was a quick victory, it wasn't decisive. Russian armour kept on breaking down, with some Russian troops deployed without the necessary kit or body-armour. It exposed the russian military under-belly.


Their troops in crimea were significantly more modern than the ones seen in Georgia.

Henry120:


They are top down the best infantry in the world. All british engagements from the Falklands war with Argentina till today have mostly ended in a success for the british army. When stacked up against the americans in the same period, it is clear they are ahead of the americans in decisive military victories.


On the other hand, the Russians only recently began actively modernising their military. Although Russia's engagement over Georgia in 2006 was a quick victory, it wasn't decisive. Russian armour kept on breaking down, with some Russian troops deployed without the necessary kit or body-armour. It exposed the russian military under-belly.

Their troops in crimea were significantly more modern than the ones seen in Georgia.

The last time the British fought on its own was the second world war and they suffered a lot of humiliating defeats in the hands of the Japanese. Since then, they have always fought along side the Americans apart from the Falklands (where they had logistic and intelligence help). So how are they the best infantry in the world exactly when they haven't really fought alone in recent years? how did you come to this conclusion? They couldn't even hold Basra in 2007 and ran away in the middle of the night!

Yes i have said it before that the Gerogia campaign showed how weak their military was even thou they managed to win. but like u said yourself that has changed.Since it is still a conscript army, they cant get enough training before they are deployed and wont get enough experience before they are released. So yeah i agree with u that the British are better trained but best infantry in the world? please!

Missy89:


The last time the British fought on its own was the second world war and they suffered a lot of humiliating defeats in the hands of the Japanese. Since then, they have always fought along side the Americans apart from the Falklands (where they had logistic and intelligence help). So how are they the best infantry in the world exactly when they haven't really fought alone in recent years? how did you come to this conclusion? They couldn't even hold Basra in 2007 and ran away in the middle of the night!

Yes i have said it before that the Gerogia campaign showed how weak their military was even thou they managed to win. but like u said yourself that has changed.Since it is still a conscript army, they cant get enough training before they are deployed and wont get enough experience before they are released. So yeah i agree with u that the British are better trained but best infantry in the world? please!

The Falklands,
Sierra-leone,
Kosovo,
Bosnia.

These are some recent successful conflicts the british have under-taken on their own. That been it is widely held that the british do have the best infantry in the world.

Iraq, and Afghanistan are both coalition failures. Both on the british and American side.


While for the Americans, the same period under-review, they've actually had military success in the invasions of the tiny islands of

Granada,
Panama.

Vietnam, was a failure
Operation eagle claw, Iran, failure
Somalia, failure

Henry120:


The Falklands,
Sierra-leone,
Kosovo,
Bosnia.

These are some recent successful conflicts the british have under-taken on their own. That been it is widely held that the british do have the best infantry in the world.

Iraq, and Afghanistan are both coalition failures. Both on the british and American side.


While for the Americans, the same period under-review, they've actually had military success in the invasions of the tiny islands of

Granada,
Panama.

Vietnam, was a failure
Operation eagle claw, Iran, failure
Somalia, failure

Kosovo was nato
Sierra Leon was a ragtag militia
Bosnia was nato (more of West Germany)
I gave you the Falklands already

Afghanistan might be a coalition failure but Basra was the British responsibility and they retreated in the middle of the night drawing criticism from everyone. It was well documented!

I wasn't comparing them to the US military so i dont see your point here. You said they are the best infantry in the world and i was asking you, how did you draw that conclusion? saying it is widely held is a bit confusing. widely held by who?

Missy89:


No nuclear armed state be deemed irrelevant?
Please tell me what is relevant about North Korea and Pakistan apart from the fear of loose nukes.


Any nation with Naval Carriers can project force anywhere in the world?
Please tell us how Brazil and Thailand are projecting power with their carriers.


And Yes! Britain is a US vassal state. take it or leave it. UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent and the nukes are merely symbolic.

The fear of loose nukes is exactly what makes them relevant! Military planners across the world can afford to ignore a missing Nigerian president - When the president of North Korea goes missing, they quake in their boots!

Suffice to say no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded in history! The US might have the world's largest military force, but it still wouldn't mess with North Korea. North Korea might not have the capability to project force into US mainlands, but the whole of South Korea, Japan, United States 7th fleet and the Hawaii could come under nuclear attacks.

Who says a nuclear armed state is irrelevant?

bookface:


The fear of loose nukes is exactly what makes them relevant! Military planners across the world can afford to ignore a missing Nigerian president - When the president of North Korea goes missing, they quake in their boots!

Suffice to say no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded in history! The US might have the world's largest military force, but it still wouldn't mess with North Korea. North Korea might not have the capability to project force into US mainlands, but the whole of South Korea, Japan, United States 7th fleet and the Hawaii could come under nuclear attacks.

