It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A coalition of U.S.-U.K.-France-Germany is fearsome

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Lets put it this way : those troops now in Afganistan and the kosovo are probably the best equiped and best trained out of the whole lot .




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Lets put it this way : those troops now in Afganistan and the kosovo are probably the best equiped and best trained out of the whole lot .

Thanks mate, want to insult the guys in africa now?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Hmm... first I began to contemplate the vast amount of assets and firepower that such a collective coalition would bring, but then I realized that it would be pointless to do so, a coalition such as this would most likely never form against Iran.

Lets start with the French, they have proven throughout modem history that they are unwilling to act unless the threat is right on their border, this is a terrible way to fight a war or confront an enemy. In this instance the French will only give Iran empty threats and prolong the status quo as long as they can before they are forced to act. Again this is a failed doctrine, sure you may enjoy relative peace for the time being but you will later be forced to react and fight on Iran's terms when they could possibly have greater weapons, including Nuclear.

Then there are the Germans, while the Germans in my opinion share virtually the same view as the French they I believe are a bit more willing to pursue other options, including the military option. However in order for them to actually commit to a military solution certain unrealistic circumstances have to be in place.
Circumstances such as Iran openly admitting its Nuclear program is for military purposes, and Iran directly threatening Europe, as you can see these two things will most likely never happen.

And Finally there's the UK, while I hold the UK in high regard for its pro active policy toward current and future threats I am unsure what it would take for them to commit to another military conflict. To the best of my estimate I think that unless there is clear and deceive evidence that Iran does indeed have plans to build a nuclear weapon the UK will understandably not participate in any military action against it. This I believe is due to the Iraq war and all the subsequent consequences of it, I think the British will want to be absolutely certain before they commit to nay action against Iran.

So where does this leave us? Well of course you have the lone ranger, also known as the US. While Israel may join the US is bombing Iran the rest of the world it seems to me will likely sit this one out and watch from the sidelines.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hmm... first I began to contemplate the vast amount of assets and firepower that such a collective coalition would bring, but then I realized that it would be pointless to do so, a coalition such as this would most likely never form against Iran.

Lets start with the French, they have proven throughout modem history that they are unwilling to act unless the threat is right on their border, this is a terrible way to fight a war or confront an enemy. In this instance the French will only give Iran empty threats and prolong the status quo as long as they can before they are forced to act. Again this is a failed doctrine, sure you may enjoy relative peace for the time being but you will later be forced to react and fight on Iran's terms when they could possibly have greater weapons, including Nuclear.

Then there are the Germans, while the Germans in my opinion share virtually the same view as the French they I believe are a bit more willing to pursue other options, including the military option. However in order for them to actually commit to a military solution certain unrealistic circumstances have to be in place.
Circumstances such as Iran openly admitting its Nuclear program is for military purposes, and Iran directly threatening Europe, as you can see these two things will most likely never happen.

And Finally there's the UK, while I hold the UK in high regard for its pro active policy toward current and future threats I am unsure what it would take for them to commit to another military conflict. To the best of my estimate I think that unless there is clear and deceive evidence that Iran does indeed have plans to build a nuclear weapon the UK will understandably not participate in any military action against it. This I believe is due to the Iraq war and all the subsequent consequences of it, I think the British will want to be absolutely certain before they commit to nay action against Iran.

So where doe this leave us? Well of course you have the lone ranger, also known as the US. While Israel may join the US is bombing Iran the rest of the world it seems to me will likely sit this one out and watch from the sidelines.


Hmm... totally unrelated to the topic at hand. I was not asking whether they would participate or not, but rather if they did, what exactly they would put together to create this force of annihilation. You failed at the task. Again.

Next!



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Sorry, but I don't see a need to discuss pointless and unrealistic what if’s, I already explained why I didn't go that route.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sorry, but I don't see a need to discuss pointless and unrealistic what if’s, I already explained why I didn't go that route.


Nah, I am sorry you wasted your time.


To all others participating in the discussion, what exactly are France and Germany's current power-projection capabilities? devilwasp already mentioned the aircraft carriers. However, France and Germany do have strong air forces. Does the Eurofighter factor in within the next five years?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Underestimating the French..or claiming that whoever doesn't participate in Operation "Now its Iran's turn" is a ninny?

The French AirForce and Naval Orbat:

www.scramble.nl...

Power Projection:

The link above has AWACS, troop transport info

Carrier:

Charles de Gaulle

Future Carriers:

2 by 2015 (rumored)
both 50KT+ displacement carrying 35 Rafale M and maritime recon

Here's a good site for all naval capabilities:
www.hazegray.org...

