"Finland’s Selection Of F-35 Confirms Its Status As The Free World’s Fighter" https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...ms-its-status-as-the-free-worlds-fighter/amp/
Your remark was, that they were falling to pieces. Not how much they were costing.Wrong, the opposite is the case. Take a squint at how much they've had to ask HMG for, and look at the opinions of Scotland's own education and health watchdogs.
Where’s that then. Falmouth?No ex Sub base in Cornwall to be re established if Scotland gets independence.
YesWhere’s that then. Falmouth?
We saw it first. So there…
And that was both metaphorically and literally correct.Your remark was, that they were falling to pieces. Not how much they were costing.
When it gets as bad as England then I would worry.And that was both metaphorically and literally correct.
Can someone explain to me,simply. What is the difference between the “European army “ that so many Brexiters are afraid of and NATO.
Hypersonic missiles now travel at around 3,800 mph, so not very much more time!
Wrong again. Read both inspectors' reports and comparisons and then come back to us...When it gets as bad as England then I would worry.
Which was why I asked the question. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately unless corroborated I can’t believe it.Don't think you understand what NATO actually is.
I also don't think you understand what the EU actually wanted in terms of a 'European army'.
Hopefully this is the fear some Liz Truss. One look at her will scare those Ruskies back to Moscow!I see the UK has delivered weaponry to the Ukraine via transport planes, on a Flightplan avoiding German airspace.
Show some respect man. Liz was most probably on that plane to Ukraine, poised to charge down the loading rampHopefully this is the fear some Liz Truss. One look at her will scare those Ruskies back to Moscow!
Which was why I asked the question. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately unless corroborated I can’t believe it.
The UK is up to its neck in the Ukraine, but other NATO counties are as well. Currently in the process of supplying warships (mine hunters and missile carries) and assistance in navel base construction for them. As well as anti-tank weapons and a large amount of training personnel. The US is supplying various missile systems and small arms, France has offed Dassault Rafael fighters and a finance package for them. Italy is involved in military training. Canada has special forces units in Ukraine.I see the UK has delivered weaponry to the Ukraine via transport planes, on a Flightplan avoiding German airspace.
Thanks for that. I was pretty clear on NATO and I had assumed that any European army would be along the same lines,if you pick on one EU country you pick on all of them. If so I don’t have a problem with that. If however ,as you seem to suggest, the proposed EU army is for the internal policing of the EU then that is clearly wrong.NATO was dreamt up to deter Soviet aggression and expansion. A lot of countries joined it because they feared the USSR would invade or attack them, possibly with nuclear or similar weapons. NATO stated that their response to an attack on any member would result in the others coming to their defence, including a possible nuclear response where WMDs were employed. This was important as not all NATO members had nuclear weapons. Some allowed the basing of American nuclear weapons on their soil. (West) Germany was one example, with some American strategic assets being placed there- mere minutes flight time from Russian soil.
The important thing is though that NATO was an alliance, and each member had the responsibility to fund, maintain and exercise it's own armed forces independently of the others. Some members also chose to buy into certain things like common ammunition supplies, fighter aircraft, radar and radio sets- to ensure that in time of war there would be a good deal of interoperability between the forces of one country amongst the others. They also planned and conducted big exercises to rehearse all the moves they might make in a for-real battle.
The idea of a European army is much less clear. Are we talking about a central pool of military forces and if so, who commands them? The EU government? That is an alarming prospect and exactly the system they had in the USSR- where Russian or other troops might suddenly descend on a 'member' country to defend it's government- as happened in the Hungarian uprising which saw Russian troops turn up and shoot civilians to restore order.
So, we have established the role and nature of NATO, pray tell what real need we have of a 'European army'?
Thanks for that. I was pretty clear on NATO and I had assumed that any European army would be along the same lines,if you pick on one EU country you pick on all of them. If so I don’t have a problem with that. If however ,as you seem to suggest, the proposed EU army is for the internal policing of the EU then that is clearly wrong.
The UK is up to its neck in the Ukraine, but other NATO counties are as well. Currently in the process of supplying warships (mine hunters and missile carries) and assistance in navel base construction for them. As well as anti-tank weapons and a large amount of training personnel. The US is supplying various missile systems and small arms, France has offed Dassault Rafael fighters and a finance package for them. Italy is involved in military training. Canada has special forces units in Ukraine.