Mandy Lifeboats

Even 10 U-boats in Irish waters could have done significant damage to any invasion fleet. At this point of the war we were figting the Axis in North Africa and the far east with limited success. Invading Ireland and then occupying it just wasn't feasible. Consider how much effort we put into defending the UK from the IRA when there wasn't a war on. Now image the IRA much, much bigger and armed with a plentiful array of weapons.

So......let me pose some hypothetical questions to you. Russia stages a small chemical attack on UK citizens. Would NATO declare war? Russia stages another small chemical attack on UK citizens. Would NATO declare war? Russia shoots down a South Korean airliner filled with Dutch Citizens. Would NATO declare war? A Russian pilot lock's onto an unarmed RAF plane and fires. The missile fails. Would NATO declare war? A Russian pilot intentionally collides with a NATO surveillance drone International airspace. Would NATO declare war? Russia moves a border post on the Estonian border 2 mm towards the west. Should NATO declare war? 3mm? 2cm? 20cm? 2m? 3m? Before you answer, let me remind you of Trump's recent comments that he would encourage Putin to do as he wished to a NATO country if they weren't paying their way.

The UK had suffered a massive defeat in Dunkirk and was fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa. Had the UK begun preparing an invasion of Ireland it could have prompted Ireland to simply join the Axis.

The real threat was the Nazis would invade neutral Ireland and use it as a stepping stone. Aberdovey beaches still have the defences we put in place to defend an invasion from Ireland. Pershore still has anti tank defences that are designed to defend an attack from Wales. A succesful Nazi invasion of Ireland leads to some interesting hypothetical dilemmas. Liverpool docks wouldn't last long. Could the RAF defend attacks from 3 sides?

I couldn't disagree more. Russia won't be stupid enough to launch a massive attack on NATO. But that's not how they work. Russia might try to snatch a small piece of a NATO country and test NATO's willingness to go to war over 20 square miles of Estonia. There's many examples of this tactics being used during my lifetime. Most notably Russia's original invasion of Crimea.

I have written about this before. NATO has a long-standing and well developed plan to beat a Russian invasion. 1. Let them come forward 2. Only defend areas with massive defensive advantages 3. Use special forces, helicopters and attack aircraft to destroy the Russian supply lines 4. Wait for the forward momentum to cease due to lack of supplies Ukraine had some success doing this. But they seem to have failed in a few key areas. They don't have the air power to shred the Russian supply lines. But the biggest failing is that they try to defend towns which are of little value and lose thousands of troops in a futile defense. This plays into Russia's hands by making it a war of attrition. Russia likes wars of attrition. Its easy to say "give up land" when it's not your land. But Ukraine should have given up more land in order to retain more troops. Ukraine needs to drop the Crimea bridge in 3 or 4 places. This requires a mass cruise missile attack. I believe that the US would provide the missiles to do it. But without the ability to safely launch those missiles in a large salvo, Russia can (more or less) keep the bridge safe. It's now a war of attrition and something major needs to happen to prevent Russia inevitably gaining 20% of Ukraine in return for peace.

That's not quite the full picture. Russia still has vast superiority in helicopters and attack helicopters. These support ground troops very effectively. The F16 will be deployed with air to air missiles that can take out these helicopters without venturing near Russian planes or air defences. This will force Russia to either withdraw their helicopters further back or move their air defences further forward. Things aren't going well for Ukraine at the moment. Russia is moving slowly forward. Whenever this has happened on the last 2 years it has prompted NATO to hand over better weapons or remove restrictions on the use of donated weapons. The F16 will allow NATO to donate weapons that can be immediately deployed rather than retrofitting things to old MIG aircraft. Storm-shadow has been frighteningly effective. My personal hope is that the US donate equivalent weapons and allow them to strike targets within Russia.

I need my bed.

There's a very interesting rumour circulating from Russian sources regarding Gerasimov. Many are saying that he has defected or was caught whilst trying to defect to the Swiss Embassy in Turkey. It's very much a rumour but it would explain why neither side are commenting on his location.