Who says a nuclear armed state is irrelevant?

I stated that "APART FROM THE FEAR OF LOOSE NUKES" there is no relevance. I never said they are entirely irrelevant.

As for North Korea, of course they have a limited military capability just like every country even the ones with nukes. Their nukes are not a deterrent so using it is only a death and it is just symbolical and it would never be used. at the same time, they wont give it up because it might lead to the overthrow of the government which leaves them in a limbo. Another reason is that the survival of the regime is dependent on Chinese support and should they fire their missile, China would abandon them to their fate.

Military conflicts are unpredictable but in terms of capability, It is not a secret that the only reason why North Korea will not be invaded is because the causalities on the side of the South and the Americans will be too high to consider such operation and the South's capital will probably be totally destroyed because of the overwhelming artillery pointed at it from the north and the reason why the North won't invade is because of the risk that South Korea might endure the destruction of Seoul and counter attack. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.


Nuclear deterrence itself is not a security guarantee for any nuclear armed state because it is not a military theory and has more to do with human behavior (Rational leaders, etc). It is not a guarantee for security. If it is, there would be no development of nuclear defense shields and the weapons would be allowed to proliferate so that everyone would be secure. This alone discredits the theory that every nuclear armed state regardless their deterrence capability can be relevant (apart from loose nukes) or cant be invaded (especially when they dont have a deterrent like Pakistan and north Korea which will force them to fight conventionally and will probably lose. )

Missy89:


Kosovo was nato
Sierra Leon was a ragtag militia
Bosnia was nato (more of West Germany)
I gave you the Falklands already

Afghanistan might be a coalition failure but Basra was the British responsibility and they retreated in the middle of the night drawing criticism from everyone. It was well documented!

I wasn't comparing them to the US military so i dont see your point here. You said they are the best infantry in the world and i was asking you, how did you draw that conclusion? saying it is widely held is a bit confusing. widely held by who?

I used the U.S military as a comparison because, well, it's the U.S military. I assumed there just isn't a better yard-stick.

I drew my conclusion based on the following.

1, as widely agreed, volunteer armies are better than conscript armies. As the volunteer, wants to be there.

2, firepower isn't a substitute for brains, the british pioneered modern special forces and special operations forces units. They trained and helped actively setup the U.S 75th ranger regiment.

3, training, equipment, skill and general operational experiences. See, Royal Marines commandos: mission afghanistan(series), our war: 10 years in afghanistan(series).

4, the british military encourages cross-training across all ranks, training on different weapons, communications and language platforms. Plus, the Gurkha's are another top class infantry unit.

Whether sierra-leone was ragtag or not, it was still a military victory for the british. We've seen instances were other first grade militaries perform poorly against similar oppostion, black-hawk down.

Henry120:


I used the U.S military as a comparison because, well, it's the U.S military. I assumed there just isn't a better yard-stick.

I drew my conclusion based on the following.

1, as widely agreed, volunteer armies are better than conscript armies. As the volunteer, wants to be there.

2, firepower isn't a substitute for brains, the british pioneered modern special forces and special operations forces units. They trained and helped actively setup the U.S 75th ranger regiment.

3, training, equipment, skill and general operational experiences. See, Royal Marines commandos: mission afghanistan(series), our war: 10 years in afghanistan(series).

4, the british military encourages cross-training across all ranks, training on different weapons, communications and language platforms. Plus, the Gurkha's are another top class infantry unit.

Whether sierra-leone was ragtag or not, it was still a military victory for the british. We've seen instances were other first grade militaries perform poorly against similar oppostion, black-hawk down.

But the same British Military surrendered to the Japanese even thou it was a smaller force. They were even holding a white flag , flanked by 2 Japanese soldiers as their cowardly generals laid down their arms. and if you remember very well, there were more British troops defending Singapore (more than those in London) at that time!. The same British were escaping thru the sea from mainland Europe in 1940 and were retreating at night in 2007 from Basra.

The points u raised are valid but this doesn't make them the best infantry in the world. You can say they have one of the best training but when it comes to testing that training in any conflict, there are many factors to consider.

The Russians might have little/not the best training due to their short conscription timelines but that doesn't mean they wold be easily defeated in an open conflict with the British. and the British will never fight their US counterparts so how do we measure their capability against seasoned soldiers?

Contract Solders are always better indeed but in a full scale war, a conscript army will have the advantage because they will save time in mobilization and get more men to the front line on time,and there would be little desertion. Some of the new recruits that have gone thru basic training before will only need to go thru a crash course in their battle inoculation and be ready to fight.
Vietnam was an example.

Missy89,

Why are you so emotional?

I saw what you did - I just checked ya profile now.

Darn! You're a cry-baby - not something a military-minded person should do.

SirShymex:
Missy89,

Why are you so emotional?

I saw what you did - I just checked ya profile now.