IMO one of the top five navies of the world, and probably as good as the British in Power Projection.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I don't think it will be troops or anything at all, I think it's going to go like this...and is...so far.

I want nuclear tech.
We, the US, don't want you to have it.
But we need it.
What say the world?
World says you don't need it and we may cut aid and trade.
We're going to anyways.

Then we are going to blow up all your facilities by air and go have a nap.

I highly doubt there will be any ground action at all.

And I believe the coaltition has alot to bring to the table if it goes that route.


-DT



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
So the final deal is whether the Iranians can do anything about the B-2s and lesser a/c..
Lets talk about that..



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Lets put it this way : those troops now in Afganistan and the kosovo are probably the best equiped and best trained out of the whole lot .

Thanks mate, want to insult the guys in africa now?


ah right i forgot those guys from the navy at the horn of africa looking for ships smuggling weapons sorry but it would intrest me what you meant with the insulting part ?

If your saying that im insulting anyone your way off as im just stating the way it is here in germany and the state our troops are in which is a known fact over here . The regular troops in germany are just conscripts for 8-9 months mainly teens who are unemployed , basically 1 in 8 men get pulled in as germany wants to reduce the overall troop strength anyway.We all laugh (maybe we should rather cry) thinking about the fact that if it came to a war in germany these guys would rather run away then defend the country, they are poorly equiped with stuff thats 20 years old , every evening they get drunk as theres nothing better to do ( we here referr to the bundeswehr as the "sauf schule der nation " which means drinking school of the nation and believe me it really is like that .

The only troops who get good traing and equipment are the ones in the UN missions right now and that is lees than a third of the whole Bundeswehr so basically we are not able to really handle another mission also see the economic difficulties we are in at the moment.

So in what way would i be insulting anyone ? im just stating the way it is



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Derek Trance
....

Then we are going to blow up all your facilities by air and go have a nap.

I highly doubt there will be any ground action at all.

And I believe the coaltition has alot to bring to the table if it goes that route.


-DT


No doubt that this would be the easiest, cheapest and least risky route - also in regard to a possible destabilisation of the status quo in the other ME nations.

The problem is that this could lead to a 2nd "Saddam Effect":
1. the people in charge may REMAIN in charge.
2. It could increase Irans determination not to care about UN pressure
3. could lead to further isolation
4. though the existing tech is destroyed, it doesnt obliterate the knowledge - so after a rebuild in 15-20 years we could be in the same situation with Iran again.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sexymon
It was mentioned on the news in passing that the US first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be carried out with B2 bombers based by the Indian Ocean. Second possibility, if needed would be US B2's from the east coast...


I would have to imagine a first strike of the air defense network with Cruise missile before B-2s are sent in. There not much of a defense for cruise missiles and you can weaken the defenses the B-2 will have to encounter to get in to drop their bunker busters.

They could likely do the job without it slipping through the holes in the radar network but a nice missile strike before hand would make the job alot easier.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
For all the french who think that the're gods gift to millitary.

First world war - french got hammered
second world war - french got hammered
gulf war 1 - kept well away
gulf war 2 - kept well away

Sure the french commit a few troops (usually the foreign( ie not french) legion) to a few minor civil wars and a few border disputes between third world countries. But when you look at major wars they use any excuse to stay out of the way.

Compare that to the english

First world war - had a huge part in the allies winning
second world war - had a huge part in the allies winning
gulf war 1 - played second fiddle to america but still played a decent sized part
gulf war 2 - played second fiddle to america but still played a decent sized part
falklands war - dislodged a numerically superior from dug in positions 5,000 miles away from the english mainland.
The english also have troops in as many border disputes and civil wars as the french do.

The english have far more experience and have a navy air force and army that is just as good technologically. And as everyone knows experience is one of the most important factors in war. and however good the french millitary training is there is no substitute for experiance.

Justin



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
in GW1 the whole allied western flank was covered by French Legionaires... In WW1 French did their part, Marne if some one might remember... WW2... well not their best moment.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I take it mr juston that the other 3 countries in the UK had no part in those wars, did not recieve numerous VC's, did not help win the war and definatly did not send troops to down town baghdad.

I also take it that france ofcourse being the one who DID not defend 2/3rds of the line in WW2 and who DID not have thier countryside blasted and thier country used as a battlefield plus thier country ruined.

