Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 14 June 2015, 15:52:27
-
Interesting results.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHdfgZFWsAAxcYZ.jpg)
But I suspect that as the question is badly worded, the answers are similarly flawed and if the question was: Would you be willing to fight to defend your country? The results would be very different.
In Europe, don't argue with Finns. I wonder if the result for Finland is a result of their long border with Russia and the Winter War in the 1930's where the Russian bear got badly mauled, but Finland ultimately lost.
-
Not surprised at the Vietnamese being near the top as the tough little buggers whipped the French and the Yanks! :y
I lived there for a while and saw a few 'big hard foreigners' come to a sticky end when they thought they could push their smaller hosts around! ;D
-
The question is ambiguous.
If Cameron nuked Russia and expected us all to give up our lives for his stupidity.....then no.
However, if that nice Mr Putin suddenly had a 'twitchy' nuclear finger and wiped out half of the country....then yes.
-
Not surprised at the Vietnamese being near the top as the tough little buggers whipped the French and the Yanks! :y
I lived there for a while and saw a few 'big hard foreigners' come to a sticky end when they thought they could push their smaller hosts around! ;D
They did indeed. ;D ;D ;D
-
Seems to me responses are generally, with some exceptions, related to wealth of the country concerned. Ie the wealthier, the least likely.
No surprise really, is there?
-
Change the question to ...'Would you die for your country'....and I would expect a very different reaction ;D
-
worryingly there's two nuclear armed countries in the top 10 and the country they would fight is each other.
-
I'm surprised the Japs least want a rumble.....11%
-
I'm surprised the Japs least want a rumble.....11%
Not really...... When you've already been nuked a couple of times. ::)
-
Dont think anyone's surprised with Afghan and Pakistan in that top ten, but as said, its an ambiguous question. On the one hand you could use this list as a way of seeing who is the most 'war like' races, on the other hand who's the most 'patriotic' or maybe a blend of the two. But then we're way down the list, and we've been in every War :y
Sad to see Belgium so far down, maybe there's a breeding in every generation, that they were so badly mauled in both World Wars, perhaps the feeling is they'd have been better off simply laying down and letting the tanks 'roll by' as it were. A beautiful country which was effectively completely destroyed twice in 30 years. But then again nearly half of Poles would fight, in spite of what was done to their country.
Interesting findings :)
-
The question is ambiguous.
Indeed. In a world war II situation, what have you got to lose...
If it's one of Tony B. Liar's political crusades based on lies and fabricated evidence, on the other hand, then the "honourable" gentleman would be welcome to go to the front line himself. ::)
-
And of course these days what exactly does "your country" mean ? The country you live in ? The country you were born in ? The country which you are culturally / religiously / ancestorally attached to ?
-
Once you had been fed some propaganda about ISIS fighters eating your babies or similar the percentage would increase.
I think in modern warfare (I might be wrong) the forces don't/won't need untrained canon fodder so the numbers will never be as large again.
-
Russia is still using WWII tactics in Ukraine. Massed artillery bombardments which has caused over 60% of Ukraine's casualties, followed by waves of tanks and infantry. This is why Putin on the 28th May, made all casualties a state secret. At Debaltseve in February the Russian army used barrier troops for the first time since WWII, where the conscripts don't want to be there and have been fighting very badly, whereas the reverse is true for Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) who have generally fought well.
The majority of the Russian mercenaries can fight and aim artillery in the morning, but in the afternoon or evening, both go out of the window where they have had their litre or so of Vodka. Often they will then start fighting between themselves or play practical jokes, that seem funny at the time, like waking their sleeping colleagues up with a grenade. ;D ;D ;D ;D
In the coming war between Russia and NATO, then I would expect casualties to be biased very much towards the Russian forces until they 'de escalate' with battlefield tactical nuclear weapons as this is standard Russian military doctrine. :( :( :( :(
-
Russia is still using WWII tactics in Ukraine. Massed artillery bombardments which has caused over 60% of Ukraine's casualties, followed by waves of tanks and infantry.
Thats because its so bloody effective. Most countries still try and amass battlegroups of 2 tanks and 2 armoured infantry especially to smash through difficult and well - defended positions. Those that dont are devoid of suitable formations to make them.
until they 'de escalate' with battlefield tactical nuclear weapons as this is standard Russian military doctrine. :( :( :( :(
So wrong it's not even funny.
-
I think the problem with most if not all surveys on any topic at all,is that you can virtually guarantee the result you/your sponsors want simply by wording the question differently,so I tend not to take too much notice of them!
-
Russia is still using WWII tactics in Ukraine. Massed artillery bombardments which has caused over 60% of Ukraine's casualties, followed by waves of tanks and infantry.
Thats because its so bloody effective. Most countries still try and amass battlegroups of 2 tanks and 2 armoured infantry especially to smash through difficult and well - defended positions. Those that dont are devoid of suitable formations to make them.
until they 'de escalate' with battlefield tactical nuclear weapons as this is standard Russian military doctrine. :( :( :( :(
So wrong it's not even funny.
Here is an explanation of a limited Russian nuclear strike as a De-escalation policy!
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation (http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation)
and the bio of the author
http://thebulletin.org/bio/nikolai-n-sokov (http://thebulletin.org/bio/nikolai-n-sokov)
Sadly, European countries still cutting defense budgets (CaMoron has just sliced another £500m, so we drop below the 2% NATO requirement, while telling the MOD how lucky they are as he planned £1bn (rumour is that it will be £3bn/pa by end of this Parliament)) and relying more on the US for defence, makes it more likely for Russia to chance their hand, in somewhere like the Baltics, so they have smaller direct borders with NATO countries and if things don't go well by conventional means, then to use, most likely in Europe, limited nuclear strike de-escalation. This has been practiced in Russian exercises in the last few years including a simulated strike on Warsaw.
