Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Royals Rendezvous Statement
Royals Rendezvous has moved to a new location, please go to royalsrendezvous.co.uk to continue the discussion.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dangerous Times.
Topic Started: 1 Oct 2015, 06:16 AM (693 Views)
daib0
Member Avatar
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
Good thought-provoking topic from a pal of mine on another forum, reproduced here for your comments ...




whitstabletangerine

What exactly is the most dangerous scenario for those of us in the UK, could it be ISIS or Putin's Russia, or Al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is still alive and well and must give the security services one hell of a headache as they are fairly invisible, low key but able to make a serious well organised terrorist attack .
ISIS has found that if you strike in a country already in chaos caused by civil war you can be onto a winner, so with vast swathes of Iraq and Syria under their control they have now stepped up their campaign in North Africa, notably in Libya where government control is practically non existent.
Russia on the other hand has seen the weakness in NATO in it's handling of Ukraine, the East of the country more or less a semi-Russian enclave which begs the question what if they decide to help out the Russian speaking peoples of the Baltic States, could the same happen in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, would NATO intervene.
It should be remembered that If one NATO country is invaded then the others go to their aid, but would they in they case of the Baltic States and indeed should they?
The problem with t he terrorists is that a so called "dirty" bomb would no doubt come out of the blue and we would not be prepared unlike a Russian strike where there would be clear signs that something could be happening soon.
I believe the thinking hasn't changed much from the Cold War days when a confrontation with Russia would commence with a conventional war of some kind, or invasion and only later with one side losing the battle would they then up the anti and go nuclear.
So how would we cope with a nuclear strike, some of you would no doubt say well we will get wiped out so what is the point in worrying, but on the contrary although millions would die in the UK, millions would survive and those that did would want to keep on living with the likelihood of basic items such as fuel, heat, water all hard to come by?
Keep a few extra tins of beans in the larder along with some bottled water, a torch, duct tape and a basic medical kit and when the war is over get ready for some proper football again as the bulk of the Premiership clubs would have been eliminated and all the rich people would have caught the last planes out of the UK, probably never to return again.
So should we consider leaving NATO and become a neutral country, should we give up our nuclear weapons and hope we will remain unscathed? Remember there are just short of 20,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, these are dangerous time whether we like it or not.



Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum
Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuffolkRoyal
Member Avatar

The world is certainly a dangerous place at the moment. But I fear the N. Koreans, Al-Qaeda and ISIS far more than I do the Russians.

Putin has now sent significant forces into Syria and makes no secret that he supports Assad. He's taking decisive action, as opposed to the dithering shown by America and its western allies. My biggest fear is that American and Russian aircraft will start bumping into each other in the same air space, that could set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
SuffolkRoyal
1 Oct 2015, 12:20 PM
My biggest fear is that American and Russian aircraft will start bumping into each other in the same air space, that could set the cat amongst the pigeons.
If and/or when the Russians actually go after IS/Isis/Islamic State, that possibility will increase significantly (and so will the US/Russian coordination to avoid it). But for now, Russia is going after 'other groups', which makes absolute tactical sense from the Russian perspective - those 'other groups' are closest to the base Russian forces are using, and they are far away from the IS areas the US and other nations are hitting inside Syria. If you use classic 'sphere of influence' considerations, the Russians are 'claiming' western Syria, while the US (et al) are active in central and western Syria (and on into Iraq). At this point, IS is a lower-level threat to Assad.

Now if US (or clearly US-supplied) ground-to-air missiles should show up with those 'other groups', thing could change quickly. But if the US worked a trade with say Ukraine to swap some US missiles for (former Soviet/Russian) missiles in the Ukrainian arsenals... or some captured/bought/stolen in Libya...
Edited by Owlish52, 1 Oct 2015, 12:40 PM.
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuffolkRoyal
Member Avatar

So we've got five factions in this conflict now then. Syria. Russia (who support Syria). Rebels. The West (who support the Rebels). ISIS.

The West want Assad removed from power. Russia want Assad to remain in power.

For me, the two most dangerous faction are ISIS and the Rebels. ISIS for obvious reasons, and the Rebels because todays rebels are tomorrows enemy. Best case scenario for me is to defeat ISIS and the Rebels then worry about Assad after that.

And I fully appreciate that it isn't as simple as that, but I really can't see Russia and America going to war over Syria. There will be some middle ground there somewhere, they just have to sit around a table and figure it out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
Keep the anti-Assad, anti-Kurd and somewhat-anti-ISIS Turks in your calculus - they could become a Player as well...
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuffolkRoyal
Member Avatar

Owlish52
1 Oct 2015, 01:00 PM
Keep the anti-Assad, anti-Kurd and somewhat-anti-ISIS Turks in your calculus - they could become a Player as well...
Fives enough for me Bill. Anymore than that and I lose the plot entirely :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
IMO, top risks are centered on North Korea (direct or indirect) and Pakistan (indirect). The latest Kim is the least stable of the lot so far and is, like Putin, a big believer in 'indirect methods' - "a South Korean naval vessel has been sunk? What a tragedy, but we had nothing to do with it." If not for the Islamic problems in China, I'm not sure the DPRK would not have 'lost' some nuclear material (radioactive but not bomb-making grade) to an Islamic group to make a dirty bomb. If such a bomb ended up in China, the 'explaining' would likely be fatal to the current DPRK leadership.

Pakistan is a worry from the control of nuclear weapons (and other nuclear assets) standpoint. It is not too hard to imagine an Islamic group getting nuclear assets (like for a 'dirty bomb') from a source in Pakistan. While they might target India (closer & perhaps weaker security), the US and the UK offer big targets as well.
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
daib0
Member Avatar
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
There's another Syrian group as well, not ISIS and not the normal rebels (or Kurds) either, somewhere in between. I heard it explained the other day ...
A nightmare situation ...
Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum
Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darlington
Member Avatar

Are these really dangerous times?

Be honest now there have been wars/conflicts/disagreements since the beginning of time and there will be long after I'm gone.
Is now any more dangerous than back in the old cold war era where there was a threat but it never materialised.

There have always been wars just take a look http://www.datesandevents.org/events-timelines/24-timeline-of-war.htm
so why is now any different than any other year?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuffolkRoyal
Member Avatar

For 50 years after the war we only had to worry about Russia and America's nuclear armoury. Now we have unstable countries like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea boasting of their nuclear capability. Thats why the world is a dangerous place, just imagine if ISIS got their hands on a nuclear weapon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · News & Current/Past Events · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Royals Rendezvous - 2013-16