But hey, isnt ignorance fun?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Justin_Barton:
Nice try, but you missed some facts:

1st World War: France got "hammered" because the war was fought on their soil! In reality of 8.5 million french soldiers 1.4 million died; Of 8 million British troops 950.000 died. Thats 16% to 12% deaths - I wonder where you can find a significant disparity between those two - especially since the French Army fought in full force from the first day of the west offensive onwards, the british Army however joined the fight one after the other over several months and years.

2nd World War: Yes, France got "hammered" - simply because not a single army in the world existed that could have stopped the German Army of 1940. Need I remind you that several hundredthousand allied troops FLED head over heel at Dunkirk? The ONLY reason Britain could regroup was because of the Channel - would England be a continental country you wouldnt have stopped the Germans either. And you didnt have a "huge" part in winning: it took heavy sacrifices by the Russians and the USA to win this war. Actually Western Europe (where most of the british fighting took place) was not very heavily defended compared to other areas. And your war economy was about to collapse.

You speak of "a few border disputes and civil wars" for the french yet you list the Falklands war as a major English feat. After all the Falklands war was a remarkable, but limited war, and it was pretty much over as soon as you chased the Argentinian Navy away. And while we´re at it, two quotes: In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies".

Apparently you forgot that France was in a continuous state of war from 1946 to 1962. First in Indochina, then Algeria, with a little bit of Suez crisis in between. In Gulf War 2 the French actually had the third largest expeditionary force so your statement is factually wrong, and Gulf War 3 wasnt exactly a war that posed any difficulty (unlike the occupation).

Now, my intention is not to get into a pissing contest, but the obvious arrogance you showed in your last post certainly isnt suitable for a message board that tries to be reasonable and look behind the scenes. I also dont want to point out whose military has the longer d/ck (which obviously was your motivation). But misinformation needs correction.

For further reading I recommend this little article. BTW, I am not french.

[edit on 15/2/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
With respect lonestar I'd say britain done quite a bit to help in world war 2 considering we were the FOB of the allied invasion....unless they planning a southern attack via italy?

I also wanted to say something about WW1 that I double checked, the reason the british army did not enter the war for the first couple of months was because it did not exist.

The british army is not a standing army, it requires an act of parliment or more to have it created, the BEF existed before that.

British Expiditionary Force.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
A "contemtable little army" I believe was the word used to describe them, shame scotlands last "contemtable" died last year


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Sweat,


Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sorry, but I don't see a need to discuss pointless and unrealistic what if’s, I already explained why I didn't go that route.


Nah, I am sorry you wasted your time.


To all others participating in the discussion, what exactly are France and Germany's current power-projection capabilities? devilwasp already mentioned the aircraft carriers. However, France and Germany do have strong air forces. Does the Eurofighter factor in within the next five years?


WP also does not discuss when he has no facts to back his case. He also does not discuss when the actual facts disprove his unfounded opinion. In fact the only time he does discuss is when it is in praise of GWB or the USA.

So do not sweat (pun intended) his failure to commit to this thread. It is far better off without him.

I take it his name is taken for him liking the look of the place once when he drove by it.

Devil,

Do not bother yourself with someone who patently has no clue as to what actually happened in either WW1 or 2 and has acquired what knowledge they do have from war movies starring John Wayne.

For instance British casualties breaks down thus, 703,000 military deaths. 30,633 civilian deaths and 1,663,000 wounded. Nowhere near Lonestars figures

Cheers

S

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Sandman210372]

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Sandman210372]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman210372
Nah, I am sorry you wasted your time.


To all others participating in the discussion, what exactly are France and Germany's current power-projection capabilities? devilwasp already mentioned the aircraft carriers. However, France and Germany do have strong air forces. Does the Eurofighter factor in within the next five years?


Germany = 0
France= 1

France doesnt have "carriers" it has A carrier, 1 , une , VON!

The typhoon (EF is a company) is already in service but most likely isnt that useful right now, it has no power projection beyond its range and well its really a home defence option.

Europe has very little forign bases, hence why the US has power projection while europe does not.


WP also does not discuss when he has no facts to back his case. He also does not discuss when the actual facts disprove his unfounded opinion. In fact the only time he does discuss is when it is in praise of GWB or the USA.

Right...
Ok mister your now officially off my "nice guy" list, sorry but when you insult a friend of mine you insult me.

We clear here?


Devil,

Do not bother yourself with someone who patently has no clue as to what actually happened in either WW1 or 2 and has acquired what knowledge they do have from war movies starring John Wayne.

Cheers

S

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Sandman210372]

Thank buddy, mabye you shouldnt be the one complaining about ignorance..



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
DW,

What?

Cheers

S




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join