Darn! You're a cry-baby - not something a military-minded person should do.

Still ignoring you

Missy89:


I stated that "APART FROM THE FEAR OF LOOSE NUKES" there is no relevance. I never said they are entirely irrelevant.

As for North Korea, of course they have a limited military capability just like every country even the ones with nukes. Their nukes are not a deterrent so using it is only a death and it is just symbolical and it would never be used. at the same time, they wont give it up because it might lead to the overthrow of the government which leaves them in a limbo. Another reason is that the survival of the regime is dependent on Chinese support and should they fire their missile, China would abandon them to their fate.

Of course the nukes are a deterrent! As a matter of fact, nukes in the hands of an unpredictable state actor -(North Korea) is the best form of deterrent! No one expects that the Yankees will ever use their thousands nukes stored away in rusting silos. The North Koreans on the other hand, have very little reason to act rationally.

Military conflicts are unpredictable but in terms of capability, It is not a secret that the only reason why North Korea will not be invaded is because the causalities on the side of the South and the Americans will be too high to consider such operation and the South's capital will probably be totally destroyed because of the overwhelming artillery pointed at it from the north and the reason why the North won't invade is because of the risk that South Korea might endure the destruction of Seoul and counter attack. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

Yes, it has everything to do with nuclear weapons! Having nuclear weapons and the ability to cause some really serious damage makes you invincible in a sense! NATO will never have invaded Libya if Qaddafi own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

Nuclear deterrence itself is not a security guarantee for any nuclear armed state because it is not a military theory it has more to do with human behavior (Rational leaders, etc). It is not a guarantee for security. If it is, there would be no development of nuclear defense shields and the weapons would be allowed to proliferate so that everyone would be secure. This alone discredits the theory that every nuclear armed state regardless their deterrence capability can be relevant (apart from loose nukes) or cant be invaded (especially when they dont have a deterrent like Pakistan and north Korea which will force them to fight conventionally and will probably lose. )

Of course, it is a guarantee for security.
First, Human behavior does dictate that the party that stands more to lose in the event of a conflict will act rationally - Assume that a country like Cuba has a few nuclear tipped missiles - in the event of conflict with a country like the US, the US is the party that is much likely to act rationally because it has more to lose.

Second, missile defense systems will never offer complete protection from a salvo of missiles from a well armed and determined foe! - of course, i am not talking the types of cheap missiles being fired at Israel. Nuclear armed states like North korea may not yet have the capability to strike at the US homeland - but they can well cause a lot of damage to neighboring states and a huge global chaos with significant amount of human cost.

bookface:


Of course the nukes are a deterrent! As a matter of fact, nukes in the hands of an unpredictable state actor -(North Korea) is the best form of deterrent! No one expects that the Yankees will ever use their thousands nukes stored away in rusting silos. The North Koreans on the other hand, have very little reason to act rationally.

I disagree here. You seem to be using North Korea's public actions to judge how the establishment thinks. That is totally wrong. The first action of every state is to preserve state power and maintain the status quo. when it comes to nuclear matters, NK sabre rattling has more to do with desperation and finding a way to bring the US back to the negotiating table because the current arrangement as regards the cease fire is not favorable to the regime. US on the other hand see the isolation of NK as a very effective tool because sooner or later, the supreme leader might be overthrown(China already has a contingency for this. It was leaked few years ago that they would invade the country should the regime fall and cease their nuclear installations.) . They would NEVER use it because the state will cease to exist the minute they do. Shutting down the program however gives the leader little legitimacy in his country so they have to keep testing missiles.

bookface:


Yes, it has everything to do with nuclear weapons! Having nuclear weapons and the ability to cause some really serious damage makes you invincible in a sense! NATO will never have invaded Libya if Qaddafi own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

Not exactly true as well. Regime change can still happen but there are few factors to consider. This is the reason why NK is a closed society. her nukes is not enough to deter any power and opening the country will allow western influence, infiltration in the establishment among other things that are needed to change a regime. If Gadaffi was running a closed country with little outside influence with nukes, then maybe(but he will be isolated). Nations like Russia are still struggling to contain western interference even thou they have an enormous stockpile. Strong economy and a well functioning social/democratic system is the deterrence not nukes.

bookface:

Of course, it is a guarantee for security.
First, Human behavior does dictate that the party that stands more to lose in the event of a conflict will act rationally - Assume that a country like Cuba has a few nuclear tipped missiles - in the event of conflict with a country like the US, the US is the party that is much likely to act rationally because it has more to lose.