Vat is your name? Don't tell him Pike.

The home team beat Nottingham 96 to 9.

Amazingly it didn't. The British Army empowers its lower ranks to make decisions based upon what they see and encounter. The Russian Army still requires permission to be sought for any deviations from the generals plan. The example that summed it up for me was thus > The US fires a cruise missiles against a bridge. A video camera on board shows that it misses the target. Another missile will be dispatched within 20 minutes involving 2 tiers of command. The same scenario for Russia takes 2 days.

Russia places its top generals relativepy close to the front lines. That was considered to be a reasonably safe option until storm-shadow arrived. He's either dead or cowering in a bunker well away from Crimea. Either scenario is embarrassing for Russia. I think he's cowering in a bunker. His death "on the front lines" could be spun as a glorious sacrifice.

Russia has now arrested 12 top scientists who developed their "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles. They are charged with treason by selling details of the missiles. But it's more likely that the weapon doesn't work and/or has seen large amount of its budget used to buy houses in Chelsea.

Ukraine is officially reporting that the ship was hit, capsized and sank. Great news.

Amazing footage (if true)

This is a very interesting topic. The UK and Portugal have one of the oldest military alliances. But the UK agreed to refrain from activating that treaty in 1939. That allowed Portugal to stay neutral. It was also a way to pressure Spain into staying neutral. Had Spain joined the Axis the Portuguese would probably have joined the British. This would have tied up the Spanish forces who were still recovering after their civil war. It's unlikely that the Spanish forces could have defeated Portugal, defended Morocco from a US landing and helped the German defense of France. It would also have led to the Canary Islands being quickly conquered by our vastly superior navy. As opposed to being invaded by British tourists a few decades later. I think Franco is fairly unique in history. He's probably the only fascist dictator that left his country in a very good position.

Handy Hints & Tips - Get rid of an old sofa by smearing it with blood and making a 999 call to report screaming from your address. The police remove it for free. You're welcome.

The obsidian order notes your support

At the same time that the ancient Egyptians were building the pyramids they had archaeologists looking for more ancient buildings.

The fog of war makes it difficult to be sure about anything, But I have found an instance with a named individual and very specific details. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/24/7438688/

"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream?"

I partially agree. But we are a tiny country with 2 aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, 4 nuclear armed submarines and military bases in the northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and on the equator. Our navy needs improvement but at the moment it's more than capable of defending the UK in our geographic location, with the allies we have and the limited ability of our enemies to reach our shorelines. Do we need carriers to defend the UK mainland? No. Would any of our enemies get a significant military force within 100 miles of us? No.

There will be no conscription. Russia's military model is based upon a moderate sized army, large reserve forces and then conscription. Its been shown to be ineffective. America's military model is based upon a massive army, large reserve and no conscription. Its been shown to be effective in warfare but ineffective in long term occupation. UK's military model is based upon a tiny army, small reserve and no conscription. Its been shown to be effective in warfare because we've fought weak opponents, had the US with us and have the luxury of living on an island that is surrounded by well armed allies. Nothing has changed with Russia's present hostile stance. The UK is incredibly well defended. But if the US pulled out of NATO the onus would be on all European countries to up their game and spend on their military. We (the UK) are in a very different position to Poland, Germany, Romania, Latvia, Estonia etc. Our castle has a great moat and is patrolled by a disproportionately powerful navy. They don't even have a moat. The present talk of conscription is a political tool to justify increased defence spending. Increased defence spending in the UK is a political tool to compel some of our European NATO colleagues to do the same. Increased spending in European NATO is a deterent to Russia and a political tool to hopefully ensure the USA remains in NATO. Worry about conscription when France falls. Until then - enjoy the security of our castle, surrounded by allies and massive moat that is protected by the most powerful military alliance in history.

Russia has produced a list of the 65 Ukrainian POW allegedly killed in the plane crash. But with typical Russian incompetence it includes 18 POW who had already been exchanged.