-
Glad is on the news today. He's putting 40 new ICBM's into service this year. He said they will be able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile systems.
-
Russian logic: It is perfectly acceptable for us to threaten US and NATO with nuclear weapons, but if in return you put conventional forces into storage, in Eastern Europe, that is destabilizing! >:( >:( >:(
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHnzz-eWwAAALEh.jpg)
In reality, they would have been overrun, while Obama is still at the UN, pleading with Putin, let's talk about this. But there again the US now seems to have the strategy of arming its enemies before destroying them. ISIS is using lots of ex-Iraqi forces US equipment! :o :o :o :o
-
Tell you what, you keep reading articles written by scientists who are paid to make nuclear weapons, and public rhetoric from a general who is nothing but a mouthpiece for the russian regime*....and I'll keep reading what i read.
There is more risk to us from a terrorist getting his hands on material for a dirty bomb or a rogue nuclear state than from a nuclear power with whom we have been in nuclear stalement for over half a century.
*and that noise is more for the appeasement of the russian people than to scare the rest of the world ie look how tough we are!
-
Tell you what, you keep reading articles written by scientists who are paid to make nuclear weapons, and public rhetoric from a general who is nothing but a mouthpiece for the russian regime*....and I'll keep reading what i read.
There is more risk to us from a terrorist getting his hands on material for a dirty bomb or a rogue nuclear state than from a nuclear power with whom we have been in nuclear stalement for over half a century.
*and that noise is more for the appeasement of the russian people than to scare the rest of the world ie look how tough we are!
I agree totally, Matt, but with a maniacal egotist at the helm, it is a bit of a worry. These idiots are usually got shut of by their own people. I wish they'd hurry up.
-
Here is an explanation of a limited Russian nuclear strike as a De-escalation policy!
just read that and it says
"Ultimately the 2010 doctrine tightened conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used. Whereas the 2000 document allowed for their use “in situations critical to the national security” of Russia, the 2010 edition limited them to situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat.”
which is odd as it is the opposite of what i thought you were saying.
-
Here is an explanation of a limited Russian nuclear strike as a De-escalation policy!
just read that and it says
"Ultimately the 2010 doctrine tightened conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used. Whereas the 2000 document allowed for their use “in situations critical to the national security” of Russia, the 2010 edition limited them to situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat.”
which is odd as it is the opposite of what i thought you were saying.
Rod has sexual fantasies about Putin ;)
If fact some people believe Rod has a blow up doll of Vlad, stashed in his wardrobe for special occasions ;)
Allegedly anyway :D :D :D
-
Here is an explanation of a limited Russian nuclear strike as a De-escalation policy!
just read that and it says
"Ultimately the 2010 doctrine tightened conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used. Whereas the 2000 document allowed for their use “in situations critical to the national security” of Russia, the 2010 edition limited them to situations in which “the very existence of the state is under threat.”
which is odd as it is the opposite of what i thought you were saying.
Rod has sexual fantasies about Putin ;)
If fact some people believe Rod has a blow up doll of Vlad, stashed in his wardrobe for special occasions ;)
Allegedly anyway :D :D :D
I think you're confusing me with STMO, his blow up Vlad sits in the snot box front passenger seat. He says the box of incontinence pants are a booster seat, so Vlad can see out, but I have my doubts. :P ::) :o :o :o
My only fantasy involves heads and an extra 5.56 or 5.45mm hole or two.
Unfortunately, for most people with most things, like far off wars, the dead and injured are just anonymous names and statistics, until it involves you, your immediate family, distant family, neighbours, work colleagues or friends. The Donbas / Luhansk front doesn't have too move that far before two of my families houses will be in artillery / Grad range and I've got 6 Ukrainian nephews, 5 of whom are eligible for conscription and frontline service. At the current 2% annual KIA and 8% WIA rates, there will be a 10% chance of one being killed and 50% chance of one being wounded over the 12 month (or the more normal until you are released) conscription length, which could be anything from a scratch to life changing injuries. Medivac, field hospitals etc., currently just don't exist along with any thoughts of golden hours, although battlefield first aid training and first aid kits have improved over the last 12 months. This is why it is very different for me to most on here and why I do my best to fight Ukraine's corner in anyway I can.
In Ukraine families are incredibly close, where it is the 1st order natural survival unit. Outside of the big cities wages are typically £50 to £200 and unemployment benefits and pensions around £15 a month, with prices as high and in many cases higher than in the UK where their distribution and retail systems are not as efficient as ours. Village life involves growing food and keeping animals as a necessity not a luxury. Gas and Electricity prices used to be heavily subsidised (and were bankrupting the government) at about 10% of ours, but have now sensibly been brought up to about the same as ours, but fuel poverty, poor insulation and winter temperatures down to -25deg C are not a good combination. Fortunately, my wife's immediate family have wood burning and gas boilers for their central heating and have managed to buy 7cu/m of oak at the 'right' spring price, which they have been busy cutting to size and chopping ready to see them through next winter.
-
Nah, that's bluster....you fancy Vlad :-*
-
(http://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/putin.jpg?w=500)
-
Looks a bit like my missus. ;D
-
I agree totally, Matt, but with a maniacal egotist at the helm, it is a bit of a worry. These idiots are usually got shut of by their own people. I wish they'd hurry up.
I hope we haven't gone and blocked the import of Polonium teabags with our sanctions, because it's about time Putin had a cuppa. ::)