You cannot prove this theory of urs as everything would depend on the authority that would be in charge of pressing the button. Human rationale cannot be predicted this way because 1) the scenario has never happened before 2)different C-in-Cs have their doctrine. Cuba is not that big for example. few missiles could end the whole country in response to hitting few american cities so how does the US have more to lose?. Even during the cold war, some generals still believe US could win even if it got to a point where only one city is left not to talk of Cuba.

bookface:

Second, missile defense systems will never offer complete protection from a salvo of missiles from a well armed and determined foe! - of course, i am not talking the types of cheap missiles being fired at Israel. Nuclear armed states like North korea may not yet have the capability to strike at the US homeland - but they can well cause a lot of damage to neighboring states and a huge global chaos with significant amount of human cost.

I think i replied to this already. like i said, the this damage can be done with their conventional force and not their nuclear force since that would end the state. their conventional force is what is deterring the west not their nuclear force.

the only reason why it seems like NATO is a rational actor is because of its superior conventional capability

Missy89:

I disagree here. You seem to be using North Korea's public actions to judge how the establishment thinks. That is totally wrong. The first action of every state is to preserve state power and maintain the status quo. when it comes to nuclear matters, NK sabre rattling has more to do with desperation and finding a way to bring the US back to the negotiating table because the current arrangement as regards the cease fire is not favorable to the regime. US on the other hand see the isolation of NK as a very effective tool because sooner or later, the supreme leader might be overthrown(China already has a contingency for this. It was leaked few years ago that they would invade the country should the regime fall and cease their nuclear installations.) . They would NEVER use it because the state will cease to exist the minute they do. Shutting down the program however gives the leader little legitimacy in his country so they have to keep testing missiles.

You seem to KNOW for sure that North Korea's public actions are nothing more than a bit of bluff, yet you haven't presented any evidence behind your thesis. North Korea has proven to be capable of several irrational incidents in modern history -from Sinking of the Cheonan, Ballistic missile tests, Shelling of South Korean Islands and many more...On the balance of probability, there's absolutely no reason to expect the regime to act rationally, if it ever felt threatened. We are talking here, about a country that has lived with a permanent siege mentality - a country that has lived under a constant threat of war since the 1950s when American bombing raids flattened pretty much all the buildings in its capital.

No one knows for sure what North Korea will do with his nuclear weapons if it feels threatened and no one is waiting to find out. It is suicidal to presume, "they will never use it" - despite trading off economic well being for the preservation of those programs.

Not exactly true as well. Regime change can still happen but there are few factors to consider. This is the reason why NK is a closed society. her nukes is not enough to deter any power and opening the country will allow western influence, infiltration in the establishment among other things that are needed to change a regime. If Gadaffi was running a closed country with little outside influence with nukes, then maybe(but he will be isolated). Nations like Russia are still struggling to contain western interference even thou they have an enormous stockpile. Strong economy and a well functioning social/democratic system is the deterrence not nukes.

Regime change can be influenced in almost any country with some liberalism. But outright military invasion will not happen when a country is heavily armed with nuclear weapons and that also has the will and ability to deliver those weapons. No one knows for sure (except perhaps, China), how advanced the North Korean programs are - this itself is a form of deterrence against any rational state actor.

Your argument that a strong economy/democratic system is the deterrence and not nukes is actually self defeating considering that we are discussing North Korea which lacks precisely the former but holds on steadfastly to the latter.

You cannot prove this theory of urs as everything would depend on the authority that would be in charge of pressing the button. Human rationale cannot be predicted this way because 1) the scenario has never happened before 2)different C-in-Cs have their doctrine. Cuba is not that big for example. few missiles could end the whole country in response to hitting few american cities so how does the US have more to lose?.
Even during the cold war, some generals still believe US could win even if it got to a point where only one city is left not to talk of Cuba.

The theory of rationality in this case is based on the logic of economic and human cost - A nuclear attack on on New York and California will have roughly the equivalent of human cost as a retaliatory nuclear attack on Cuba - but the economic costs are not on par. Whereas, the US will see its entire economic and socio-political system crumble, Cuba is only but a tiny country with a GDP of about 70 billion - who never really mattered in world affairs.

I think i replied to this already. like i said, the this damage can be done with their conventional force and not their nuclear force since that would end the state. their conventional force is what is deterring the west not their nuclear force.
the only reason why it seems like NATO is a rational actor is because of its superior conventional capability

I don't agree with this point. A nuclear armed state with less conventional military capability will ALWAYS act as a deterrence against NATO which will always be expected to play the rational actor. The UK will never have ventured blindly along with the US into Iraq if there was ever a real possibility that London end up as a hail of radioactive ash. The UK in this case will act RATIONALLY that the risks are not even worth it

Missy89:


World best might be over the top but better than Russian conscripts? most likely!

You haven't answered my initial question.

Can we get married?

Your military knowledge is shocking.

Henry120:


You haven't answered my initial question.

Can we get married?

Sure. where do you want me to mail the list?

Missy89:


Sure. where do you want me to mail the list?

For you, no list is enough.

Your vast military knowledge is giving me goose bumps.